Melbourne University's V-C Has a Few Words of Advice For His Academic Colleagues. (September 20, 2007)

The University of Melbourne's vice-chancellor, Glyn Davis, gave a speech a last night to alumni of the university.

Some excerpts:

Glyn Davis  Photo: Nicole Emanuel

The decline in funding that began in 1976 continued through subsequent governments, Liberal and Labor. Governments learned they could cut funding, and increase student costs, with remarkably little political consequence. And if the public proved unconcerned about spending on higher education, it showed even less interest in its policy framework.

The Howard Government, which has made major changes in areas such as taxation, employment services and Commonwealth-state relations, has not seen higher education as a major priority. The system invented in the Dawkins era — tight regulation from Canberra and student contributions through HECS supplemented by fee-paying students — remains largely intact.

Think about what was achieved by those economists who campaigned from the 1960s for the end of tariffs and a more open, deregulated Australia. Almost all of these proposals were unpopular in isolation, yet leading politicians took risks and the pay-off was profound. Economic change delivered the longest run of prosperity in the nation's history.

We have a long way to go in creating the same consensus around higher education. Vice-chancellors complain there is not enough public spending on education. Governments respond by criticising the efficiency of universities, students by claiming that fees are too high, business by suggesting the quality of graduates needs attention.

It is easy to blame someone else but in practice, the fault lies with the sector. We have no consistent message. We may complain bitterly that university places are inadequately funded, but we still scramble to secure more when the government seeks expressions of interest in additional provision. We have not put forward policy proposals with anything like the intellectual rigour provided by Treasury or by the Productivity Commission.

In January 2001 TFW wrote in its "About TFW" page: What we don't know and can't do because we don't know is hurting us. Don't expect our elected leaders to show overly much initiative. Indications are that much policy and budget commitment is based on commissioned opinion polls. We have to show the pollsters who in turn can pass the information up the line.

"Clever Country", "Knowledge Nation", "Intellectual Society" Does the description really matter? But what is profoundly important is: 

"Science, engineering and technology underpin our future as a thriving cultured and responsible community." [Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr. Robin Batterham – not an "ivory towered" academic but industry based]. Add to that education & learning and you've got a good mix, a very good mix.  

1. Currently Australia is not keeping pace with its cohorts in living standard. It's not stagnant, but it's rate of progress is causing us to fall increasingly behind.
   

2. If a national will exists, then we can certainly catch up and stay up. Without that resolve, there's no way in the world we'll manage it – we're not that lucky a country.
   

3. But we also need the tools to do the job. Those to whom we've entrusted power have the means to provide them if we get them to realise that we expect them to do so – or we can move them on.

So what is the solution?
To regard as valuable - learning, knowledge, and their utilisation. That's it.
It's that simple to state and it'll be damned hard to accomplish. One thing's certain; there'll be no quick fix.

The resources boom has staved off (1) although we're told the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening. And when the boom diminishes, what's plan B.

Now 6 years and 9 months later it's Professor Davis, speaking from a much loftier perch, making much the same plea.