Editor’s Note – Opinion
In case it’s not altogether obvious to all, the challenge set for Barney Glover and his troupe of ATEC commissars is titanic – and the statistical analysis from Frank Larkins we carry today shows exactly why.
The Accord is built around a laudable goal of increasing participation of a range of key cohorts in tertiary education (Indigenous students, students with disability, and students from rural and low SES households) – amounting to an additional 1 million students in the tertiary system, roughly.
Th launch of the 2050 Alliance this week was therefore pretty significant – a coalition of universities seeking to work alongside ATEC and Government, signing up to the Accord vision, rather than focusing on the regulatory tentacles the Government is deploying to try to control the system.
We asked Education Minister Clare whether anyone had actually thought to ask the mystery million if they wanted to sign up for a tertiary experience and while he didn’t clarify what work had been done on the supply side, he did say he expected much of the heavy lifting in recruiting and educating the many would fall to ‘ the group of unis I describe as the Accord Unis,’ which happen to be the 9 in the new alliance.
Bill Shorten and George Williams followed up, saying that universities had to change the way they engaged key cohorts to build towards the government’s goals.
***
What has happened to media policy? University staff, usually academics, are some of the most strident critics of the sector and where it is going – and are likely to have a significant influence on public perceptions, on the basis of 1. Being an academic with a fancy title and 2. They work there.
An article yesterday caught my eye: I’m an academic, but I’ve told my stepdaughter to think twice about going to university in the Nine Entertainment newspapers. And a lot of other eyes, judging by the 426 comments lodged before our deadline.
Setting aside the content of this particular article, which would be well matched with a response from a pedagogical guru far more learned than me, there is an interesting and really quite important ongoing question about who can and can not slag off their institution and/or their sector in a public forum. It is a question which has caused many staff angst, particularly in institutions where governance is not exactly going well and they feel compelled to be heard.
20 years ago it was pretty clear. An academic staff member could comment any time on areas of their expertise, but not about their institution or areas outside their discipline. Professional staff couldn’t say much about anything unless given permission.
But in the digital age, with staff working as columnists and content creators and far more channels of mass communication, the line appears less clear – or maybe it is just less policed?
This is a particular issue with AI, with the trenchant traditionalists teeing off against universities and the students graduating from them, while AI evangelists speak in hushed tones about creating a new era of assessments. In between the two camps stands the creaky old desk ready to host invigilated handwritten exams – sanctified by the former camp and vilified by the latter.
While the academic jousting continues, the poor public, and a sizeable chunk of the tertiary workforce, are no doubt pretty confused. Perhaps the media policies should banish evidence-free hyperbole and require evidence-backed reason from people tagged as HE staff in the interests of aiding public understanding? Host debates that were interesting and short enough to engage the unengaged? Introduce the parent rule (If you haven't got something nice to say…)? None are great options, but as long as the rules remain muddy, a portion of staff will continue to feel anxious about whether they can post their inner most thoughts on LinkedIn, while another portion will just be anxious about whether their posted thoughts are attracting enough likes from their mates.
Regardless, until it is sorted out, the HE brand (perceptions of tertiary education) will be the loser.