Paper queries compulsory research gains

Former top-level education bureaucrats urges federal government to make major reforms to tertiary education.

A new paper says that the requirement for universities to do research in at least three fields, and offer research degrees, puts a burden on smaller universities

A new paper by former top-level education bureaucrats urges the federal government to make major reforms to tertiary education that would allow teaching-only universities, improve standards in vocational education, and drive merit-based research.

The paper, whose authors include former senior public servants Robert Griew and Jessie Borthwick, says the requirement for all universities to do broad-based research is no longer suitable for a mass higher education system in which nearly half the population goes to university.

Titled “Diversity in Australian tertiary education: turning words into action”, the paper says the model of the traditional research-intensive university was designed for a previous generation when university participation was only a third of what it is now.

“Sensibly constructed, re-framed policies could properly fund different kinds of research and allow more diversity, at better value, in teaching and learning,” the paper says. It is published by the Nous Group consultants where Mr Griew, Ms Borthwick and the other two authors, Cameron Barnes and Arun Murali, work.

While it calls for major reform, the paper says this can be achieved within the architecture of the present tertiary education system, which boosts the chance of it being successfully implemented.

The paper argues that, by allowing teaching-only universities, degrees are likely to get cheaper for students. “The cost of teaching overall will most likely reduce as new teaching focused careers expand,” it says.

It also urges the federal government to end the current practice whereby universities transfer an estimated $2 billion a year from teaching funds to subsidise research. Much of this money should be freed up to fund more merit-based research, while another portion should support research-based contributions to the communities and local economies of universities.

The paper argues that the current research funding system hampers research-intensive universities by forcing them to rely on undergraduate teaching funds to subsidise research. It also says that the requirement for universities to do research in at least three fields, and offer research degrees, puts a burden on smaller universities.

The paper also calls for a major overhaul of ­vocational education teaching by requiring curriculum standards, and greater evidence of pedagogy and academic rigour, “which will make for a more level playing field with higher education”.

It calls the barrier between ­vocational and higher education one of the “irrational distinctions between different models of educating a massively expanded post-school education clientele”.

University of Technology Sydney vice-chancellor Attila Brungs reacted negatively to the paper, questioning whether it was aimed at solving “yesterday’s perceived problem”.

“The furphy is that the Australian university sector is homogenous, which if it were ever true is certainly not now,” he said.

However, Group of Eight chief executive Vicki Thomson supported the paper, saying that it highlighted “inconsistencies and contradictions” in the current system that were “overdue for attention”. She said the distortions in the system needed to be addressed and the paper’s policy options merited further attention as part of a review of post-secondary ­education.

The paper is available at www.nousgroup.com/insights/diversity-australian-tertiary-education.