Opinion
It seems hardly a week goes by without the media or our politicians singing the condemnations of our wonderful universities. I’m going to attempt to defend us, again.
The most recent opus is from the well-respected and well-meaning journalist Damien Cave.
He fends off anyone questioning his conclusions, deftly describing dissent as “its-not-that-bad denial”.
You will have to judge whether I am in denial or not, and you can also judge my arguments.
First, I want to try to do justice to what Damien Cave says. He argues that Australian universities are not as great as they once were, and are no longer shining on the global stage.
You might ask who is. Certainly not his own country, with its “exorbitant, opaque, hyper-competitive and just generally ridiculous racket of American higher education”, or perhaps some universities in his own country, as he also points out “British, Canadian, Dutch and even some American universities cost the same or less for international students…. Many of these universities earn higher ratings for social, career and teacher support.”
It’s quite hard to see who he is praising, as we know that many universities across the West are struggling, but he seems to like Edinburgh. Who doesn’t?
Perhaps his main point is that universities in Australia have become too big, and can thus be impersonal, so not every student is happy. He explains that this is in part because the Australian Government’s funding of universities has not kept up, and consequently we have expanded, and taken a lot of international students. He worries we have taken a lot of students from China.
We have indeed. Yes, being over-reliant on one international student market is a financial risk. Every Australian university is working to diversify but why aren’t we doing it better?
Because it is hard. China is the biggest and most suitable market. China’s economy has grown rapidly, with high per capita GDP. China had a one child policy, so that families (4 grandparents and 2 parents) could often dedicate themselves completely to investing in the education a single child, and China has a deep cultural commitment to education. What’s more China is near our time zone and relatively close. China has long links with Australia, going back to the gold rush in the 19th century. China is a major player in most of our international relationships, and this is natural. Of course, we have a lot of students from China.
Yes, Australian universities have become dependent on student fees from Chinese students. But in many ways the situation has been a win-win, for students, for universities, and for both our nations. It may not last forever, but it has been good for all so far.
In addition to taking more international students, it should be remembered that Australian universities have also been taking more domestic students. Julia Gillard’s Government set us the challenge of having 40% of our young people with degrees. She created the “Demand Driven System” where universities were encouraged to expand to cater for all comers.
We did just that. Our universities expanded.
Australian universities are now very big. But we are not as big as we look. Unlike universities in the Northern Hemisphere, we have 2 intakes per year. The student numbers are added up to give an annual total. So, if a university enrols 40,000 students in the first semester, and takes 20,000 new students in the second semester, this is recorded as having 60,000 students. But only 40,000 will be enrolled at any one time, because 20,000 graduate at the end of first semester. We look bigger than we are.
True, we are still big. But how could we reach the 40% target, and now the Accord’s 80% target (for university and other tertiary attainment) without taking more students?
Only if the Government had created more universities.
Then we could have each remained smaller (and perhaps less efficient as a sector). Unfortunately, the only universities established this century have been small ones: Charles Darwin 2003, University of Divinity 2012, Avondale 2021, and the private university Torrens in 2014. The failure to establish new public universities to accommodate growth regions like Western Sydney, the Gold Coast, or Melbourne’s spreading metropolis, on top of the amalgamation of Adelaide and the University of South Australia, explains why we are so big.
Bigness has some advantages.
It can provide economies of scale and revenues can be re-invested. This is critical at a time when there are no Government research or infrastructure plans like those of the past (Backing Australia’s Ability 1 and 2, the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, the new Federation and Future Fellowships, the National Innovation and Science Agenda, the Medical Research Future Fund, the Trailblazer Universities Program, the Higher Education Endowment Fund and the Education Infrastructure Fund).
But bigness also presents challenges.
It makes things less personal. It also means we need managers to manage such big organisations, and many academics don’t trust managers.
Bigness creates another interesting problem too.
Think of something small and excellent, like universities used to be in the age of nostalgia. Think of the Bolshoi Ballet, the Australian Institute of Sport, even the Matildas soccer team. Now imagine that you set a target that 40% of Australians should engage with ballet, or just play sport. Of course, there would be students at the margin who were not as invested as the small cohort of students who used to attend.
Australian universities were encouraged to feed the world, and we are trying, but we are being criticised because we no longer seem like a cosy restaurant with three Michelin hats.
Now add a few genuine challenges. Many, in fact, most students are now in part or even full-time employment, so don’t have enough time to devote to extra-curricula activities, or even curricula activities. Add the fact that students can save travel costs and study from their bedrooms. Add in AI. AI is challenging many existing assessments and even raising questions about what and how we teach. And add soaring costs – bigger microscopes, but also libraries, learning management systems, cyber security, and compliance costs. Then target in some surveys on important things that always require work – racism, sexism, workplace compliance – and whoever you scrutinise will begin to look bad. Is it any wonder that our sector doesn’t look great?
But here’s the thing. After I first graduated decades ago, I went to the UK and found, to my delight, that my undergraduate education in Australia had equipped me perfectly to thrive there. Then I went to the US, and it was the same. And today, my own students keep going to the very top universities in the world to do PhDs or to take up post-doctoral positions. And guess what, I see them thriving too.
I believe that our students, like the Matildas, are just wonderful, and I think our academic and professional staff are too, and I think even our university managers, in general, understand the challenges and are trying to do a good job too.
Yes, in such a vast system you can always find things to criticise, but criticisms should be targeted to things we can change, rather than consisting of vague rehashed concerns that can never be answered. And can we, from time to time, celebrate the fact that Australian universities, like Australian schools, and also Australian hospitals and even our governments, actually get a lot right?
And most of all can we not celebrate how many people are now getting an education?
Professor Merlin Crossley is Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) at UNSW