|
|
|
|
Higher Education
Review Secretariat
|
 | Advance knowledge through high quality research, |
| Apply the research results to benefit society, |
| Enthuse students through teaching, |
| Ensure that knowledge is transmitted from generation to generation, and |
| Respond to the social, economic and cultural needs of the general community. |
The last point is particularly important because we need an educated community that has a high level of general scientific literacy so that it can participate and understand the complex science-related issues that are crucial in our current society.
Higher Education is an important national issue. The Commonwealth Government should retain the overall responsibility for this, and provide the necessary leadership to advance our capacities and capabilities in this sector.
Since the introduction of the GST, the States and Territories have obtained an increased fiscal capacity, and they should be involved more in this sector. However, we need a national approach involving cooperation, rather than competition between the States and Territories, and therefore the Commonwealth must retain the overall responsibility. As a nation, we have limited resources and we need national strategies for major research activities and future plans for the sector.
Furthermore, education is now a multi-million dollar international business vying for students and research funds. It must be tackled at the Federal level because international issues such as this are clearly a Commonwealth responsibility.
The AGC strongly supports the open process that has been introduced to consider the very complex issues involved in the higher education issue. However, we recommend that at least one post-graduate student be added to the Reference Group, to provide input from a student perspective.
Students are the main clients and stakeholders of the higher education sector, they provide a major financial contribution, and as stated in Crossroads they are “keen to have even greater control over the combination of subjects.”
Postgraduate students have usually just been through the “1st degree undergraduate system” and are in an excellent position to provide first hand input at Reference Group level.
4. Public investment for higher education should be at the same level as that of comparable OECD nations. It should be linked to an appropriate index such as the CPI or the GDP so that the public investment in this sector is maintained.
At a time when investment in higher education, particularly in the science and technology sector is the key to the quality of life and a healthy economy, the investment by the Commonwealth has been declining steadily and is inadequate. Many of our OECD partners such as Canada, Sweden and the UK are increasing their public investment in the sciences at the tertiary level, while in Australia the reverse is taking place.
The examples below are indicative:
|
In 1997, as a percentage of GDP Australia spent less than two-thirds of the figure spent by the United States per tertiary student (OECD, 2001). |
|
Commonwealth budget papers show a reduction in Federal higher education expenditure from 0.72% of GDP in 1996-97 to 0.62% in 1999/00, and a projected further reduction to 0.52% in 2003/04 (these figures exclude student financial assistance). Worse still, the funding provided to higher education is projected to decrease from 2.56% of total Government outlays in 2000/01 to 2.44% in 2003/04. Clearly, these trends are unsustainable given that private funding has stubbornly remained a marginal source of revenue for universities (at about 10% of total university revenue) for the best part of a decade. It is unlikely that private funding will suddenly come to the rescue. |
The graph shown in Figure 1 indicates the trend in government investment over the last 7 years compared to the Average Weekly Earnings Index.
Fig. 1. University base grants: actual funding compared to an AWE Index (from Chapman, 2001)
One of the consequences of the decline in funding has been the decline in relativities of university salaries. This is shown in Figure 2. We believe this situation is unacceptable in a world where education and research capabilities are vital for our future well-being and where we must be able to attract and keep academic staff in a globally competitive market place.
Average salaries for our academics are consistently low compared to equivalent positions in Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and of course Europe and the US. Assistant lecturers, lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors and professors in Hong Kong for example usually earn between two and three times more than their Australian counterparts.
Another flow-on effect of low salary levels is that the ‘best and brightest’ undergraduate students are now commonly not proceeding to Honours, the best Honours students are commonly not going on to post-graduate research, and the most outstanding researchers are reluctant to enter the Australian University system.
If the decline in salary relativities continues, this can only result in the brighter people leaving the higher education system.
Consequently we recommend that:
The level of academic salaries is examined as a matter of urgency, to make careers in higher education more attractive.
Fig. 2. Academic salaries as a proportion of the Average Weekly Earning Index (from Chapman, 2002)
Some reliance on private funding is inevitable if Australia is to maintain its present university system, meet increasing demands in terms of the numbers of students and the range of research activities and facilities. In fact, private funding may have to be relied on even more, but this should not be done at the expense of a decline in public funding. The desirability of private funding and determining what constitutes an acceptable level should be addressed.
At the very least, private funding creates expectations of outcomes by the provider and may restrict institutional autonomy and flexibility. Demand for a specific educational experience by fee-paying students, the introduction of consulting deadlines, the direction of research effort, and the embargo of research results are key examples of such expectations.
In the first instance we recommend that:
National guidelines be developed to ensure that wherever public money has been invested in research projects carried out at universities, the results are made available in the public domain in a reasonable time after the sponsor has had access to the results.
5. Some recommendations on university operations
HECS Review
There is a considerable mismatch between the marks required to enter particular university courses and the ability required to complete these at a high level and move on to a satisfying related career. Many of the courses highly sought by prospective students, because of the perceived earning power of graduates, are intellectually considerably less demanding than those with low entry scores amongst which languishes Science. The universities must make the presentation of Science more attractive, the government and industry could contribute by providing a better reward system for researchers and government should review HECS payments for Science courses.
The current situation where HECS fees for science subjects are higher than those for other education and teacher-training courses is a strong disincentive for prospective teachers to undertake formal coursework in science and mathematics. It is inequitable that a science and mathematics teacher with a tertiary qualification in these fields should be faced with a higher HECS burden than a colleague with different qualifications but employed to do the same work and for the same salary. Therefore as a top priority:
HECS liabilities for teachers should be at the lowest rate irrespective of discipline.
The distribution of recurrent funds to and within tertiary institutions is tied too closely to the concept of student numbers and not to the real cost of providing learning resources. As stated in Crossroads, “There are few incentives to encourage collaboration in course development, teaching, student services and administration.” This arrangement leads to duplication and unnecessary competition between universities.
Co-operation in teaching amongst institutions is now happening to a limited extent but there is much potential for this to increase, leading to:
(i) Larger classes in senior specialised subjects,
(ii) Exposure of students to staff with specialist knowledge and skills but whose employment is not feasible in each individual university, and;
(iii) Experience in specialist laboratories and with expensive equipment that it is not feasible to establish in each University.
A similar situation exists in the research activities. A more open approach by individual universities could contribute towards better post-graduate research education with joint supervisors coming from different institutions, not necessarily even all from universities, becoming common rather than unusual as at present. For co-operation of the type just outlined to be successful a whole range of petty organisational hitches relating to timetabling, length of instruction etc need to be addressed but none are insurmountable. A further problem that has recently emerged is the reluctance of some staff in subjects where employment is perceived as under threat to support inter-institutional co-operation in teaching for fear that it may hasten job losses.
We therefore recommend that:
Universities be actively encouraged to cooperate in teaching and research activities, and
New funding formulas be explored to improve the present simplistic arrangements, which are tied too closely to student numbers.
The quotation from the Boyer Commission in paragraph 96 of Crossroads is very important when examining the role and functions of universities. “All too often they graduate without knowing how to think logically, write clearly, or speak coherently.”
To address this issue we recommend that:
Compulsory courses be offered in 1st and 2nd year on such topics as:
Communication, team-work and leadership, introductory statistics, and the earth and environment.
It is very important that students are exposed to disciplines outside their narrow course programs. In this way they will be better equipped to do well in the rapidly changing world in which we live and they will also be more valuable members of our society.
Today’s research underpins the industries of the future. The returns on the investment in research, in terms of competitiveness, growth, job creation and quality of life, depend directly on the relationships between industry and higher education sector. We need to develop:
|
A better culture towards commercialisation of research outputs in universities, and increased awareness in industry and government of the value of investment in science, |
|
Better business skills of scientists, |
|
Easier movement of skilled scientists between industry, government research agencies and universities, and, |
|
Incentives to encourage research scientists to commercialise their work and an appropriate framework for intellectual property rights. |
It is very important that appropriate arrangements are in place to protect intellectual property, particularly when private and public investment are involved. It is recommended that the intellectual property rights are granted to the performing organisation(s) while ensuring that individual researchers or research teams can share in the rewards.
Accordingly we recommend that:
Appropriate frameworks be established for intellectual property rights and a set of guidelines be drawn up so that there is consistency throughout Australia on the award sharing arrangements.
Research, teaching and commercialization
Our first comments in this submission relate to the roles, functions and responsibilities of universities, namely:
| Advance knowledge through high quality research, |
| Apply the research results to benefit society, |
| Enthuse students through teaching, |
| Ensure that knowledge is transmitted from generation to generation, and |
| Respond to the social, economic and cultural needs of the general community. |
The 1st three, of the points above are very important because they are essential components for a successful tertiary institution. There is a close nexus in the sciences at least between active research and inspiring teaching, and there should also be a strong incentive to apply research results for commercial or societal benefit. In fact we would argue that academics should be encouraged to commercially develop their research results wherever possible.
We therefore recommend that:
The nexus between teaching, research and the application of research must be maintained, and that promotion at universities should be based on these three attributes.
Distances in Australia undoubtedly inhibit communication and learning, particularly in regional Australia. To make educational opportunities equal throughout the nation will require the installation of high-speed broadband telecommunication networks.
At present even people in the main population centres do not have access to these facilities and those in regional Australia are fairing even worse.
Because of the importance of these networks, particularly for higher education, we recommend that governments should invest public funds to upgrade the telecommunication networks. They should provide internet access throughout the nation just as they provide funds for roads and rail links.
It is impractical for commercial interests to totally fund this facility because the returns will not be realised for 5-10 years, but in this day-and-age effective and reliable internet connections are essential for us to remain a ‘Clever Country’.
We therefore recommend that:
The government embarks on a long-term program to make available fast, reliable and broadband telecommunication links to all Australians at affordable prices.
David Denham
President
28-Dec-2002
The Australian Geoscience Council Inc. © 1999 - 2003 |
