VC’ s corner account for 94 per cent of domestic enrolment and have a median domestic cohort of about 21,000 students. Each university draws the majority of its domestic students from its local area, often within a radius of 20 – 30 kilometres.
Despite this, our student body is diverse. We must cater for undergraduates and postgraduates, coursework and research, school-leavers and mid-career professionals, and students from a wide range of domestic and international, geographic, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Even within any of the socalled student cohort groups, we must be responsive to the needs of individual learners. Moreover, our students require a broad range of outcomes and experiences to succeed in an increasingly competitive, complex and globalised world.
The Australian sector has been entrepreneurial and innovative, but responsiveness will always be compromised by over-regulation and a lack of autonomy. Moreover, a lack of systemic diversity in our sector – such as diversity in institutional type, size and control – has impeded choice and, most importantly, stifled diversity in teaching modes, research experiences and student support services. To encourage innovation from within, we must build a sector where more institutions of different shapes, sizes and structures can compete.
The current non-public higher education sector in Australia is too small. Private universities make up just 2 per cent of degree enrolments and a further 5 per cent are catered for by about 135 non-university private higher education providers. The scale of the non-public share is tiny compared with our school education system, where 35 per cent of students are enrolled in private institutions. Our system is also increasingly out of step with other higher education systems around the world.
Such a lack of diversity will compromise the student experience. Our students need a system that can provide, throughout their lives, the broad range of knowledge and experiences that are needed to prosper in our increasingly global economy. They need a high-quality academic education, skills that will help them succeed in their professional and private lives, international awareness, cultural intelligence and the transformational experiences that come from personal growth, new networks and close friendships. Our aspirations must be guided by what our students need.
Our current non-public institutions are either an accident of history or a result of a genuine belief that public structures do not always work, or a combination of both. The private sector has a role to play in market completeness. Other industries welcome the interaction and healthy competition provided through a mix of public and private providers. A classic example is our health sector. Why is education so different?
Perhaps the answer lies partially in the confusion over the charters of private institutions. The private sector includes a mix of non-profit and for-profit organisations. Sometimes we tend to lump them all in the same basket.
There is also a general perception that non-public providers will somehow be of lower quality and higher risk. The evidence from overseas runs counter to this. Of the universities most commonly ranked in the global top 10, only three are public. Non-public universities have to be marketoriented. Their brand and reputation are non-negotiable and fiercely protected.
In Australia, we launched a national body charged with responsibility for assuring quality and protecting our brand. TEQSA began life with lofty ideals and a proportionate approach to regulation. Some in the sector would argue that TEQSA lost its way, but most accept that a central agency is a worthy concept if it is approached in a balanced manner. Any form of regulation needs to walk the fine line between protecting consumers and ensuring freedom for innovation. Overregulation impedes the ability to innovate and experiment. We have learned the lesson in recent years that a one-size-fitsall approach will not work.
So, as a sector, how do we balance the needs of the student with the increasing demands placed on universities to undertake research and meet the academic, cultural and economic needs of their local communities? Equalising government support for Australians who choose to study in a higher education institution other than a traditional public university is a good start.
We must accept that greater diversity will create different educational opportunities, student experiences, cost structures and points of balance between the public and private contributions. As institutions, we must also get used to the more volatile forces of a less-regulated market.
The renewed challenge for each of us will be to become even more certain of who we are, and of the particular mix of education, experience and environment that defines the learning experience we can give our students. We must be able to articulate our strengths and differentiators to inform the market and attract those students who will get the most value from the experiences we each offer. Most importantly, we need to deliver for our students, because the market will be unforgiving. ■
Professor Tim Brailsford is Bond University vice-chancellor.
campusreview. com. au | 21