In accord with a vision for higher education

Getting into university doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game, limiting attendance just to maintain an aura of privilege.

Opposition education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Martin Ollman

Labor’s vision for higher education reforms, the Universities Accord review released last weekend, is precisely the sort of document that deserves bipartisan support. In fact it demands it because the goals are expensive and long term.

Yet before the sun had even set on the day it was unveiled, the opposition labelled it a “pipedream of promises”. That callow commentary was delivered by opposition education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson.

Henderson’s criticisms centred on cost: “The report’s recommendations would cost many billions of dollars to implement.” That’s what happens when grand visions are proposed. Doubling the number of university students in the coming years, a huge increase in the percentage of Australians with higher or vocational qualifications, and targeted funding for the disadvantaged are just some of the recommendations contained in the 400-page final report.

Henderson can’t possibly have bothered to read all those pages before scuttling any chance of a bipartisan approach. Her goal was to grab a negative headline, which she duly did.

Of itself the cost is not a reason to condemn what has been proposed or to attack the political party that commissioned the review. With so many words being said about the need to lift productivity and prepare for the technological challenges of the future, the release of the Universities Accord report was a perfect moment to elevate the political debate. In fact the expense of funding its recommendations probably requires the sort of tax reform politicians have been too weak to pursue, so let’s do that too while we’re at it.

Realpolitik tells us the long-term timeframe required to implement the report’s goals stretching out to 2050 will be difficult. And the costs are a challenge, especially in the context of national debt that has built up on the watch of both major parties and that is more expensive to service in these high inflationary times. But reforming higher education is of paramount importance to a middle power such as Australia.

Reforming higher education is of paramount importance to a middle power such as Australia. Picture: iStock

I’ve spent more than two decades working in the university sector, and the promotion of micro-credentials in this review particularly caught my attention when I took the time to read it before offering comment – unlike the headline-chasing opposition.

Micro-credentials or stacking offer a chance for the young and the old(er) to train and retrain in areas that help them be job-ready or remain well trained for the changes their industry may be going through. It also allows people to pivot from work they currently do when interests or opportunities change. It helps people obtain targeted training and knowledge without the long-haul (and expensive) journey that obtaining a second or third degree might entail. It offers flexibility.

Australia’s higher education system has been chronically underfunded since the Howard government imposed significant cuts in the late 1990s, letting the sector wither on the financial vine thereafter. Labor’s “education revolution” under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard forgot that education goes beyond high school.

Universities pivoted to full-fee-paying places, targeting overseas students to help cover funding shortfalls and leading to higher education developing into Australia’s second largest export industry. But that growth has created a two-tier system as richer universities benefited disproportionately from the international opening up of our universities. With bigger profiles and higher rankings, they attracted the lion’s share of overseas students.

The report recognises this, suggesting a fund paid for by elite institutions be used to level out the quality of infrastructure across the sector. It recommends the government match what the rich universities put in, dollar for dollar. This will be hotly debated.

The primary goal of the Universities Accord report’s recommendations is to increase the number of Australians obtaining higher qualifications. Picture: iStock

Ultimately the primary goal of the report’s recommendations is to increase the number of Australians obtaining higher qualifications, doing so as equitably as possible – lofty goals that will elevate the nation. There are numerous studies that show reducing inequality lifts economic growth (British economist Tony Atkinson’s is my favourite) and university graduates on average earn more than non-graduates. Such outcomes lift productivity, which would help pay for the cost of implementing the recommendations.

The real challenges are political: overcoming nay-sayers who worry about lowering standards at universities if entry is widened, and seeking bipartisan support when the conservative side of politics worries that the sector indoctrinates in favour of left-wing ideology. The latter gripe can be applied to this review only by those who haven’t read it. Its recommendations have been carefully calibrated to appeal across the ideological spectrum, which is one reason organisations such as the Business Council of Australia have thrown their support behind it.

The intent of making Australians job-ready is a core target. Setting up an independent tertiary education commission, as recommended, to oversee the long-term agenda should keep politics out of the ongoing reforms.

Son’t we also want more Australian better educated about the issues affecting all of us? Picture: iStock

Beyond vocational training advantages identified in the review, don’t we also want more Australians better educated about the issues affecting all of us in an era of growing nationalism, intolerance of differences of opinion and rising populism? The more Australians who are exposed to critical thinking, the likelier they are to challenge such tribalism intellectually. Besides, ideological dogma within some sections of some universities isn’t a sector-wide problem.

The “lowering standards” critique often is used to argue against opening up previously closed shops. In the case of universities it usually involves quoting lower tertiary entrance rankings for certain degrees and asking, for example, the pejorative question: Would you want your child taught by someone with an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank as low as 45?

There is so much wrong with this. First, any teacher must have graduated from their degree, rendering the entrance score to get into it the least relevant aspect of their qualification. Second, such nay-saying incorrectly conjures up the impression that people can get into degrees with a fail grade.

An ATAR is a ranking alongside one’s peers, not the grade an individual receives: placing 55th out of 100 students, as opposed to scoring a fail grade of 45 per cent. It is an important difference. But it also highlights the most significant challenge when seeking to ensure more people get higher degrees: we need our school system to function well. We need those obtaining rankings that qualify them for higher studies to be up to the challenge. If they aren’t, we need bridging courses to get them there. The review addresses this. We want students who finish in the 45th percentile to do so with a grade akin to a credit or distinction, ready to tackle what comes next.

A lowering of tertiary entrance rankings for university entrants is fine so long as more high school graduates are doing well. Getting into university doesn’t need to be a zero-sum game, limiting attendance just to maintain an aura of privilege. More graduates are good for the country – if our politicians can put their penchant for adversarialism to one side and embrace the pathway to get there.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.