Submission to Parliament on "The Tertiary Education Review"
By General comments
The Tertiary Education Review is not really a "review". No studies are presented supporting many of the assertions of the green paper, rather a number of "problems" are assumed and a very limited range of solutions to these "problems" are proposed. The overall theme of the perceived "problems" appears to be that tertiary institutions cost money, are independent of government and have social as well as financial functions. The overall thrust of the "solutions" is to increase the control of government over the institutions and reduce them to corporations.
It is clear that the principal concern of writers of the document is that tertiary education costs money, and the amount spent per capita is to be reduced. Reducing per capita expenditure in tertiary education is likely to have some very negative effects, and these potential costs are largely ignored by the authors. Making the universities into corporations would change them so fundamentally that they would no longer serve many of their important functions.
The writers seek a "student focused" approach, but ignore community standards. Allowing students to dictate course content and assessment would lead to a lowering of standards.
Goals for the tertiary sector
The fourth goal proposed by the "review" is predicated on the assumption that students should make a financial contribution to the running of tertiary institutions. This assumption conflicts with the first three of the proposed goals. Forcing students to pay will reduce opportunities for participation, reduce the participation of currently underrepresented groups, and serve to downgrade institutions as they struggle to maintain low levels of fees.
There are clear gaps among the stated goals. It is amazing that a "review" of education has been published without a goal which explicitly addresses the need to maximise intellectual potential. Similarly the promotion of institutions which fearlessly advance informed views in public debate and which are fundamentally democratic is notably absent.
Resourcing tuition
If the government wishes to improve opportunities for participation, it would make much better sense to fully fund students' education. The current trend towards increasing user pays for education represents a transfer of government debt on to the backs of students. This is not only unfair, given that the generation now in power benefited from completely state-funded tertiary education, but also acts as a disincentive for citizens to become better educated.
If financial circumstances dictate that this generation should be treated inequitably compared to previous generations, then simply providing everyone with a set amount of money is extremely inefficient. In general, students capable of higher achievements will wish to and need to spend more time in tertiary institutions. It would be vastly better to target allowances on the basis of their achievements. Better students would receive more state support. This would provide an added incentive for students to excel, and would allow better students to continue their studies to high levels without being constrained by financial considerations. Such students have valuable contributions to make which society can only tap by encouraging them to continue learning.
The "voucher" proposal is poorly advanced in the document. For instance the "weak incentives to minimise tuition costs" mentioned on page 10 are pure fiction (the same assertion is advanced on page 14, with even a reference to page 10 as if the former mention somehow validates the statement!). Resources already follow students, and universities already have a clear incentive to minimise tuition costs so that they can maintain high numbers of effective full-time students (EFTS).
The problem brought about by reduced government funding/student is how to maintain staff and course quality along with high EFTSs when state support is inadequate. This serious problem is ignored by the "review".
Research
Requirement for research
All degree providers should be required to carry out research at a departmental level. This will ensure that we attract good staff, and help to maintain the quality of New Zealand's degrees by ensuring that course content includes material which pushes the boundaries of existing knowledge.
Research should be a departmental, but not an individual requirement. There is a correlation, in my view, between quality of teaching and quality of research, but it is not a perfect correlation. Occasionally I encounter staff members who are good teachers but prefer to maintain their knowledge by interacting with fellow staff members who conduct research. A few others are good researchers but may not excel as teachers. Both types can make valuable contributions, and both would suffer unjustly if research and teaching quality requirements were applied at an individual level.
Allocation of research funding
Increasing contestability of research funding in New Zealand has led to a change in the type of person who engages in research and has reduced the amount of time devoted to research. Researchers now spend an inordinate amount of time seeking funding for their activities, and those who prosper possess "grantsmanship". There is not necessarily a good correlation between ability to attract funds and ability to do top quality research. Requiring external contestability demonstrates a lack of trust in the wisdom and integrity of those running research institutions.
Providing research funds as of right to universities allows them to attract scientists who can both teach and conduct high quality research. This is an alternative path for scientists who prefer to devote time to teaching that they would otherwise need for attracting funding. It would be unreasonable to further dilute their efforts by requiring them to spend large amounts of time seeking research funding outside universities.
Research is a vital part of good scholarship, and universities which lack research funding will rapidly lose competitive edge in the international market for staff. It is very difficult to see how, for instance, funding for research in philosophy or history might be won under the narrowly focused "relevance" criteria of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Degree-level education requires instructors who are very capable in their chosen fields. These instructors will be dissatisfied by an environment which limits their research opportunities. We therefore need to retain research resourcing and selection of projects within universities in order to attract these top quality people.
Accountability
Accountability for research funding is already provided internally by the universities. New staff members are often given a modest grant to start them off, but thereafter continued funding is heavily influenced by quality of research. The assertion on page 10 of the "review" that there is no accountability for research is completely incorrect.
Quality and protected terms
The word "quality" is undefined in the review. In some instances it appears to simply mean correctness of accounting, while in others it may be intended to mean something less clear. Similarly the "validation" process is poorly defined. Who would validate, and with what mandate?
Setting minimum thresholds from outside tertiary institutions is desirable to a very limited extent. It can help to protect the definition, for instance, of the word "degree". On the other hand excessively detailed course prescriptions set by an external agency can be counterproductive, as the agency is unlikely to have the necessary expertise, and the result can be a dumbing down of course content. Once the minimum standard was met, what incentive would there be for a dollar-focused institution to further improve a course?
Quality of our universities is better assured by maintaining employment conditions that attract good staff and by maintaining high standards of scholarship through internationally refereed publications than it would ever be by setting minimum quality thresholds. The former encourages excellence while the latter promotes mediocrity.
Ownership objectives and governance
Requiring universities to show a profit and return a dividend to Government is inequitable and limits contributions made by universities to financial ones. It is inequitable because the government does not own many of the assets of universities, as these were provided by private donors. In any event, why should the return be defined in purely financial terms? Why cannot non-financial returns such as increasing public awareness of science, blue-sky research, and encouraging clear thinking also be regarded as returns to the community?
Returns such as acting as an independent voice and a social conscience will be even further reduced if government increases its control of universities by directly appointing a majority of the members of University Councils. A preview of the effects of government's intentions can be seen among the Crown Research Institutes that are now less inclined to contribute in any serious way to public debate. When an opinion is held within these institutes it is now common practice to evaluate the financial implications of promulgating the opinion before allowing it to be publicised. This fact has been made clear to me by associates within these institutes on several occasions. We certainly do not wish to have the same limitations on free speech within our universities.
In summary
The "review" is founded on a flawed vision. It doesn't support its assertions of "problems"; it ignores non-financial contributions of universities to the community; it advances "solutions" to nonexistent problems which will satisfy only accountants; it seeks to assert more government control over what should be independent voices; it proposes inequitable funding arrangements which will ignore students' achievements; and it fails to take account of staff quality and the key role of research funding in securing these top quality people. I urge the government to reject it and explore a wider range of options while recognising the large amount of good in the status quo. There is too much to be lost by making sweeping changes on the basis of such a poorly conceived document.
Dr E. G. Mason, 12/12/97.
Postscript
During the reorganisation of the state sector which we have just emerged from there was a stated tendency for government to discount the views of state servants within the departments in question because they would "inevitably" be "self-interested". This was not a valid refutation of their views, rather it was an ad hominem. In many cases these people may have been the most well-informed participants in the debate, but their opinions were not considered. I hope that in this case the government will consider my arguments, and not attack me with accusations of self-interest.
NB: This documents my personal views, not necessarily those of the University of Canterbury.