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, acknowledging Sydney's winter, have forsaken their park bench and migrated to occupy a pair of the Art Gallery's overly upholstered chairs.

Vladimir: (Looking as though he'd finally given up on working out a solution to anything). Been following the developments in the "Higher Education at the Crossroads" review?

Estragon:  Like a Bloodhound -- nose down, ears trailing in the dust.

V: Dr. Nelson released the third issues paper last Thursday, "Setting Firm Foundations".

E: Yes, Vladimir, don't tell me things I already know. But the fourth one came out this Wednesday, "Varieties of Excellence: Diversity, Specialisation and Regional Engagement in Higher Education".

V: Well, to paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, "Now that's a title." You read them?

E: Cover to references, even took in some of the Excel tables -- some not all. I suspect there's an effort to drown the subject in what Dr. Nelson refers to as "selected statistics" or it may be just something to keep the juniors in the Department busy.

V: Exciting?

E: The third one's interesting, it gets close to the heart of the matter from the Government's viewpoint.

V: Money?

E: Yesss, but it's more than that, it's as though Dr. Nelson and his Department have had it up to here with the damn academics and have decided to show them just who's boss, you know -- "We're the alpha males around here, mates, and it's past time you accepted it."

V: Oh Come off it, the Minister didn't have to set up the Crossroads Review, he chose to do it.

E: I don't know that you're right. Brendan Nelson is the new boy in cabinet, by accounts he's ambitious so he needs to make his mark, and despite education not figuring importantly in the past election it still comes up in the polls. And of course there's that nagging reminder, even if it is pretty well in the background, that the Senate committee reported that the university system is in crisis. No, I suspect that the Government felt it was worth letting the new minister use this review as a teething ring... Oh, and another not so minor point, the minister said in his July 31^st media release "The Review will conclude towards the end of the year with a forum to consider all the issues raised and the subsequent development of a package of policy measures for consideration by Government."

V: And?

E: Come on, Vladimir, think; budget submissions are due from ministers in October, so as far as higher education is concerned, nothing of consequence will be done in the 2003-04 financial year. And for 2004 - 05, well, there'll be an election, so I don't see the Government  spending up big for the rebirth of higher education. When it comes to higher education, a few people talk about it and just about nobody does anything - well, anything positive.

V: You're saying it's all a sham.

E: I'm saying that if you want to be seen to be doing something, when you really don't want to be doing much of anything, have a review, particularly one you have virtually complete control over. That keeps the carpers off your back -- keeps them occupied writing submissions. It may be a transparent ploy, but it works -- time after time.
    Anyway have you read the discussion papers.

V: Skimmed the third one. Funny that -- maybe on a quick reading I'm misunderstanding it, but it gives the feeling that its been put together by a number of people who convey different viewpoints.

E: Well, I've read it through and I get the same feeling; it's a hodgepodge, but an intentional one. But what struck you particularly?

V: Ok, on the second page he puts in a disclaimer, "The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, Science and Training."

E: There's nothing unusual about that, what're getting at?

V: On page [vi] in the forward over his signature he says, "But under no circumstances should the public resources provided by hard working everyday Australians be demanded of them without confidence that they are being invested in a sector that is academically, managerially and financially efficient." I assume that reproach is a view which does reflect "departmental opinion." It's not the view itself that disturbs me it's the Minister believing that he needed to make such a statement. To me he's taking the opportunity to imply that the universities are squanderers.

E: Ok, it was a gratuitous swipe, but I don't see what you're driving at

V: On page [ix] the executive summary says, "In 2000 the financial performance of universities was sound. Comparing 1999 to 2000, total revenue increased from $8.8 billion to $9.3 billion, operating surplus increased from $286 million to $321 million and net assets increased from $18.8 billion to $20.0 billion.
    "Despite these results higher education institutions are facing a range of financing pressures. Between 1983 and 1991 operating grant funding per student fell by 10 per cent. Between 1991 and 1998 it rose and has since stayed relatively stable but still some 6 per cent below 1983 levels." So tell me, Estragon, as the little girl asked looking at the growling dog wagging its tail vigorously, "which end do I believe," or is this one of the views the Department doesn't necessarily endorse?

E: I get your point. I was going to ask you after the Minister repeatedly indicating that the cost of the public universities was an onerous burden and there was no way that Australia could ever return to full public funding for higher education, not that anyone was seriously asking that that be done, what did you make of this (on the next page):

The national benefits of higher education are significant. Its total economic impact annually has been estimated to be $22 billion (BHERT, 2000). The average rate of return to the Government on its investment in higher education has been estimated at about 11 per cent (Borland et al, 2000). However, the greatest national benefits are those more difficult to measure and include the impact of graduates on productivity in the workplace, the impact of research outcomes on productivity and innovation and the social impacts of a more highly educated population.

V: You tell me, does that reflect the views of the Department or not? If it does, what the hell's he whinging about? But then he tells you, "Many submissions to the Review call for increased public funding to maintain or improve the quality of higher education. However, given the private benefits that accrue to the individual, it can be argued that any increased per capita investment could be funded in part by those who are directly advantaged." Won't they pay more taxes? As a cohort what are their relative contributions to charities, what amount of their time do they give to volunteer work. And you can go on. Just as one example hasn't Graeme Clark repaid the investment in his education many times over? And for those Australians that have studied overseas and returned with increased knowledge and capabilities at the host country's expense, have they on average upped their contribution to the common wealth? Just how carefully has the Minister determined the relative overall contributions of those that had different degrees of education. I sure don't know the answer but I'll bet he doesn't either. And all those "selected statistics" are they really there to enlighten? Sentence first, verdict afterwards as the Queen of Hearts decreed.

E: I see, we're back to the two ended dog. He says education's an investment but he acts like it's an expense. But, I'm still perplexed by this whole undertaking of the issues papers, which Dr. Nelson referred to as discussion papers in his latest media release, in any case he seems to be teaching those making submissions what they should be considering. I would have thought that informed submitters wouldn't take too kindly to be led by those supposedly seeking advice. Last time I looked there were 348 submissions in response to the Overview paper in the series, and reading through a fair selection of them, it seemed to me that they covered the issues that have been and are promised to be pointed up in the remaining five.

V: You know, one thing has struck me, there are no, call them 'high resolution road maps' laid out by anyone. If we're not working in a vacuum the atmosphere sure seems oxygen deprived. None of the major representative organisations has done more than paint a broad picture...

E: Hand waving exercise with a brush?

V: If you want, but none has tabled a detailed and carefully researched and thought out plan or set of alternatives for upgrading the Higher Education system. None has even come out and said point blank nobody knows what they're talking about because the research hasn't been done on what's needed with regard to infrastructure, as regards staffing, the dynamics of our "research universities" and what the interactions between top research universities and a second tier should be. How comprehensively has the Minister or those who advise him compared our institutions with the best of our cohort nations? What steps are those nations taking as regards public support for their universities, and what inducements are provided for their private sectors and philanthropies to contribute support to their higher education systems?

E: Vlad, there's nothing new about that, you saw how the Senate committee looking into how well universities fulfilled the nation's needs, did their "homework". Same sort of thing; 360 or so submissions and that was it. They didn't institute serious research into the matter.

V: I don't think they were in a position to.

E: Well I don't think the Group of Eight or the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee have the resources for that either.

V: Point taken. But they've not even told the Minister that that is one of the things his Department, his Government is for --  to utilise the resources they commandeer from the people to find out what the hell the parameters are. Instead we get this sort of pap at the beginning of the Setting Firm Foundations issues paper:

International comparisons can be useful in establishing benchmarks across a range of financial parameters. Up-to-date comparative data is difficult to obtain and is used only sparingly in this paper. In parallel with this Review, the Productivity Commission is undertaking an international comparative study of university financing arrangements. The results of this study will be taken into account in developing recommendations for Government consideration at the conclusion of this Review (para 6).

And then with regard to university infrastructure:

Investment in Infrastructure

71 The University of New South Wales argues for significant investment across the sector in infrastructure over the next five years:

To deal with the crumbling physical infrastructure of many universities (and extrapolating from the situation at UNSW) funding of at least $2.5 billion needs to be set aside by government for expenditure on capital development and deferred maintenance projects over the next five years.

(The University of New South Wales, Submission 143, p5)
 

72 Several other submissions pointed to the need for universities to maintain their investment in high cost infrastructure, such as libraries and ICT, to maintain standards and remain competitive both nationally and internationally.

That's it the total reference to infrastructure. If  the reason for promulgating these issues/discussion papers is to inform, as far as I'm concerned, it's a bad joke.

E: Vladimir, you're more cynical than me. Are you saying the Government is not only stalling so that no policy recommendations will be put before Cabinet until the nation is well into election mode, it's also wanting to hold the discussion in a state of relative ignorance?

V: I don't think it is cynicism; it's a realistic assessment of what's happening and those organisations representing our academics and researchers are compounding the problem by being so gentlemanly, and if that's a sexist remark, tough. No, I don't believe that the Government has set out to deliberately stifle intellectual excellence but relative to our cohort nations they're succeeding in doing so.

E: Come on, Vlad, enough chit chat; they're shutting the place up, let's see if the Waldorf on the Harbour has kept the room for us.

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web