[Muanet] SMH editorial on Nelson proposals

[Dion Giles]

Dr Nelson's daring new prescription
SMH editorial
March 7, 2005

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Editorial/Dr-Nelsons-daring-new-prescription/2005/03/06/1110044262150.html

Proposals by the federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, to create 
greater diversity, specialisation and competition within the university 
sector are radical, even revolutionary. Given the present unsatisfactory 
situation, this is no bad thing. Dr Nelson's suggestions - heresies, say 
some - would redefine and broaden the term "university". Universities could 
be either teaching-only or research-intensive institutions, the way would 
be cleared for more private and small universities, including some 
specialising in a single discipline or vocation (for example law or 
medicine or hospitality), and overseas universities would be encouraged to 
establish Australian campuses. This would require the Commonwealth and the 
states to agree to big changes in the present protocols that oblige 
universities to offer at least three disciplines and to undertake both 
teaching and research.

Given the hysterical tone of some reactions to Dr Nelson's ideas, this need 
for federal-state agreement should be emphasised. He has not announced a 
fait accompli, but a discussion paper inviting responses. He may be wedded 
to his ideas, but he is surely realistic enough to listen to qualified 
critics. Labor's Jenny Macklin overstated it when she predicted "a 
proliferation of McDegrees that aren't worth the paper they are written on" 
(perhaps a reference to the Hamburger University of Illinois, run by the 
McDonald's fast food chain). But that doesn't mean Dr Nelson should dismiss 
concerns that excessive deregulation could lead to devaluation of the 
currency of degrees and debasement of the status and standards of 
university education. In fairness, he has anticipated such worries, 
suggesting that the protocols could be changed "to better assure the 
quality" of higher education. We trust this means that institutions will be 
carefully screened and monitored, with any offering rubbish degrees being 
barred from becoming or remaining universities.

There are other concerns. One is that high-profile foreign institutions 
like Harvard could come in and cream off students in prestigious, 
profitable and relatively cheap-to-run disciplines like law. Another is 
that specialised institutions would be intellectual monocultures, depriving 
students of contact with those in different disciplines and giving them 
less opportunity to change courses. However, the potential gains from 
increased competition and diversity, if combined with an appropriate 
regulatory framework and monitoring regime, should outweigh the risks. For 
instance, greater flexibility would encourage single-discipline campuses to 
co-operate with larger universities to widen the range of subjects 
available to their students.

Besides, and this is the main point, the present system is not working 
well, either for Australian students or for our universities as they seek 
to compete in the global market for foreign students. The so-called 
one-size-fits-all model - obliging all universities, including the 
smallest, newest and poorest, to be both multi-disciplinary and committed 
to teaching and research - has in fact produced a messy, de facto two-tier 
system. Under-resourced institutions, typically the products of unnatural 
unions between academically disparate and geographically scattered 
campuses, must pretend to be what they are not while the overall reputation 
of Australian higher education is undermined.