Tertiary education (or higher education) in Australia is primarily study at University or a Technical college[1] in order to receive a qualification or further skills and training.[2]
A tertiary education institution is a body that is established or recognised by or under the law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory. The provider has to be approved by the Australian Government before it can receive grants or its students can receive assistance from the Australian Government under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA).
A higher education provider meets the minimum requirements of being established under the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, carrying on business in Australia with its central management and control in Australia; and its main purpose is to provide education and or to conduct research. A higher education provider either fulfils the tuition assurance requirements or is exempted from those requirements by the minister.[3][4]
A higher education provider must be a university, self-accrediting provider or a non-self-accrediting provider.
In 2009, the Australian higher education system consisted of:
The non-self-accrediting higher education providers form a very diverse group of specialised, mainly private, providers that range in size and include theological colleges and other providers that offer courses in areas such as business, information technology, natural therapies, hospitality, health, law and accounting.
Contents |
Australian universities are represented through the national universities' lobbying body Universities Australia (previously called Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee). Eight universities in the list have grouped themselves together, in recognition of their perceived status and/or history, and classify themselves as the ‘Group of Eight (Australian universities)’ or ‘G8’. Other university networks also exist with less prominence (e.g., the Australian Technology Network of Universities; the Innovative Research Universities - Australia group). The completion of "year 12" is the basic requirement for university entry, although there are numerous alternative entry schemes.
The Commonwealth has the primary responsibility for public funding of higher education. Commonwealth funding support for higher education is provided largely through:
The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) administers Commonwealth funding and develops and administers higher education policy and programs.
Decision-making, regulation and governance for higher education are shared among the Commonwealth, the State and Territory Governments and the institutions themselves.
By definition within Australia, universities are self-accrediting institutions and each university has its own establishment legislation (generally State and Territory legislation) and receive the vast majority of their public funding from the Australian Government, through the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
Some aspects of higher education are the responsibility of States and Territories. In particular, most universities are established or recognised under State and Territory legislation.
The Australian National University, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Maritime College are established under Commonwealth legislation.
The Australian Catholic University is established under corporations law. It has establishment Acts in New South Wales and Victoria.
Many private providers are also established under corporations law.
States and Territories are also responsible for accrediting non-self-accrediting higher education providers.
As self-accrediting institutions, Australia’s universities have a reasonably high level of autonomy to operate within the legislative requirements associated with their Australian Government funding.
The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) provides descriptors for qualifications accredited through the higher education sector, as well as those accredited by the vocational and technical education sector and the schools sector. All accredited higher education providers are listed on the AQF register.
Use of copyright material by Australian educational institutions is permitted by the Commonwealth Attorney General under licensing arrangements through the Copyright Agency Ltd.
In Australia, the classification of tertiary qualifications is governed in part by the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which attempts to integrate into a single classification all levels of tertiary education (both vocational and higher education), from trade certificates to higher doctorates.
However, as Australian universities (and a few similar higher education institutions) largely regulate their own courses, the primary usage of AQF is for vocational education. However in recent years there have been some informal moves towards standardization between higher education institutions.
In Australia, higher education awards are classified as follows:
In some courses, honours is awarded on the basis of performance throughout the course (usually in 4yr+ courses), but normally honours consists of undertaking a year of research (e.g. a short thesis or Masters by Research). If honours is undertaken as an extra year, it is known as an honours degree rather than a degree with honours. Generally, one must be invited by the university to do Honours as an additional year of study, as opposed to being something a student can apply for and it is often only offered to the highest ranking students of that year group.
Honours may be divided into First Class, Second Class (normally divided into Division I and Division II), and Third Class. This is roughly equivalent to the American classification of summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude. Individuals who do not attempt honours, or who fail their honours course, are awarded a degree with a grade of Pass.
In many cases a student with only a Pass Bachelor's degree can enroll in a Masters program and then transfer to a PhD. Australian PhDs do not tend to take as long as American or British ones, and consist of less coursework than most American PhDs; however this is contrasted by Australian PhDs often being more specific in focus than their American or British counterparts. There are also professional doctorates which consist of advanced coursework and a substantial project in an area such as education (DEd). There is no concept of a "first-professional doctorate" like those awarded in the United States.
Australian Universities tend to award more named degrees than institutions in some other countries. Most Australian universities offer several different named degrees per a faculty. This is primarily for marketing purposes. Universities often try to outdo each other by offering the only degree titled with a popular major.
By contrast, at an undergraduate level at Oxford University, almost all students complete a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), even if they are studying areas such as Chemistry or Economics, whereas at most Australian institutions only students choosing to concentrate in the humanities would be awarded a B.A. However, although there is a large proliferation at the level of Bachelors and Masters, at the Doctorate and Higher Doctorate level most institutions only have four or five degrees in all, and almost all Doctorates are PhDs.
Unlike American institutions, where most medical doctors or lawyers will graduate with an M.D. or J.D., medical doctors and solicitors in Australia generally only graduate with Bachelor's degrees. However, in the University of Melbourne, such degrees will be awarded soon under the Melbourne Model. In Australia, a degree of Doctor is only awarded after original research or honoris causa, although by custom medical doctors are permitted to assume that title without having completed a doctorate.
In the case of medical doctors, the most common award is M.B.B.S., the double degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (this is similar to the case in Britain). The most common award for lawyers is the LL.B. (Latin abbreviation for Bachelor of Laws).
Traditionally in Australia, medical degrees were commenced immediately after secondary education, unlike in the United States where student generally complete an undergraduate degree first before going to medical school. However, some universities have introduced graduate entry only degrees in medicine, but these are still classified as Bachelors degrees.
Law is commonly studied as a combined degree, such as with Arts or Science (BA/LLB, BSc/LLB), with only a small number of places available for a 'straight' law degree. The large number of combined courses enable students to develop skills in a diverse range of areas. Another common combination is Commerce and Law, which opens up many positions in business, commerce and industry. The Law degree in Australia is seeing fewer graduates going on to become practicing solicitors; instead many graduates take work in private industry or government sectors.
Australian Bachelors degrees are usually 3 years in duration, however some are four or five years. The length of the degree usually depends on the field of study; for example engineering usually takes four years while undergraduate-entry medicine or architecture takes five or six. Combined degrees are also available and usually add an extra year of study. Australian universities tend to have less of an emphasis on a liberal education than many universities in the US, which is reflected in the shorter length of Australian degrees.
Associate's degree have recently been introduced. These generally take two years to complete and can be seen as equivalent to the Associate's degree in the US and the Foundation Degree in the UK. They are also equivalent to the older Australian qualifications the Diploma and the Advanced Diploma.
Prior to the 1980s health science disciplines were being established by Colleges of Advanced Education, who were forbidden to award "degrees". Courses were conducted and classified as a "Diploma of Applied Science in (discipline)". These courses had considerable content requirements, some having over 32 contact hours per week over a three year period. These "diplomas" have been somewhat devalued by the newer naming conventions, as some diploma courses conducted nowadays may only consist of attending 12 training days for a total of less than 72 contact hours. However, many former "diplomates" have either converted or upgraded their DipAppScis to the corresponding Bachelor degree, or have undertaken further post graduate study.
The first university established in Australia was the University of Sydney in 1850, followed in 1853 by the University of Melbourne. Prior to federation in 1901 two more universities were established: University of Adelaide (1874), University of Tasmania (1890). At the time of federation, Australia's population was 3,788,100 and there were fewer than 2,652 university students. Two other universities were established soon after federation: University of Queensland (1909) and the University of Western Australia (1911). All of these universities were controlled by State governments and were largely modeled on the traditional British university system and adopted both architectural and educational features in line with the (then) strongly influential ‘mother’ country. In his paper Higher Education in Australia: Structure, Policy and Debate Jim Breem observed that in 1914 only 3,300 students (or 0.1% of the Australian population) were enrolled in Universities. In 1920 the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) was formed to represent the interests of these six universities.
The ‘non-university’ institutions originally issued only trade/technical certificates, diplomas and professional Bachelor’s degrees. Although universities were differentiated from technical colleges and institutes of technology through their participation in research, Australian universities were initially not established with research as a significant component of their overall activities. For this reason, the Australian Government established the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in 1926 as a backbone for Australian scientific research. The CSIRO still exists today as a legacy, despite the fact that it essentially duplicates the role now undertaken by Australian universities.
Two university colleges and no new universities were established before World War II. On the eve of the War, Australia's population reached seven million. The university participation level was relatively low. Australia had six universities and two university colleges with combined student numbers of 14,236. 10,354 were degree students (including only 81 higher degree students) and almost 4,000 sub-degree or non-award students.
In 1942, the Universities Commission was created to regulate university enrolments and the implementation of the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme (CRTS).
After the war, in recognition of the increased demand for teachers for the "baby boom" generation and the importance of higher education in national economic growth, the Commonwealth Government took an increased role in the financing of higher education from the States. In 1946 the Australian National University was created by an Act of Federal Parliament as a national research only institution (research and postgraduate research training for national purposes). By 1948 there were 32,000 students enrolled, under the impetus of CRTS.
In 1949 the University of New South Wales was established.
During the 1950s enrollments increased by 30,000 and participation rates doubled.
In 1950 the Mills Committee Inquiry into university finances, focusing on short-term rather than long-term issues, resulted in the State Grants (Universities) Act 1951 being enacted (retrospective to 1 July 1950). It was a short-term scheme under which the Commonwealth contributed one quarter of the recurrent costs of "State" universities.
In 1954 the University of New England was established. In that year, Prime Minister the Robert Menzies established the Committee on Australian Universities. The Murray Committee Inquiry of 1957 found that financial stringency was the root cause of the shortcomings across universities: short staffing, poor infrastructure, high failure rates, weak honours and postgraduate schools. It also accepted the financial recommendations in full which led to increased funds to the sector and establishment of Australian Universities Commission (AUC) and that the Commonwealth Government should accepted greater responsibility for the States’ universities.
In 1958 Monash University was established. States Grants (Universities) Act 1958 allocated funding to States for capital and recurrent expenditure in universities for the triennial 1958 to 1960. In 1959 the Australian Universities Commission Act 1959 established the AUC as a statutory body to advise the Commonwealth Government on university matters. Between 1958 and 1960 there was more than a 13% annual increase in university enrollments. By 1960 there were 53,000 students in ten universities. There was a spate of universities established in the 1960s and 70s: Macquarie University (1964), La Trobe University (1964), the University of Newcastle (1965), Flinders University (1966), James Cook University (1970), Griffith University (1971), Deakin University (1974), Murdoch University (1975), University of Wollongong (1975). By 1960, the number of students enrolled in Australian Universities had reached 53,000. By 1975 there were 148,000 students in 19 universities.
Until 1973 university tuition was funded either through Commonwealth scholarships which were based on merit or through fees. Tertiary education in Australia was structured into three sectors:
During the early 1970s, there was a significant push to make tertiary education in Australia more accessible to working and middle class Australians. In 1973, the Whitlam Labor Government abolished university fees. This decision did not greatly change the socio-economic backgrounds of students attending universities because only 20 to 25 percent of students paid fees as most had Commonwealth scholarships. Another reason for the lack of change was because low high school retention rates had resulted in many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds not completing secondary education and therefore never having the opportunity to choose to attend university. Nevertheless there was an increase in the university participation rate.
In 1974 the Commonwealth assumed full responsibility for funding higher education (universities and CAEs) and established the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) which had an advisory role and responsibility for allocating government funding among universities. But in 1975, in the context of federal political crisis and economic recession, triennial funding of universities was suspended. Demand remained with growth directed to CAEs and State-controlled TAFE colleges.
By the mid 1980s, however, it became the consensus of both major parties that the concept of ‘free’ tertiary education in Australia was untenable due to the increasing participation rate. Ironically, a subsequent Labor Government (the Bob Hawke/Paul Keating Government) was responsible for gradually re-introducing fees for University study. In a relatively innovative move, however, the method by which fees were re-introduced proved to be a system accepted by both Federal political parties and consequently is still in place today. The system is known as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) and enables students to defer payment of fees until after they commence professional employment, and after their income exceeds a threshold level – at that point, the fees are automatically deducted through income tax. Students also have the option of paying up-front for their education and receiving a discount commensurate with the interest rate saving associated with non-deferral.
By the late 1980s, the Australian tertiary education system was still a three-tier system, composed of:
However, by this point, the roles of the universities, institutes of technology and the CSIRO had also become blurred. Institutes of technology had moved from their traditional role of undergraduate teaching and industry-consulting towards conducting pure and applied research – they also had the ability to award degrees through to Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) level.
For a number of reasons, including clarifying the role of institutes of technology, the Federal Minister for Education of the time (John Dawkins) created the unified national system, which compressed the former three-tier tertiary education system into a two-tier system. This required a number of amalgamations and mergers between smaller tertiary institutions, and the option for institutes of technology to become universities. As a result of these reforms, institutes of technology disappeared and were replaced by a collection of new universities. By the early 1990s, the two-tier tertiary education was in place in Australia – university education and Technical and Further Education (TAFE). By the early years of the new millennium, even TAFE colleges were permitted to offer degrees up to Bachelor’s level.
The 1980s also saw the establishment of Australia's first private university, Bond University. Founded by businessman Alan Bond, the Gold Coast institution was granted its university status by the Queensland government in 1987. Bond University now awards diplomas, certificates, bachelor's degrees, masters and doctorates across most disciplines.
For the most part, up until the 1990s, the traditional Australian universities had focused upon pure/fundamental/basic research rather than industry/applied research – a proportion of which had been well supported by the CSIRO which had been set up for this function. Australians had performed well internationally in pure research, having scored almost a dozen Nobel Prizes as a result of their participation in pure research.
In the 1990s, the Hawke/Keating Federal Government sought to redress the shortcoming in applied research by creating a cultural shift in the national research profile. This was achieved by introducing university scholarships and research grants for postgraduate research in collaboration with industry, and by introducing a national system of Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs). These new centres were focused on a narrow band of research themes (e.g., photonics, cast metals, etc.) and were intended to foster cooperation between universities and industry. A typical CRC would be composed of a number of industry partners, university partners and CSIRO. Each CRC would be funded by the Federal Government for an initial period of several years. The total budget of a CRC, composed of the Federal Government monies combined with industry and university funds, was used to fund industry-driven projects with a high potential for commercialization. It was perceived that this would lead to CRCs becoming self-sustaining (self funding) entities in the long-term, although this has not eventuated. Most Australian universities have some involvement as partners in CRCs, and CSIRO is also significantly represented across the spectrum of these centres. This has led to a further blurring of the role of CSIRO and how it fits in with research in Australian universities.
The transition from a three-tier tertiary education system to a two-tier system was not altogether successful. By 2006, it became apparent that the long term problem for the unified national system was that newer universities could not build up critical mass in their nominated research areas - at the same time, their increase in research level deprived traditional universities of high calibre research-oriented academics. These issues were highlighted in the Melbourne Institute Discipline Ratings for Australian Universities published in 2006 (discussed below). The money that was available, was spread across all universities and even the traditional universities had a diminished capacity to maintain critical mass. The Melbourne Institute figures, based upon Government (DEST) data and publications citations from Thomson Scientific revealed that many of the newer universities were scoring "zeros" (on a scale of 0 - 100) in their chosen research fields (i.e., were unable to achieve the threshold level of activity required).
Students who commence a university course are faced with the challenge of adapting to the culture of the university. As well as having to make the transition into a new culture, they will be required to write using different academic genres, and to become independent learners. Tertiary education teacher such as Dr Marcia Devlin (2009) have conducted studies to explore the possibility that students who make a good transition into tertiary study are more likely to be successful. Devlin suggests that for students making the transition should prepare themselves by exploring the university, the town, getting to know the people, making friends and adapting to the cultures of the university and the people. Students will be faced with unavoidable change such as learning to write with new academic genres, understanding new learning/teaching styles and how to become an inderpendent learner.
-Devlin, M 2009, ‘Take a little at a time’, the standard (Schoolsnetworksupp.), 28 April, p. 10. -Devlin, M 2009, ‘The shock of the new’, The Age, 30 March. -Devlin, M 2008, ‘Being familiar is a big help’, the standard, 25 November, p. 30.
In the 1990s, during the early years of the unified national system, the solution to future sustainability, as perceived by Australia’s (then) vice chancellors, was to get more money into the system, rather than to rationalize the system itself. The Australian Vice Chancellors Committee argued on a number of occasions about the level of funding provided to Australian Universities relative to those in other OECD countries.
Another problem with the unified national system was that the major source of university funding (the Federal Government, through the Department of Education Science and Training) was performance-based (calculated via a performance formula) and, because the total funding was fixed, represented a zero-sum-game. In other words (arithmetically), if all universities simultaneously boosted their performance by expending more money then, in practice, they were financially disadvantaged. If all universities simultaneously decreased their performance by reducing their expenditure on staffing then, in practice, they were all potentially in a better financial position.
As a consequence of the ‘zero-sum-game’ funding model imposed by the Federal Government, by far the largest non-Government contributor to funding of the Australian University system is the international student ‘fee-paying’ market – in the order of $5,000,000,000 per annum by 2004. Australia’s share of the international student market is disproportionately high by international standards. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimated that the Australian higher education sector accounted for some 12% of all education in countries with an English speaking base in 2004. This extraordinary success was essentially the product of three factors:
The opportunistic elements of the success led to an over-confidence in fast-money schemes based upon fee-paying international students. It also led to numerous accusations of declining educational standards in Australian universities and a culture of ‘fee-for-degree’. The Australian Broadcasting Commission's (ABC's) flagship current affairs television program '4 Corners' highlighted this problem in 2005, stating:
"And as foreign students have flooded in, universities have become mired in allegations about falling standards, soft marking, plagiarism and backdoor immigration..."
This was particularly evident in postgraduate coursework programs (particularly Master’s coursework degrees) which had significant appeal to the burgeoning Asian markets.
With a larger proportion of university turnover derived from non-Government funds, the role of university vice chancellors moved from one of academic administration to strategic management. However, university governance structures remained largely unchanged from their 19th Century origins. All Australian universities have a governance system composed of a vice-chancellor (chief executive officer); chancellor (non-executive head) and university council (governing body). However, unlike a corporate entity board, the university council members have neither financial nor vested specific interests in the performance of the organization (although the state government is represented in each university council, representing the state government legislative role in the system).
The late 1990s and early years of the new millennium therefore witnessed a collection of financial, managerial and academic failures across the university system – the most notable of these being the Melbourne University Private venture, which saw hundreds of millions of dollars invested in non-productive assets, in search of a ‘Harvard style’ private university that never delivered on planned outcomes. This was detailed in a book ("Off Course") written by former Victorian State Premier John Cain and co-author John Hewitt who explored problems with governance at the University of Melbourne, arguably one of the nation's most prestigious universities.
The Melbourne Age newspaper reported in regard to the Melbourne University Private affair, and John Cain's book that:
"It (the Cain/Hewitt book) argues that the University of Melbourne has put the raising of money from private sources above its duty as a public university, that its most strenuous efforts in this endeavour have failed, that it refuses to admit the failures and reports them inadequately."
A number of universities and research centres/institutes were also plagued with financial and academic scandals arising from poor governance; lack of management experience; lack of strategic planning capability and direction. Many of these were reported in the Australian media, including:
One of the underlying governance problems for Australian Universities is that, as a legacy of their establishment, legislative control of universities resides with the states, but funding is derived from the Australian Federal Government. This means that whenever there is no consensus between state and Federal governments in regard to directions, universities are subsequently left in an ambivalent position with potentially conflicting objectives. Moreover, despite having a Federal funding system, the legislative process for universities can vary from state to state and hence, nationally, there is no uniformity of governance.
By the early years of the 21st Century, the participation rate in Australian Universities had increased significantly. The DEST 2005 Statistics showed that enrolments in Australian universities had reached 674,092 effective full time students, an increase of more than tenfold since 1960. It was infeasible to scale the fee-per-student, provided by the Government to each university in the 1960s, accordingly to the levels required in the 21st Century. Either costs had to be reduced (through a combination of rationalization, technological change and administrative efficiency) or income had to be increased through additional fee raising mechanisms.
In 2002, Jim Breen of Monash University wrote in his paper Higher Education in Australia: Structure, Policy and Debate
"Despite, or because of the massive growth in the higher education sector, there is a general view that all is not well:
An inability to scale up operations, in a climate of reducing dollars-per-student, was manifested in reports of poor operational performance of individual faculties, particularly those in high cost areas such as science and engineering. Indeed, in 2006, Lord Alec Broers of Cambridge University conducted a review of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Melbourne. The resulting ‘Broers Review’ confirmed the sorts of issues raised earlier, and presented a litany of maladministration, poor teaching methods, collapse of undergraduate infrastructure, lack of planning, and so on. There was evidence to suggest that these poor practices were not restricted to one university but existed throughout the entire system – indeed, by some external measures the faculty reviewed by Broers had previously been judged to have been performing well relative to other comparable faculties in Australia.
In 2006, the Federal Education Minister (Julie Bishop, Liberal Party) made a number of public statements about the need for reform and rationalization. In one statement, the Minister suggested that Australia’s interests might be best served by having only a dozen generalist universities and a collection of other specialist entities. To date, this is the only indicator of significant change at a Federal level.
The Australian Federal Government has established two quality systems for assessing university performance. These are the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) and the Research Quality Framework (RQF). The AUQA reviews of universities essentially look at processes, procedures and their documentation. The AUQA exercise, largely bureaucratic rather than strategic, is currently moving towards its second round of assessments, with all Australian universities having seemingly received mixed (but generally positive) results in the first round. AUQA’s shortcoming is that it does not specifically address issues of Governance or strategic planning in anything other than a bureaucratic sense. In the April 2007 edition of Campus Review the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales (Fred Hilmer) criticized both AUQA and the RQF:
"... singling out AUQA, Hilmer notes that while complex quality processes are in place, not one institution has lost its accreditation - 'there's never been a consequence - so it's just red tape...'"
"...The RQF is not a good thing - it's an expensive way to measure something that could be measured relatively simply. If we wanted to add impacts as one of the factors, then let's add impact. That can be achieved simply without having to go through what looks like a $90 million dollar exercise with huge implementation issues."
The RQF (scrapped with the change in government in 2007), was modeled on the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) system, and was intended to assess the quality and impact of research undertaken at universities through panel-based evaluation of individual research groups within university disciplines. Its objective was to provide government, industry, business and the wider community with an assurance that research quality within Australian universities had been rigorously assessed against international standards. Assessment was expected to allow research groups to be benchmarked against national and international standards across discipline areas. If successfully implemented, this would have been a departure from the Australian Government’s traditional approach to measuring research performance exclusively through bibliometrics. The RQF was fraught with controversy, particularly because the cost of such an undertaking (using international panels) and the difficulty in having agreed definitions of research quality and impact. The Labor government which scrapped the RQF, has yet to outline any system which will replace it, stating however that it will enter into discussions with higher education providers, to gain consensus on a streamlined, metrics-driven approach.
Australian universities usually feature well in the top 100 international universities as ranked by the Jiao Tong Index [2]. The two universities which regularly appear therein are the Australian National University and the University of Melbourne. University of Sydney also featured in the 2008 rankings. ANU also regularly appears in the Times Higher World University Rankings, which are more Anglo-centric in their composition.
In 2006, the Melbourne Institute conducted a ‘discipline by discipline’ study of the performance of all Australian universities, and combined this with a national and international survey. Notwithstanding the fact that the Melbourne Institute is part of the University of Melbourne, the Institute's Discipline by Discipline Rankings Paper provides the most comprehensive assessment of the status of Australian universities which is currently available. A number of parameters (including undergraduate entry scores; student satisfaction; the official Federal Department of Education Science and Training research figures; publication data from Thomson Scientific; student/staff ratios, international rankings, etc.) were assessed to provide a discipline by discipline ranking of universities, on a scale of 0 – 100.
Of the universities which were included in the rankings, only six were able to average a relative score of more than 50 in the areas in which they competed. Two of the G8 universities (University of Adelaide and University of Western Australia) did not achieve a 50% average. Most of the newer universities average around 30% relative performance in their chosen disciplines. This study highlights a lack of capacity, investment and focus in chosen areas (a number of universities average zeros in their chosen research areas in terms of outputs). It should also be noted that a score of 100 is relative to other Australian universities and is not an absolute measure in an international sense.
The Australian Federal Government which was voted out of office in 2007 (Liberal/National Coalition) and the then Federal Opposition (Labor Party) which is now in government both signaled that the ‘one size fits all’ approach to universities, which emerged from the Dawkins’ reforms, is nearing an end. Universities are being encouraged to find their own niches. The difficulty with this is that the undergraduate and postgraduate programs which prove to be financially lucrative (i.e., profitable) in terms of sustaining the core business of a university are limited (Medicine, Law, Business, Economics and Commerce), and there is a tendency for all universities to pursue high profile areas, rather than invest in high cost areas which have national economic significance (engineering and science). As at April 2007, none of the Australian universities had taken steps for significant cost cutting in administration and rationalization of duplicated services and facilities.
Of the current universities, only the University of Melbourne signaled a change in direction in terms of its education. Again, this is based upon increasing income rather than through cost reductions through modern management principles. The so-called ‘Melbourne Model’ was due for implementation in 2008. The objective was to pursue an American-style educational program composed of generic undergraduate degrees which had no professional recognition in Australia, and then follow these with professional postgraduate degrees which do have professional recognition (e.g., Law or Engineering). This strategy would enable the University to by-pass the current Federal Government restrictions on fee-paying undergraduate places by effectively reclassifying former undergraduate programs as a combination of generic undergraduate and professional graduate programs. In its website The University of Melbourne claims that this will provide a broader educational model in line with the so-called Bologna Process Model of education applied in Europe. Opponents claim that identical educational outcomes could be achieved by a five year undergraduate program without the introduction of full-fees. Others claim that the model is more American than European, noting that the 3-year Bologna-style Bachelor degree is focused rather than generalist. The guidelines for a portable European qualification in professional psychology requires 3 years of focused psychology prior to 2 years of advanced specialized psychology. The new Melbourne University Bachelor does not allow for such specialization. It is designed to mimic the American College level Bachelor which is completed with one major and one minor consequent to general education modules.
None of the other G8 universities have signaled any intention to make any fundamental changes to the way in which they function, although some have indicated interest in the Melbourne Model of fee paying education.
Given the positions of both the Federal Government and Federal Opposition, it is clear that universities will change over the coming years. The data from the Melbourne Institute Study (particularly the research output data which the study derived from Government DEST figures and Thomson ISI) highlights the fact that a number of the current universities have insufficient capacity in their chosen disciplines to achieve threshold performance at an international level.
In April 2006 the Australian government issued a discussion paper entitled The Bologna Process and Australia: Next Steps which is available at http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/Bologna_Process_and_Australia.htm
The website says:
This paper was released by the then Minister for Education, Science and Training to stimulate discussion about the Bologna Process, whereby a significant number of European countries are working towards greater consistency and portability across their higher education systems. The prospect of greater mobility for students and broader recognition of qualifications across Europe may have significant implications for both domestic and international students in Australia. This paper is the first step in a consultation process on the opportunities and challenges presented by the Bologna Process.
The abstract for this paper says:
The purpose of this discussion paper is to stimulate debate within the Australian Higher Education sector about the ‘Bologna Process’, which is driving reform within and between 45 European signatory countries. The process seems likely to have a profound effect on the development of higher education globally, as observers from other continents are taking a close interest in the reform process and beginning to consider how their own systems can be more closely aligned with ‘Bologna’ thinking.
Australia needs to consider how best to respond to these global developments if its own higher education system is to continue to be seen as being of high quality and relevant to international standards and requirements.
This discussion paper is available online in pdf form at http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/D284E32F-98DD-4A67-A3C2-D5B6F3F41622/9998/BolognaPaper.pdf
The Australian Minister for Education in April 2006 said the Bologna Process, whereby a significant number of European countries are working towards greater consistency and portability across their higher education systems, is likely to influence developments in higher education in many parts of the world including Asia-Australia. It will have important implications for Australian higher education providers working to enhance existing success and reputation as a provider of world-class education to both domestic and international students.
The Bologna Process involves 45 European countries undertaking a series of reforms intended to create an integrated European higher education area by 2010. Signatories to the agreement have agreed to work towards greater consistency in areas such as degree structures, credit transfer and quality assurance systems.
The purpose of the paper which the Minister released in April 2006 was to initiate discussion on the significance of Bologna for Australia and possible Australian responses. The minister said:
Issues must be considered in a broader context – the long-term vision for higher education in Australia.
The Australian Government’s ambition for higher education is that of a strong, confident, diverse and high quality sector that plays a vital role in our economic, cultural and social development. The Backing Australia’s Future reforms, including additional funding of $11 billion over 10 years, have gone a long way towards achieving this goal. However, the future of higher education in Australia must be considered in the broader international context. Many other countries are increasing their investment in higher education.
Multi-national and multi-regional forums are focusing on or being established to deal with a range of higher education issues. Some are designed to increase access and quality, others are designed to harmonise approaches to facilitate the movement of an increasingly mobile skilled workforce. Our overall objective must be for a higher education sector which provides the greatest diversity and quality.
Australian higher education must remain abreast of these international developments in order to ensure that our institutions continue to be ranked amongst the world’s best and that our graduates have the skills required to participate on the world stage.
The Bologna Process could have a number of implications for the acceptance of Australian higher education awards and options for student mobility. It has significant political support within Europe and applies to around 4000 institutions hosting 16 million students.
It is an important process that is receiving considerable attention, not only within Europe, but from a range of other countries. It presents challenges to, and opportunities for, Australia’s relationship with Europe as well as Asia and raises the importance of developing effective multilateral dialogue with Australia’s key Asian education partners about future directions in higher education.
Australia has developed close links with Asia through education as this is a key driver in developing understanding and fostering closer economic linkages, including facilitating the movement of students and skills.
The Process aims, among other things, to provide for easier movement between institutions and, on completion of undergraduate study, the receipt of a transcript that facilitates entry to higher academic degrees and employment. If Australia is not able to maintain alignment with these developments, a significant proportion of the current 32,000 European enrolments in Australian institutions may find other destinations more attractive. Similarly should Asian countries or institutions choose to align with the Bologna Process, Europe may become a more attractive destination for those students.
The Bologna Process provides a series of opportunities and challenges, and is an opportunity for Australia to better align its frameworks with international standards and benchmarks. The challenge is how to achieve this and retain an Australian higher education sector that meets both domestic and international expectations of quality.
There are likely to be many and varied views on the benefits and costs associated with moving towards some comparability with the Bologna Process. The objective of this paper is to seek the views of the sector and all concerned with its future on how Australian higher education can respond in ways that best meet the sector’s needs and positions it for the future.
Developing an effective Australian response to the Bologna Process requires a national dialogue to develop a degree of common understanding of the key benefits and outcomes Australia seeks through alignment with Bologna initiatives.
On 18 April 2007 the Australian Minister and the European Union Commissioner for Education signed a joint declaration to enhance the education links between the two federations and allow for a more rapid convergence of the two education systems. The text of the short declaration is found at http://www.delaus.ec.europa.eu/education/cooperation/JointDeclarationOnEducation.htm
The joint declaration seems to cement the Australian Federal government’s commitment to adopting the Bologna Process throughout Australia.
Many universities in Australia have gained international recognition. Two of the most acknowledged are the Academic Ranking of World Universities, produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the THES - QS World University Rankings,[5] which in 2006, had no fewer than 13 universities amongst the world's top 200.
The major providers of vocational education and training (VET) in Australia are the various state-administered institutes of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) across the country. TAFE institutions generally offer short courses, Certificates I, II, III, and IV, Diplomas, and Advanced Diplomas in a wide range of vocational topics. They also sometimes offer Higher Education courses, especially in Victoria.
In addition to TAFE Institutes there are many Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) which are privately operated. In Victoria alone there are approximately 1100. They include:
In size these RTOs vary from single-person operations delivering training and assessment in a narrow specialisation, to large organisations offering a wide range of programs. Many of them receive government funding to deliver programs to apprentices or trainees, to disadvantaged groups, or in fields which governments see as priority areas.
All TAFE institutes and private RTOs are required to maintain compliance with a set of national standards called the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF), and this compliance is monitored by regular internal and external audits.
VET programs delivered by TAFE Institutes and private RTOs are based on nationally registered qualifications, derived from either endorsed sets of Competency Standards known as Training Packages, or from courses accredited by state/territory government authorities. These qualifications are regularly reviewed and updated. In specialised areas where no publicly owned qualifications exist, an RTO may develop its own course and have it accredited as a privately owned program, subject to the same rules as those that are publicly owned.
All trainers and assessors delivering VET programs are required to hold a qualification known as the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAA40104) or demonstrate equivalent competency. They are also required to have relevant vocational competencies, at least to the level being delivered or assessed.