What’s a university to do?

Written By: - Date published: 11:11 am, July 16th, 2010 - 38 comments
Categories: education - Tags: , ,

Some people still think of universities as fusty old ivory towers disconnected from the real world. That hasn’t been true for decades (if it was ever true at all). Our current universities and tertiary institutions are business, they are structured and run to maximise their income in whatever funding framing the government of the day has in place.

Hence as the majority of current funding is based on “bums on seats” we see money wasted on advertising campaigns, and in some unfortunate cases we have seen low quality or sham courses just so more bums can be claimed. Good for education? No.

As some funding has shifted to the “Performance Based Research Fund” (PBRF) we see universities engaging in various tactics to maximise their scores, including getting rid of or reclassifying research inactive teachers, and “encouraging” their staff to spend more time on research and less on teaching. Good for education? No.

Now we have proposals for yet another funding framework, and it’s the worst yet:

Joyce wants university funding linked to jobs

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce says part of the new model includes setting performance targets that focus on course and qualification completion.

Ultimately, he would like to take things a step further by linking employment outcomes to the performance-based model.

So what’s a university to do? Course and qualification completion is easy. That’s an open invitation to “grade inflation”. Government wants a 100% completion rate? Give it to them! Good for education? No.

The proposal to link funding to employment outcomes is “interesting” – let’s punish the universities for the vagaries of an economy over which they have no control! Comparing different institutions within the economy is back to league table thinking, with all the same logical problems. An institution with an elite intake does well even if its performance is mediocre, an institution with a less favoured intake is punished even if its teaching is magnificent. Good for education? No.

Here’s a radical alternative. Recognise that a university education should be something much richer and much more that a sausage factory trying to cram vast numbers of students into any possible entry level job. Funding based on peer reviewed assessment of both teaching quality and research quality equally, with a base rate depending on student numbers (and institutional advertising strictly capped at a very low spend). Done. But it will never happen of course. Instead we’ll get more nonsense from the anti-education government.

38 comments on “What’s a university to do? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lew 1
    16 July 2010 at 11:19 am

    It’s right there in the name — university. A place which teaches you about everything, life and the universe. Taking a job-outcome based approach to funding is more appropriately named for something smaller and more humdrum — like maybe galaxity, or planetsity. But this approach won’t even care about those things.

    So I propose that this be referred to as a marketsity funding model. Because it looks like that’s what it’ll be.

    L

  2. Carol 2
    16 July 2010 at 11:39 am

    I think since the rise of neoliberalism has shifted education from a broader focus on education for citizenship and a critical thinking necessary for a democracy to thrive, to this narrow focus on it’s role as a business preparing potential workers for the workforce.

    But good education prepares us for all aspects of life in democracy, and it is an education for life. I am still influenced by a stage one course I took in education at my first year at Uni. It was a brief tour through Western European approaches to education beginning, as I recall, with the Ancient Greeks. The main theme was how education policies had fluctuated between a practical utilitarian approach and a pursuit of knowledge as a good in itself. And it related these continual shifts to historical and social change. It also was at a time when teaching people to think critically about society was strongly valued.

    I forget many of the details, but these main ideas have stayed with me as I have watched the neoliberal story unfold. It gave me a basis for thinking critically about how and why governments make changes to education policies.

    I was teaching in the UK when Thatcher started on her neoliberal agenda for education (she really didn’t like teachers at all). I recall a speech by one senior member of our teaching staff on his retirement. He was an ex-pat white South African. He was critical of the shift to measuring short-term educational outcomes, with a narrow focus on vocational skills.

    This old, but quite wise bloke, said the dangers of this is that you can teach people to be know how to be efficient workers, but you fail to teach them to critically examine why they are doing a job. He resorted to the Godwin gambit for an example, but I took it to be a thinly veiled analogy for his background in Sth Africa (which at that time, was in the dying days of its apartheid regime). He said the danger of a narrow vocational approach is that you could teach someone to be an efficient worker at something like a concentration camp, who just follows orders, without ever questioning them.

    • Bored 2.1
      16 July 2010 at 2:19 pm

      Interesting indeed. One of the earlier comments (Lew) said about university having a broad focus, your Saffer teacher obviously understood this implicitly. The symptom we have now is the focus upon expertise, particularly managerial / legal / economic, all applied in a vacuum. The expression of Joyces policy is employers being provided with experts who know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

      • Carol 2.1.1
        16 July 2010 at 2:25 pm

        Well at the moment, as I understand it, all students need to take some gen ed courses. So I think most doing degrees that lead to the professions (law, accountancy etc), also take some arts courses. Is Joyce planning to change that?

  3. ianmac 3
    16 July 2010 at 11:57 am

    It would be interesting to find out how many graduates ended up in the work that they had specifically trained for. I do know of many who were successful:
    A woman with a Science degree who became an Air-traffic Controller.
    A BA in Greek who is managing a horse stud farm in the UK.
    A bloke who started off in Veteranry who ended up in politics and is now cutting back on Tertiary.
    A bloke who trained as a woodwork teacher and throws his weight around in the House.
    Another bloke who has a degree in Economics and is now an expert in everything especially Political Photo Shooting.
    MEd who is tutoring Arab teachers on the use of Computers.
    A local chap with a BA who is the labourer for sewage blockage clearing.

    So is a University Education a springboard for a huge range of skills cross referenced for a wide range of jobs? And the current generation is likely to have many different employments in a lifetime many of which haven’t been thought of yet, so why focus as Joyce is about to do?.

  4. burt 4
    16 July 2010 at 12:41 pm

    When we were in the unfortunate position of haing the country run in the best interests of the Labour party Cullen suggested that tertiary funding should be adjusted to reflect the employment needs of the govt. Of course when Labour suggested that they fund based on best interests of the govt, rather than the individual, that was good. However when National suggest we should fund based on the best interests of the country, rather than the individidual, that is bad.

    • Lew 4.1
      16 July 2010 at 12:49 pm

      I think the core dispute here is about whether “equipping graduates for the marketplace” is what universities are for — let alone what’s in the best interests of the country.

      L

  5. Shane 5
    16 July 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Universities are for educating people – not training – that is what polytechs are for. You educate someone how to think – you train someone to do a task. Neo-liberals want us all to be unthinking wageslaves trained to do a particular task – ie. to make them money. This is another clear attack on the working and middle classes – to disempower us so that they can get on with their agenda of moving wealth up to the elite class. This is class warfare and the elite are winning.

    • burt 5.1
      16 July 2010 at 1:24 pm

      Not according to Dr. Cullen.

      Scoop: AUS Tertiary Update April 2006

      Announcing the new model, Dr Cullen said that the Government wants to put in place new incentives and mechanisms so that tertiary institutions are driven to improve the quality of courses, and to ensure they have greater relevance to the needs of the economy.

    • loota 5.2
      16 July 2010 at 1:39 pm

      I have to say, there are some undergrad degree courses out there which are not only of low relevance to the economy, but don’t provide anything like a well rounded education in how to think, reflect and analyse. Worst of both worlds.

  6. Carol 6
    16 July 2010 at 2:09 pm

    I don’t think the split between pollie’s or tech colleges and Unis is so relevant anymore. And the Unis have long provided vocational training for the middle classes (doctors, lawyres, accountants etc), while the vocational courses at poly/tech colleges were more those for the working classes.

    IMO, a democratic and liberal uni education would provide a good balance between vocational preparation and liberal courses relevant to the wider society and life of people, not just work. And it should always be of as high a quality as possible.

    Education does need to adapt to social and economic change, but it has usually done that in the context of struggles between the ruling and subject classes.

    In Britain, for instance, a literate education was for the upperclasses only, both as a marker of their superiority & because literacy was practically necessary to the owner & managerial classes.

    Following industrialisation and urbanisation, a primary education was introduced, mainly to educate potential workers, and to socialise them into living in cities, in a way that the rulers could control.

    After WW2 in many Western European countries, there was a shift towards a more liberal and democratic education for all – partly as pay back for the united war effort, but also because of changes to technology, the rise in popularity in liberal democratic beliefs, and a rise in consumer society – decline in manual jobs, more jobs requiring literacy, numeracy etc.

    But part of the neoliberal approach has been to manage the continued decline in manual jobs and rise of digital technologies, in a way that takes control back to the ruling/managerial classes.

    With unis they seem to want to have the system dominated by economic relevance in at least two ways, and that may be producing some contradictory results:
    1) they want the system to be run like a business – hence funding for bums on seats and results, leading to providing more of the popular courses, which may or may not be of high quality.
    2) they want the courses to be more geared towards vocational training.

    • simon 6.1
      19 July 2010 at 8:23 am

      I don’t see much value in trying to bring universities down to the level of vocational training… doctors get their academic and vocational training separately, by and large … lawyers get a degree, then get their vocational training in the profession as juniors… i’m assuming accountants are much the same, in that they are of no use to anyone when they are fresh out of university (and then don’t progress far from there).

      By all means open up access to a decent education to all, but trying to equate an education with vocational training as some sort of class distinction doesn’t help anyone.

  7. Green Tea 7
    16 July 2010 at 3:00 pm

    The PBRF model first occurred under the beloved 5th Labour Government in 2003, happened again in 2006, and will happen again in 2012. You can’t have a go at Joyce without acknowledging Labour’s part in implementing its own performance based funding.

    • burt 7.1
      16 July 2010 at 3:23 pm

      It was OK when Labour did it.

    • r0b 7.2
      16 July 2010 at 3:35 pm

      Did you read the post GT? Burt? Comprehension fail. It doesn’t argue against PBRF, it argues that it needs to be balanced by an equal emphasis on good teaching.

      • burt 7.2.1
        16 July 2010 at 6:29 pm

        I took this, from the post, as an argument PBRF;

        “The proposal to link funding to employment outcomes is “interesting’ let’s punish the universities for the vagaries of an economy over which they have no control!”

        You make a solid point, the universities have no control over the economy or it’s demands in terms of either volume of or qualifications of students. I agree we need balance but I think we also need clarity, so what were you saying that I perhaps got so wrong?

        • r0b 7.2.1.1
          16 July 2010 at 7:27 pm

          You’re pretty confused at this point Burt. PBRF and the proposed funding link to employment outcomes are two completely different issues.

        • burt 7.2.1.2
          16 July 2010 at 8:41 pm

          Indeed, I crossed more than a few wires there. I apologise.

          I’m interested to hear your views on incentives to ensure uni courses have greater relevance to the needs of the economy?

          • r0b 7.2.1.2.1
            17 July 2010 at 12:09 am

            I’m interested to hear your views on incentives to ensure uni courses have greater relevance to the needs of the economy?

            I think that the whole concept is misguided short term thinking burt.

            What are the needs of the economy tomorrow? In five years? 15? 25? Do you know? Does anyone? Do you trust the government to pick winners burt?

            The best preparation for a lifetime capacity to contribute to the economy is, as it has always been, the ability to think and the ability to learn.

            Universities should not be channelled by “big government” or misguided short term micro-managing. They should not chase the fads of the latest technologies that will be all but obsolete before the first batch of students can be “trained” and graduated. Universities should do what at their best they have always done – foster the capacity for critical thought and a love of learning.

            • loota 7.2.1.2.1.1
              18 July 2010 at 1:27 am

              r0b the correct position should be to ensure that uni courses have greater relevance to the needs of New Zealand society (of which the economy makes up *one part*).

              Everything flows on properly from that premise.

  8. Irascible 8
    16 July 2010 at 3:31 pm

    The Joycean policy is consistent with the Tolley national standards policy. i.e. National Standards will ensure “literate” and “numerate” individuals emerge from the schools. Requiring Universities to ensure the graduates are employed in a job that is degree relevant ensures that Universities don’t create courses that are “irrelevant to the economy” which should dispense with the History, Arts, Philosophy and other non-work related / required subjects. It should mean an increase in “useful” subjects like accountancy, management, physical science and technology – concrete subjects rather than abstract ones thus ensuring that the standards are directly met.
    This is, in the Joycean-Tolleyian model perfect economic sense.

    • Roger 8.1
      18 July 2010 at 12:59 am

      Outside of this, even physical science and technology subjects could be put under threat if businesses that hire graduates in these fields decide to outsource their operations. Then the rug will really be pulled out from under these faculties and we will lose our best scientists and engineers and have no way of replacing them.

  9. exbrethren 9
    16 July 2010 at 3:40 pm

    I wonder if Steven Joyce would care to clarify the status of a zoology degree as regards employment outcomes. Is that the smell of hypocrisy on his breath?

    • Luxated 9.1
      17 July 2010 at 1:34 am

      Well looking at the Nati…

      I wont finish that sentence lest I get banned.

      The less controversial statement would be:

      It means he has a degree in troughing!

  10. tsmithfield 10
    16 July 2010 at 4:36 pm

    I think we need a lot less people in University, not more. I used to mark undergrad papers during my post grad years (approx 7 years ago). Honestly, the quality of a lot of the work was appalling, and an insult to the name “university”. A lot of people just haven’t got the right thinking style for university and would be better suited to polytech or the like.

    University should be reserved for those of the highest ability. Our school system should focus on identifying those individuals, and we should be ensuring that income is not a barrier for the best talent to get there.

    • Puddleglum 10.1
      16 July 2010 at 8:44 pm

      “Our school system should focus on identifying those individuals”

      TS, most of the relevant developmental literature suggests that the word ‘identifying’ in your comment could more sensibly be substituted with the word ‘creating’. And, of course, that process of creation implicates many social processes, structures, etc. other than the schools.

      Yes, newly minted postgrads are, in my experience, quite intolerant of the mistakes of undegrads and, like you, commit the fundamental attribution error in sheeting home the cause of the poor performance to something within the individual student rather than to broader factors and processes.

  11. Puddleglum 11
    16 July 2010 at 8:06 pm

    I think it’s important to note that Joyce wasn’t just talking about being able to ‘get a job’ with degree, X, Y or Z. Repeatedly in the interview on Morning Report he talked of the income and salaries that get earnt by people with different degrees. That is, he wants to institute some reporting on the dollar return of a degree. It’s not just about jobs it’s about how well paid the job is. Why would you want government funding to be based (‘partly’, as he kept insisting) on the amount of financial return to the individual???

    A couple of points spring to mind, here. First, will he also make available information on how particular ‘careers’ provide other kinds of rewards and make other kinds of contributions to society? Similarly, will there be reporting on some measure of harm that particular careers have on society? If the answer is ‘no’ to both then, why not? As economists often argue, it’s important to do a ‘full accounting’ if you don’t want unintended consequences.

    Second, according to the Guradian the Coalition government in Britain is proposing to tax graduates on the basis of their future earnings (i.e., more tax for those who earn more). I wonder if Joyce thinks that is a good idea too?

  12. Puddleglum 12
    16 July 2010 at 8:17 pm

    On the point of the harm to society and the economy that various careers have, does anyone else recall the interview sometime earlier this year on National Radio (probably either the Saturday or Sunday programme) about an economic study of just that? I think Financial analysts, for one, came off quite negative in sum (economic sum).

  13. r0b 13
    17 July 2010 at 4:14 pm

    The Tertiary Education Union comments:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1007/S00051.htm

    Steven Joyce’s suggestion this afternoon that tertiary funding should be linked to employment outcomes rather than academic outcomes is a dangerous path to propose. That is the view of TEU national president Dr Tom Ryan. …

    “The risk of this approach is that institutions which can get students to take cheap quick qualifications with good short-term employment prospects are likely to be much better rewarded,” said Dr Ryan. “Meanwhile, those which maintain higher academic standards but are teaching students about issues and subjects that may not have immediate application to students’ employment prospects could suffer.”

    “Providing job skills is important, but it is just one aspect of a broader tertiary education. It would be a shame to see institutions being encouraged by government to water down their commitment to teaching and research programmes that explore social and cultural and other dimensions that can not show immediate economic or employment outcomes.”

    “The short-term whims of employers cannot be the key driver for the quality and direction of education that our young people receive,” said Dr Ryan.

  14. RobertM 14
    18 July 2010 at 2:21 pm

    To some extent the more market approach to education was more apparent in the days of Douglas and Richardson than it is under Joyce. In the early and mid l990s most core commerce courses had fairly tight caps on entry numbers and the days of Shipley and Clark saw a return to more open access.
    In some senses in the rather small NZ education longterm study in the NZ education system narrows your employment options. In the late l970s a reasonably good BA was quite interesting to employers but a later 2/2 Masters in Political Science an almost total disqualification for even Government jobs , particularly if you didn’t have economics at the time. By the late l970s even with Governmnet departments the prime interest was whether you had any economics. And by l980 as Roger Bartley the careers officer at Vic said to me the requirement now was to have stage 2 economics. By that time even before Lange got into power the employers had become very business oriented, partly because of the already apparent influence of Kerr and Scott on government employment and because Muldoon was prepared to do anything to expand low grade employment but was extremely hostile to creating long term graduate employment and tight caps on employment by all the top government departments Treasury, Foreign Affairs, T& I and Transport were created almost from the start. At the time if I couldn’t get such a job I prefered to do nothing other than a bit of writing because I didn’t want to work in the traffic branch of the rail selling freight space and I didn’t believe I would have been any good at the bank jobs I was offered.
    Basically when I returned to varisity 20 years later – I really wanted to escape from the somewhat political journalism I had been involved with and do something not political ,not controversial where there were lots of chicks to talk to . In a way the first decade of the twenty first century was a way where I recieved a thorough right wing indoctrination in market society and capitalism. Commercial Law and Competition Law at Canterbury, the equivalents of the Law of Contract such as AFIS l51 and just about every business and management course that emphasised the nature of contracts and the limited liability company combined with stage 3 ECON at Vic when I went back their for a couple of years successfully indoctrinated me in the way somewhat left Political Science hadn’t in the l970s and l980s, partly because I’d specialised even then in relatively right wing international relations and defence and transport studies and Canterbury Pol Science tooks its lead from Treasury and Economics in the early l980s nuturing the future rogernmoes. I was not exposed to more liberal education in the varisties north of Taupo with there focus on European social democracy and there had not even been any left wing teachers at T>B>H>S in the deep south where many of the chief activists against the Clark consensus were initially educated.

Links to post