JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

National Times

Shocks in store for time travel uni student

Rodney Tiffen
March 18, 2010

Opinion

The Sydney University I am retiring from this week is very different from the one I joined in 1979.

A time traveller arriving from 1979 would first notice the digital revolution transformation. Then only a small minority of students submitted typed work, and there was an army of secretaries for academic and administrative typing. Although we complain about the oppressive volume of emails, computerisation has brought huge gains in productivity and efficiency.

The second thing to astonish our time traveller is how much Sydney University has grown. In 1979 it had 17,345 students; in 2009, this had increased to 47,253.

The size of the student body makes even sillier the Howard government's obsession with abolishing student unions, the only aspect of universities that seemed to animate that government during its 11 years in power.

One benefit for a time traveller jumping straight from 1979 to 2010 is that she would not only have been spared the Howard government's ideological hostility to universities, but also the upheavals under John Dawkins in the Hawke government.

Dawkins wanted to end the binary system of tertiary education, and also to reduce the money going to the sector. It was desirable to end the old system where the differences between universities and colleges of advanced education and teachers' colleges were increasingly blurred.

But Dawkins wanted to do it all immediately and with no extra funding. His method was reform through creative destruction, the idea that change could only be achieved by breaking through existing logjams.

The number of universities almost doubled within a couple of years, and small stand-alone institutions were absorbed into larger ones.

The subsequent era of amalgamations and multi-campus institutions was tailor made for a new generation of opportunists. There was great scrambling for position. There was more competition, but often it lacked transparency and accountability, and the blurring of the quality of degrees from different institutions made it more, not less, difficult for students and employers to gauge the relative worth of institutional offerings. John Dawkins was better at breaking eggs than making omelets.

Dawkins's other innovation was to introduce HECS fees for students. This was done with the sleight of hand so beloved by the Hawke-Keating governments. It began with a tiny amount, with the government saying why get excited about such a small sum, and then it increased steadily and substantially over the following years.

The public justification of HECS is always in terms of equity - that university graduates earn more than non-graduates on average, and therefore should contribute to their own education. But its primary role has been to cover declining public investment. And declining government spending has been the most constant feature of the last several decades.

Government funding of tertiary education peaked in 1975 at 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product. By 2004 - despite the increased numbers of students - that proportion had almost halved, to 0.8 per cent.

Among 18 developed democracies, between 1995 and 2004 the international average was for governments to increase public funding of universities by almost one-third. Australia was the only one to cut its funding.

This leads to our time-traveller's nastiest surprise. Greatly increased class sizes and burgeoning staff-student ratios combine with the increased anonymity of ever larger institutions to threaten the human scale and sense of community that should characterise campus life.

Many essential characteristics remain the same. The university still has high-quality students; there is much excellent research and teaching being done. But if real public funding were still at its 1979 level, there would be much more. Systematically and substantially reducing public funding is not a formula for excellence.

Rod Tiffen was professor in government and international relations at the University of Sydney.

7 comments

  • Instead of investing and developing world class academic universities, the type that compete with Harvard and Cambridge for talent, the government and Uni administrators decided that marketing Australia's tertiary education system as a back door to permanent residency was a better idea. You can charge $30,000+ and not have to do anything other than dumb down curriculum to make sure everyone passes and can pay for another year.

    It must be incredibly frustrating for Dr. Tiffen and his colleagues when they see the government support their international peers receive while watching their own institutions being transformed from places of higher learning into an education "industry" that only measures success through profit.

    Unless things change radically, I suspect we will continue to slide off the list of top 100 academic institutions worldwide.

    Commenter
    MJ
    Date and time
    March 18, 2010, 9:59AM
  • Glad I got my Ph.D in 1982 when it was still worth something

    Commenter
    CK
    Date and time
    March 18, 2010, 12:47PM
  • I thoroughly agree with everything MJ has said. During my 20 years as an administrator at university, I saw entry standards drop significantly. The lower standards were reflected in students graduating after years of struggle and eventually given a pass when they did not merit any award at all. Engineering and Dentistry would not allow a student to continue into 2nd Year if they failed first year (one bite of the academic cake was thought to be enough). In other Faculties certain subjects had to be passed before students could progress further into their degree. The introduction of fee paying students was the icing on the cake in terms of mediocracy. Admission is no longer based entirely on merit as the UAI is considerably less for those who can afford to pay. Universities were once considered places of higher learning for the most clever in our society, but has been dumbed down in favour of the American model and the amount of plagerism that occurs now with the internet in play, is nothing short of a scandal. CAEs and TAFEs played a vital role for career oriented bright kids wanting to enter the work force with a sound qualification such as teaching. The old Institute of Technology (now UTS) produced some great courses in Applied Maths,Engineering and Techology that turned out very able students into the work force. I fear MJ is correct in his/her assessment of an 'education industry' run for profit to the detriment of what were once excellent Australian universities whose graduates gained their awards on hard work and merit.

    Commenter
    turn the lights back on
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    March 18, 2010, 4:29PM
  • Upon reading the 3rd comment, I could not help but be amazed at the utter arrogance of the author. "to the detriment of what were once excellent Australian universities whose graduates gained their awards on hard work and merit". This implies that, in the opinion of the author, anyone who attends a university now is lazy and does not deserve the degree they receive.

    As I am writing this comment, it occurs to me that this is the first night off I have had since the new semester started, and just seeing such a disparaging remark angered me enough to register and rebuke the assertion made. I truly do feel sorry for someone who has closed their mind to the world like this. The same bright, hardworking students are still in the system, and they will gain their degree through HARD WORK and MERIT, just as those above did.

    Commenter
    JR
    Location
    Attending one of the new, dumbed down,multi campus universities
    Date and time
    March 18, 2010, 11:27PM
  • As a post graduate student, breadwinner and mother of two, I find it incredibly frustrating that we now have to pay virtually 2 years net wages to secure an MBA or other post graduate qualification. Sure, some people are buying their way in, but for many working women, we can't even do that. And a post graduate qual is the only sure way to the next level (allegedly). Most corporations have also cut their study assistance programmes, so that these are no longer of any use to postgrads, most banks refuse to pay for / subsidise post grad qualifications. Users can pay, but not all of them.

    Commenter
    JayneM
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    March 18, 2010, 8:24PM
  • As somebody who was an academic at the University of Sydney over roughly the same period as Dr Tiffen, I endorse his comments.

    Two things in particular sadden me:

    (1) The ever-increasing emphasis placed on marketing, corporate image, mission statements and all the rest of the management psychobabble.

    (2) The totally cynical attitude of the University of Sydney towards foreign fee-paying students. Most that I had professional dealings with were of Asian ethnicity. Few had more that a rudimentary command of English. I can only assume that the ESL test that they must "pass" was too easy, corrupt, or both. I felt desperately sorry for them - the University of Sydney was happy to take $$ off them but offered them zero support.

    Commenter
    kiwi33
    Date and time
    March 18, 2010, 7:44PM
  • There's an extraordinary crisis in higher education provision brought on by its treatment as a commodity. I don't understand how it can be ignored to the extent it is. A Faculty Manager recently told his staff we were to think of all students as "little bags of money running around campus". This attitude is reductive and faulty and informs all aspects of university policy making. Hence the crisis.

    Commenter
    University employee
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    March 19, 2010, 2:25PM
Comments are now closed