Editorial-01 January 2008

 

 

 

 

So, Estragon, Happy Now?

Vladimir, Do You Believe Godot Will Come?

 

Brooks Atkinson's opening remark in his 1956 New York Times review of Samuel Beckett's 2 act tragicomedy Waiting for Godot. ... It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. [E]xpect to be witness to the strange power this drama has to convey the impression of some melancholy truths about the hopeless destiny of the human race.

Vladimir and Estragon are still waiting by the roadside and still bickering.



Vladimir: Estragon?

 

Estragon: What?

 

V: Haven't you noticed there's been a change in government?

 

E:  Yes indeed, it does look as though some aspects of civilisation may return to the land of Oz... some.

 

V: I detect a note of cynicism?

 

E: No, not really, just it's early days, things are just at beginning stages... I reckon it'll take until the May budget is formulated before you'll get some idea of what Rudd has in mind and how well he'll be able to manipulate his cabinet. I doubt he'll have one comparable to Howard's supine collection.

 

V: We've signed up to the Kyoto Protocol.

 

E: We have. Now just what are we gonna do so that we change from dragging the chain to leading from the front. That's Rudd's promise (or threat if you think global warming is a figment of feverish self-serving alternative energy entrepreneurs), and...

 

V: And what?

 

E: And framing a properly delivered apology to the descendants of the of the men and women who did occupy this continent when it was most probably terra nullius.

 

V: And you think it'll happen?

 

E: Oh, yes, but then what? You think Kevin Rudd will be able to do what no other government here or in Canada or the United States has managed -- give back to a subjugated indigenous minority their dignity, overcome their susceptibility to alcoholism, give them real opportunities to access 21st century education and employment, turn around the destruction of their self-esteem?

 

V: Well, not in three years, no, but given a reasonable run in government they might make a constructive start.

 

E: With or without bipartisan support?

 

V: Point taken.

 

E: And tell me, Vladimir, what do you think of Rudd giving Kim Carr a ministry of innovation, industry, science and research?

 

V: Despite Rudd saying he wouldn't be ruled by Labor's factional nabob's I think that appointment shows that he does need to take it into account and has.

 

E: So you don't think he's up to the job?

 

V: Who?

 

E: Senator Carr of course!

 

V: Depends on how you look at it. Julia Gillard is Deputy Prime Minister and is Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion while Wayne Swan is Treasurer and Lindsay Tanner is Finance Minister, responsible for business deregulation.

 

E: So when it comes to Innovation and Industrial policy...

 

V: Senator Carr is sandwiched between formidable cabinet colleagues and I don't think that Kim Carr is one of Rudd's inner circle.

     As to Science and Research and despite all the pre-election rhetoric, are they really seen of great consequence. We don't really know just what importance Kevin Rudd places on their support just as his higher education policy is...  a mystery wrapped in an enigma?

 

E: And of course there's now what is the infamous directive from Carr's department of which the good senator denied all knowledge.

 

V: Do you think that denial is credible -- first a phone call telling CSIRO, the CRCs and other public funded research institutes to clear any public comment of consequence with Carr's department (and if necessary the Prime Minister's), then when CSIRO demanded and got confirmation in writing the good senator claimed he knew nothing about it.

 

E: Vladimir, it doesn't matter, if it's true, Carr looks as if he's not in control of his department and if that's not the case, he looks like a fool for issuing the directive, and devious by  shovelling the blame on unnamed messengers. If he hasn't got a rocket from the Prime Minister's department I'd be very surprised.

    And unfortunately, it'll diminish the strength of his advocacy for Science and Research were he inclined to try and make a compelling case.

 

V: Do you think he would?

 

E: Doesn't matter, the die's cast as far as Carr is concerned, and it only took him three weeks to mess up -- and according to The Canberra Times' Rosslyn Beeby he's making noises that he's going to have as strong a say regarding the appointment of the next chief executive of CSIRO as is permitted under current legislation.

 

V: I suppose it's how he chooses to exercise the power that's critical.

    But that aside, Estragon, the Chief Scientist's term ends in February, so far nothing's been made public as to who will be appointed or what the terms will be... any ideas.

 

E: Labor, through Carr, made the point well over a year ago they want the position made full time and whether or not that's sensible is a moot point. It's fulltime in the US, but in the UK it's been filled by academics who continue to run their university groups and spend less then fulltime as Chief Scientific Advisor to Her Majesty's Government and Head of the Government Office for Science within the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

    Having made the commitment, I don't see them rethinking their position now. As to the probability of filling the position with a brilliant and forceful academic, I don't see it.

 

V: You don't sound particularly sanguine for the future of government support for research and science.

 

E: Look, no matter what happens I can't see it being as bad as it was under the Howard Coalition. But you know the university and research sectors have a considerable part of their future in their own hands.

 

V: How so?

 

E: I think you can sum it up with two main points: First, the universities have been divided in their representations to government and they have made no significant attempt to fill the vacuum of proposals to raise that quality of the university sector. Secondly, similarly the publicly funded research institutes have made no attempts to get together and map out an overreaching philosophy in the relationship between government and them.

    In both cases you get the impression they want the government of the day to do the thinking and detailed planning for them. As a result you see media statements which compare the endowments of the United States richest private universities with Australia's sandstone universities.

 

V: But our universities are poor by comparison.

 

E: Underfunded, under resourced, too right, but the comparison is flawed and made by way of making excuses. And making comments which allow the media to suggest that the universities want an extra $20 billion thank you doesn't suggest that the sector has drawn up carefully considered a 10 to 20 year plan for bringing the tertiary education sector into the world's best and indeed why Australia should even bother trying.

 

V: Well you can't deny Harvard has an endowment of US$34.9 billion; Stanford, US$17.2 billion; Oxford, US$7.2 billion; Cambridge, US$8.2 billion, while The University of Melbourne limps in at US$0.97 billion.

 

E: Sure I accept all that, but I also know that the University of California, Berkeley's endowment is US$3.5 billion and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has an endowment of US$1.6 billion.

    Of course Caltech has a total enrolment of 2100 students, but Berkeley's student body is 34,000. And as for rankings Caltech is ranked seventh in the world in the 2007 THES - QS World University Rankings, and sixth in the world by the Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

    As for Berkeley, the THES - QS World University Rankings ranked Berkeley eighth in the world in 2006, and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute for Higher Education ranked it third in the world in its 2007 rankings.

    The University of Melbourne ranked 29 and 79 respectively in their 2007 rankings.

 

V: Is what you're saying, the universities have to get their heads down and do some hard thinking and hard work to, in effect, produce a tender document to the Rudd government for resources and to do it in such a way that the government is told in detail what's wanted, in what sequence and timeframe and what the nation can expect for the resources that are being requested.

 

E: Got it in one. But I'm also implying that over the past over eleven years doing so wasn't worth the bother. With the new government there is a reasonable prospect that it may be, but if the best possible case isn't made, the university sector isn't fulfilling its obligation to the Australian people.

    Quite apart from anything else the wellbeing  of the whole of the nation's education system harks back to the health of our universities, but just saying to government, we are a good thing give us $20 billion is not going to be met with a black American Express card.

 

 

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web