The Socialisation of University Funding

You cannot elevate yourself by bringing others down to a mediocre level. 

Actor Cate Blanchett at Macquarie University where she addressed Macquarie University graduates, in Sydney, Australia, Sept. 25, 2014. AAP Image/Dean Lewins

Commentary

“You can’t lift yourself up by bringing others down” is a well-known but often neglected aphorism. It comes to mind when reading the final report of the Universities Accord which was released on Feb. 25, 2024.

Among the 47 recommendations is a controversial proposal—recommendation 43—to create a Higher Education Future Fund (HEFF) “to cope with projected future enrolment growth.”

HEFF would be funded by “co-contributions from public universities and government with the aim of reaching $10 billion in assets.”

It further stipulates that the co-contributions should come “from universities’ untied own source revenue” and should “control the adverse impact on universities with limited capacity to contribute.”

The distribution of returns would be invested in projects informed by the advice of an independent board and would “recognise universities’ capacity to pay.”

In order to pay their co-contribution, it is likely that universities will need to increase international student fees. But can it be assumed that international students will come if the fees become too high?

This co-contribution has already been characterised by one vice-chancellor as a “wealth tax” on the revenue of Australia’s most prosperous institutions of higher learning.

It is likely that Australia’s richest and oldest universities will oppose this recommendation, but the new and less prosperous institutions are likely welcome it.

Its implementation would surely contribute to, or result in, the leveling of the quality of all institutions of higher learning.

Indeed, the search for excellence could be impeded if the recommendation was adopted. You simply cannot elevate yourself by bringing others down.

Crabs in a Bucket

The idea that university education is a search for excellence—so richly demonstrated in the writings of Cardinal John Henry Newman and Alfred North Whitehead—would have been abandoned in favour of outcomes that are deemed to be more equitable.

In this context, it is fair to speculate about the impact of the proposed new funding model on initiative-taking and entrepreneurship by second-tier universities, for which it would become easier to maintain and improve their place in the market.

Meanwhile, as prosperous academic institutions pay the progressive “tax,” there would be less money for research and community-oriented activities.

Put simply, opponents will say the proposed redistribution is nothing more than a socialist fantasy.

Although the report is full of admirable aspirations, it encourages institutions to compare themselves to others, thereby neglecting their own strengths and weaknesses.

It nurtures the politics of envy and continues to cultivate a feeling that “if I cannot get something, nobody else is entitled to get it.”

This is the destructive policy behind this recommendation.

Push for More Students Also Strange

The report, in a most important second recommendation, dealing with attainment targets, also advocates the doubling of the number of university and TAFE students within 25 years.

Specifically, the report envisages that the sector should deliver “a skilled workforce to meet the changing needs of the economy through a tertiary education attainment target of at least 80 percent of the working age population with at least one tertiary qualification (Certificate III and above) by 2050 compared with 60 percent in 2023.”

This would indeed be a sizable increase, considering that statistical analysis and trends project Australia’s population to reach 35.9 million in 2050.

The report thus assumes that an increase in the number of university students is good for Australia.

If the number of university students were to be doubled within 25 years, there is a danger that a university education would no longer be regarded as valuable.

In addition, there appears to be a trend to ensure that university attrition rates are kept exceptionally low, sometimes resulting in students ending up almost illiterate.

Only a few weeks ago, a report was released by the Grattan Institute that indicates that one-third of primary and high school students cannot read proficiently and, if that is true, they cannot write properly either.

If these students were encouraged to enroll in a university course, they would be deprived of pursuing a career that is more in line with their aspirations and skill sets.

The claim that Australia needs more tertiary enrolment in the next 25 years to meet the nation’s skills needs, is perplexing.

Is it not the case that the country would be better off with less, not more, university graduates?

This question is especially germane in an education environment that already graduates students whose degrees do not make them employment-ready.

Australia needs tradespeople, who live and work in the real world and do not further the bureaucratisation of this country with university graduates who often lack practical skills.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.