University merger: ask why, and the idea crumbles

There are very few reasons to believe that a merger between two Adelaide-based universities would be a good idea.

The most potent question to ask about the plans to explore a merger between the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia is: why?

And once you ask the question it turns out there are very few reasons to believe that a merger would be a good idea.

What are the possible benefits? The chancellors of the two universities said yesterday that the merger could shoot the new super uni up the rankings. It “may place it firmly within the world’s top 100”, they said.

They evidently think the combined research effort of two universities will see them rank better. It won’t. The Times Higher Education ranking adjusts for university size. And since the University of South Australia is not a research-intensive institution, the merged university will do worse because its research output, compared with its size, will fall.

Will they achieve economies of scale? Yes, these might be there after many years of cutting excess staff and redundant courses.

The merged university could combine its back office functions, sack half its executives and rationalise its courses. Eventually, after a lot of blood and turmoil, money could be saved. But it would come after an almighty battle with the union, which already has said it will not accept forced redundancies and wants the best conditions from each university’s award to be in a new industrial agreement for the merged institution.

Would it remotely be worth the battle? No rational university leader would think so. It would come with a huge cost to students, staff and institutional reputation.

Then there is the capital cost of merging the university’s infrastructure and moving to a single IT platform. Even though South Australian Premier Steven Marshall yesterday applauded the two universities for considering a merger, I doubt he will be stumping up millions to pay for it. Neither will he be keen on finding economies of scale through job losses. As a new Liberal premier, he won’t want to go the way of Campbell Newman in Queensland.

Then there is the academic side. Would a merged university still be considered to be research-intensive and a member of the Group of Eight? Other members won’t be keen to see a watered-down research university stay in the group. Does South Australia want to be without a Go8 university?

And what about the students? Where is the benefit for them in being part of a giant university that, in full-time equivalent terms, will be up with the largest in Australia in student numbers?

Interestingly, the two comprehensive universities at the top of the latest student experience survey from the federal government, Bond and Notre Dame, are small institutions that pride themselves on the benefits of smallness.

But now that the wheels are turning, the joint exploration of a merger will go forward. The universities will seek input, and estimate costs and benefits. I think I know what the answer will be.

As a South Australian I also understand the ever present desire in the state to cure its economic decline with a big idea. For decades this has been so. But in this case, rather than overhaul the universities, the new government should concentrate on getting high-quality graduates from the existing system and finding a way to stop them from leaving for greener pastures in other states.

Instead of a pie-in-the-sky plan, it should concentrate on creating economic conditions to attract business to the state and create jobs. Less dramatic but far more effective.