The higher education review should not shy away from big reform

Higher education review chair Mary O’Kane: Picture: Hollie Adams

Right now the higher education community is like an audience before curtain up at the premiere of a much anticipated dramatic work of which great things are expected, but with a plot that remains mysterious.

All that is known is the title ¬– the Australian Universities Accord ¬– which will be the product of a review that is empowered to make recommendations about almost any aspect of tertiary education.

When Education Minister Jason Clare announced the terms of reference for the review two weeks ago its breadth took the breath away. It’s so broad, that the review committee led by Mary O’Kane has the ability to look at nearly everything in higher education and could make recommendations that lead to deep and serious change.

But the review is also on a tight schedule, required to return an interim report by mid-next year and a final report by the end of 2023. So there is limited time.

Within that constraint, how big will the review be? You may as well ask how long (or short) is a piece of string? At the moment it’s impossible to say.

But let’s hope that Education Minister Jason Clare is ready to go large because there are fundamental issues which have long plagued the Australian tertiary education system that need to be resolved.

One of them is the balance of research and teaching. Where should individual universities be sitting on the spectrum which stretches between being wholly devoted to research and doing only teaching.

Another question is: how should the tertiary education system be designed to do best by students? How can students currently locked out of the system not only get access, but be assured getting an education which benefits them ¬– either by landing them a job they desire or giving them the personal development they want?

A related question is how the tertiary education system can best be tuned to economic needs – providing the skills which employers need at any particular time. And why is there such a sharp delineation between higher education and vocational education – when the two sectors often teach very similar, or highly complementary skills.

The questions go on. How should the teaching be funded? How should public subsidies be distributed between institutions and courses and what should students be paying? Is it fair that the Coalition’s Job Ready Graduates scheme created student fees in some courses (business, law and humanities) nearly four times as high as the fees for nursing, teaching, maths and, languages.

There are many more questions which should be tackled, and can be if the review runs free over all the issues canvassed in its terms of reference.

There is another unique aspect to this review, the fact that former long-term vice-chancellor Glyn Davis (University of Melbourne, Griffith University) is now the head of the Prime Minister’s Department. His speech last week on higher education demonstrates that his close interest in this policy area is ongoing. It’s a unique circumstance to have someone with his higher education experience at the top of the public service, and his views will carry weight.

Last week Davis repeated things he’s said before about the size of Australian universities (larger than most of the world) and the fact that they tend to look alike, offering students a limited range of choice.

If the review is going to make recommendations on these issues then we are looking at major reform. I say bring it on.