What to Do For and With Australia's University Sector: One Vice-Chancellor's Viewpoint. (July 12, 2006)

    Peter Coaldrake is vice-chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology and in an opinion piece in today's Australian Higher Education Section he has some cogent points to make regarding governmental policy as it impacts on Australia's universities.

Some excerpts from his "Diversity's fine, deregulation is better".

Proponents of reform have argued that public universities need competition to shake them out of complacency and that the barriers for new entrants have

Professor Peter Coaldrake

 been too high. Opponents of change counter that tight regulation is needed to protect students from inferior products offered by narrowly specialised profit-oriented institutions.

The new protocols are far from a free-for-all. New players need to navigate regulations concerning structure and quality assurance, and have to attract students in a relatively well-supplied market. One key test for domestic students will be how their qualifications may be received by employers; new specialist universities will take time to establish a reputation.

The debate about diversity among the established universities focuses on research.

Research resources must be rationed and, because they are, success in attaining them is visible and valued. It is conceivable the new protocols may encourage some public universities to specialise along lines other than research; for example, by confining themselves to fewer disciplines or locations.

However, experience suggests public pressure is a powerful force against closure of courses or campuses, and established public universities are unlikely to embrace radical reform unless compelled to do so.

The days of a government orchestrating the shape of the system are past; Australia cannot undo what Dawkins did.

Given the impossibility of winding back the clock, some are arguing that the federal Government ought to influence and support institutional choices by changing the way it provides funding.

When some vice-chancellors of older universities talk about diversity, in essence they mean earmarking money to help them cope with the pressures of dominating the competition for research funding. When some vice-chancellors of regional universities talk of diversity, they mean earmarking money to help them cope with their local pressures.

The federal Government should take a cautious view of calls for diversity that boil down to claims for special support for university strategic choices or indeed for enabling universities to avoid making strategic choices.

Mediocrity is not driven by a common funding source but by complacency, limited competition and over-reliance on government direction.

We should bring students and their needs back into debates about diversity and focus on deregulation rather than more government influence.

If we are serious about diversity and the role of students, then now may be the time to reopen that debate [on real deregulation].