Australian students are now set to pay more for less
|
Version 0 of 1. There can be no doubt that the proposed changes to the Australian higher education system announced in last week’s federal budget are radical, but the Abbott government's proposals for higher education are in one sense a continuation of a long Australian political tradition. Over the last 50 years, governments have struggled to meet rising social expectations to increase access to higher education. However, aside from the brief and spectacular exception of the Whitlam government, they have rarely possessed the will to properly fund university expansion. Although many working in the university sector did not anticipate the scale of the budget proposals, the broad catalyst for them was well understood. As the last significant review of higher education demonstrated, Australian universities have been persistently underfunded. This has been largely concealed by rapidly growing student numbers, which has produced gradual growth in overall university funding. However, funding per student has consistently fallen. The uncapping of university place has aggravated things over recent years, allowing universities to enrol as many students as they wish at this underfunded level. The fatuous decision last year by the Gillard government to make a further $2.3bn cut to higher education to fund the Gonski reforms (an argument now being further prosecuted by the Abbott government) further compounds the problem. As a result, those working in the higher education sector have been labouring under escalating demands: widening student to staff ratios, rising casual employment, course closures, redundancies and often-desperate measures to raise revenue or cut costs. This has in turn encouraged university managements to harden their approaches. A seismic shift was almost inevitable, and it came in a budget proposal the implications of which are uncertain. Despite this, it already appears there will be some winners, as well as many losers. First to the winners. The sandstone Group of Eight (Go8) universities, who have enjoyed the most sustained level of public investment over time, are very well placed to exploit their privileged status. It is already being speculated that these universities will move immediately to double or triple their fees and perhaps even produce Australia’s first million-dollar degree. The only apparent limit is current international student fees, but these are only limited by what students are willing to pay (and so could easily rise overnight). This windfall income will allow these universities to increase their comparative advantage further. Students who are currently studying higher education programs in Tafe colleges or other non-university providers will also gain, as they are currently denied access to the Hecs system (being forced to pay full fees up front). This will also no doubt lead to an expansion in overall higher education places offered outside universities. It is proposed that $1 in every $5 increase in student fees beyond current levels will be channeled into student scholarships for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Although this gesture is essentially a political fig leaf for higher fees, it would at least minimally address the continuing chronic failure of student income support. However, it appears there will be many more losers. Students will accumulate more debt and it will be charged at a higher interest rate. Worse still, there seems to be no tangible limit to the debt students can accumulate, with no guarantee (aside from the invisible hand of the market) that they will receive a higher quality learning experience. In the short term, it appears current students will essentially pay more to cover the recent and future expansion of student places at universities. Pent up cost pressures, the result of decades of underfunding, will most likely produce a more dramatic increase in most student fees in the medium term. Aggressive marketing by elite institutions is also likely to draw students from struggling universities, with the inevitable offers of better facilities and support (or even scholarships). It is likely many smaller universities, and long-standing programs in others, will not survive. Already many institutions are struggling under the weight of historic underfunding, not least of all those in regional Australia. At the same time, new non-university providers are likely to rapidly target the low cost, high volume programs that have traditionally cross-subsidised higher-cost university programs. The highly regarded Tafe system has been subject to a similar radical experiment over the over the last decade. Private providers have been able to rapidly undercut Tafe’s on price, most often by not providing the same quality of teaching and student support infrastructure. Private providers have also been able to effectively "cherry-pick" the most profitable courses. However, as a senate report on Tafe released last week revealed, this has been not only at a high cost to the Tafe system, it has led to serious questions about the declining quality of Australian vocational education and training. This outcome is instructive for those who are confident that a similar higher education marketplace won’t affect educational quality. What is also significant in the budget proposal is that, for the first time, students will pay the majority of the costs of the higher education system. It is also highly likely that government contributions will continue to further fall over time as fees rise. There will also be a new range of private providers admitted to the higher education system that will spread these diminishing resources even more thinly. The ability of future governments to influence higher education will largely evaporate. Universities (and other providers) will gradually become private institutions, with receding levels of social responsibility. There are also real dangers, as is the emerging reality in the UK, that talented students will simply turn their backs on higher education. Students who graduate from our universities contribute considerably to the public good. They are the advocates, researchers, planners, scientists, technicians and teachers who are fundamental to the fabric of Australian life. These budget proposals will inevitably fragment and undermine Australia’s higher education model. It would be wise for the senate to oppose them and seek the restoration of decent public funding to universities. |