Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

You say you want a revolution

By Steven Schwartz - posted Monday, 22 December 2008


Under a fixed-fee regime, a university that wants to offer a 20-student law tutorial taught by a former High Court judge must charge the same amount as a university offering a 300-student lecture taught by a retired personal injury lawyer. The result is that all universities will be pushed toward low-cost provision even if students are happy to pay more for a higher quality experience.

Curiously, the review seems to leave open the possibility of raising private fees by suggesting that a university “may designate an undergraduate course as non-Commonwealth subsidised” and then charge whatever it likes. This could lead to a system in which prestigious universities, which are best placed to attract private students, receive high private fees while other universities have their incomes capped.

To make matters even more complicated, in another part of its report, the review appears to contradict itself by stating that “an independent national regulatory body” could cap prices even in non-Commonwealth subsidised courses.

Advertisement

It is difficult to see how these recommendations fit together.

It is also difficult to understand how “no dollar limit” can be placed on the student entitlement (the government subsidy). Surely, some dollar amount has to appear somewhere, if only for budgeting purposes.

As we move further from the two big ideas - widening participation and student-driven funding, the hedgehogs fade from view and the foxes take over.

For example, the review recommends an increase of 10 per cent in “base funding” for teaching and learning” but it is not clear what “base funding” means in a system driven by student entitlements. Are there funds that do not follow students?

The 4 per cent allocation for meeting widening participation targets and the 2.5 per cent of teaching funds to be allocated for quality also seem to be delivered outside the student subsidy. In addition, these recommendations seem to contradict the review’s belief that universities should not have to compete for small pots of money.

There are many other recommendations in the review, which will doubtless be pored over in detail in the coming weeks. The review provides much for them to consider.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian December 17, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Emeritus Professor Steven Schwartz AM is the former vice-chancellor of Macquarie University (Sydney), Murdoch University (Perth), and Brunel University (London).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Steven Schwartz

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Steven Schwartz
Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy