During the Second World War Elsie Curtin was a reluctant celebrity. A social reporter interviewing the no nonsense Lady of the Lodge asked her about what she would be wearing to a public function that day. "Same as yesterday, Same as yesterday," was the reply.

When it comes to providing resources for placing Australia on a firm "knowledge base" the same appears to be true -- looks like we'll be wearing, same as yesterday, same as yesterday. But perhaps it's just that we've been looking in the wrong closet.

A couple of days after the Federal election TFW's Silver Blonde was walking across the Sydney Domain from the Art Gallery over to the State Library when she ran into Vladimir and Estragon.

SB: Nice day.

E: (to Vladimir): What duya suppose she meant by that.

V: How should I know, I'm not her psychiatrist.

E: (to SB): Why don't you sit down and tell us your problem.

SB: (joining them): I haven't got a problem.

V: Now that's a problem, believe me that's a real problem.

SB: Rubbish.

E: I've got some to spare would you like a couple.

SB: No.

V: Where's your social conscience?

SB: Alright, so tell me your troubles -- but only a couple, I'm on my lunch break.

E: One will do; how about the state of tertiary education.

SB: Not my problem.

V: It is now! You agreed to take it. Besides you spent two days over at the Library listening to the Committee taking evidence.

E: Ergo, you're the resident expert.

SB: Thanks, but knowing you two...

V: No, no, go ahead give us an informed opinion.

SB: Well, we've got 38 public universities and...

E: Go on.

SB: An awful lot of countries would be very pleased to have any one of them.

V: Agreed -- so they're good?

SB: By world standards, Yes they are and our older ones are better than they were say thirty years ago.

E: (turning to Vladimir) surely that's not the point it's a question of comparing to a proper current bench mark.

SB: What's that supposed to mean?

V: She sounds just like John Howard.

E: Does a bit.

SB: You haven't answered my question.

V: Let's narrow things down a bit, or at least catagorise what we're talking about.

E: This'll be good -- come on, Vlad, catagorise.

V:    a) Research universities,
        b) the rest.

E: That's elitism!

V: No it's not.

SB: It is elitism.

V: Oh come off it; a relatively small number of universities in all first world countries do the greater part of tertiary-institutional based research and you damn well know it, and that's all I'm saying.

SB: Yeah, ok; so where does this get us.

E: To the Group of Eight, I suppose, right Vladimir?

V: Does it? See that's the real point; the V-C of Melbourne says the best of our universities probably wouldn't rank in the world top 100. I think that's a pretty damning statement seeing he runs one of the Group and his is probably in the top half.

E: Just a minute, chum, just what's your comparison.

V: It's not mine its Professor Gilbert's but let's do a simple check. the Association of American Universities (AAU) is something like the Group of Eight but for the US and Canada. Of the sixty-three members sixty-one are US based. There're about 2150 four-year public and private colleges and universities in the US, so that gets us to about one United States AAU member for every 35 universities. We have thirty-eight universities listed by the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee while the total number of listed Australian universities and colleges is fifty-three. Lets take 53 that makes one Go8 for every 6.7 of our colleges and unis.

E: So maybe our schools are 5¼  times better than the US's.

V: And pigs might fly -- come off it.

SB: Stop squabbling. Vladimir, which are the two Canadian schools in the AAU?

V: McGill and the University of Toronto. Good point would you rank the best of the Group of Eight comparable to either of those? I don't think Professor Gilbert would. As a guess I don't think any of the eight V-Cs from the Go8 could say honestly they thought their university was the overall equal for McGill or Toronto as a research university.

SB: Well, how come the Government says our tertiary education system is excellent and those disparaging it are, well, "un-Australian"?

E: Probably best to ask the Minister for Education, I don't think Vladimir considers himself Dr. Kemp's keeper.

V: No, it's a fair question -- Principally two reasons.
        1. He has to defend the Government's policies whatever he may (or may not think).
        2. He and his department have no real understanding of what constitutes the best.
They're developing policy from ignorance. When they undertake study tours, at best they do a low fly or they send a departmental public servant to do a three or four week world tour who then writes a report which is passed up the line for some other bureaucrat to read who may or may not make it known to someone in the minister's inner circle.

SB: So what would you do, set up a Senate committee to look into the matter?  Call it... call it a study to determine "The Capacity of Public Universities to Meet Australia’s Higher Education Needs".

V: Very funny - it's been done, you were there, and X hundreds of thousands of dollars later it's had the impact of a blancmange falling on a skewer.

E: Clever, Vlad, but not very useful. How's about we back off a bit.

SB: I just remembered something. It was a comment Mary O'Kane made at the hearings, she was V-C of U of Adelaide at the time. She told the Committee that the Government should tell the universities just what they wanted from them. Rocked me, because Professor O'Kane is a very clued up guy and I couldn't imagine any group less useful than the government to ask what direction our universities should take to meet our higher educational needs.

V: So what's your point.

SB: I think it showed just how demoralising the situation for the universities has become.

E: What did the Committee say.

SB: Just rolled off them.

V: What about robots?

E: Don't be insulting, the election was barely a week ago.

V: No, No. Look what's the most expensive part of a university -- the staff. So it's simple eliminate the staff.

E: You could eliminate the students as well, that'd make 'em really cheap to run.

V: Don't be a schmuck.  It just struck me, not only is this THE solution it'd be a great export product, the world will paddle a path to our ports. (turning to the silver blonde) What do you think?

SB: I'm just an innocent bystander, press on.

V: We develop education robots which lecture and give tutorials. There's human interaction between the students as well as with the lecturer or tutor robot.

E: You can't be serious.

V: Why not? Its knowledge base can be far broader, far deeper and much more accurate than any one human. So that part's already solved. What needs developing is the ability to comprehend, to follow what's being said  when say students ask questions for clarification or when they question an assertion.

E: A mere trifle, but I like the idea of an argumentative robot. Who's gonna develop this.

V: Our scientists and engineers.

E: Good one Vlad, and where to we find them?

SB: And who will pay for this?

V: One at a time. We find them overseas because that's were all of our best brains are.

SB: I repeat and who will pay for this.

V: Oh.

E: You got him there.

SB: John Howard doesn't care...

E: and Rupert gives lip service.

V: I still think its a good idea.

E: Vladimir go join the Mad Hatter's tea party and have a chat to the Dormouse.

V: Fine and what do you two suggest.

SB: For starters forget about achieving any significant resourcing from the Federal Government it's not on.

E: And despite repeated overtures to the private sector it's not going to happen. Higher education is not seen as anything but a minor object for philanthropy by either individuals or corporations. We're talking tens of millions not $100 sops from the Big 4.

V: Which leaves...?

SB: The states.

V: You're joking,

E: Like he said you must be joking.

SB: Not in the least. I reckon it would only take one of the states to show the way and things could get very competitive. Look, one of the problems is the almost pathological fear by our Government to single out a very few of the best. I accused you of elitism before because here that's just what I'm advocating. And we should be. Reducing the 38 public universities to a common level, it's the same as when we were kids and mixed all the different coloured Plasticine just to find we got a grey mess for our trouble. Funny thing, most kids learned their lesson and didn't repeat the exercise.

E: Your saying get one of the states to make creating a real top draw university a thing of pride for its population.

SB: Exactly.

V: You'd need bipartisan support.

E: Well, it's a lot more likely than getting it on a Federal level, but where's the money to come from?

SB: The federal Government makes its usual allotments just as before. If a state chooses to resource one of its universities so that it can become a research university of true international standing, that's its business, and in no way diminishes Canberra's responsibility, comparable to all the other states. New South Wales just finished spending $145 million to up grade the Conservatorium of Music. If the will's there the methods won't be far behind.

V: I'll never happen.

SB: I really don't see any other even conceivable solution.

V: Leyton Hewitt's No. 1.

SB: Yap, and besides his talent and drive what put him there?
    Hell, I'm late -- gotta run -- meeting a man about a marble slab.

E: What duya think she meant by that?

V: How should I know, I'm not...

E: Yes, ok... forget it.

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web