Higher education needs a course correction
By David Hughes
First published in the MRC’s Watercooler newsletter. Sign up to our mailing list to receive Watercooler directly in your inbox.
I have a university degree but that doesn’t mean I’m smarter, more productive or able to make a greater contribution to society. More importantly, I don’t want my education to define who I am.
That’s why I find it somewhat trivial when asked by a new acquaintance, “What school did you go to?” and “Where did you go to uni?” To date, I’m yet to see any real correlation between the answers provided and the quality and worth of the individual.
With our current challenges as a nation, we certainly shouldn’t be ‘looking down’ on someone with ‘lesser’ qualifications than us in an academic sense.
There are more Australians with qualifications in ‘Society & Culture’ and ‘Creative Arts’ than with Trade and Engineering qualifications according to the last Census. Yet, data suggests our biggest shortage is with technicians and trade workers. According to the most recent government report: ‘Almost half of Skill Level 3 occupations (47%) – which typically require a Certificate III/IV – were in shortage.’
Latest data shows the number of Australians starting an apprenticeship fell by 40 per cent in 2023 to just 166,375. It is a particularly low number when you consider that 130,470 people actually dropped out of training and apprenticeships over the same period.
Our approach must be finely tuned to these challenges. However, the government seems more focused on lifting university enrolments than recruiting more apprentices. The main headline out of a recent government review into Higher Education was a new (and somewhat arbitrary) quota for university graduates. The review nominated that the proportion of Australians with a university education must rise to 55 per cent by 2050.
When it comes to university qualifications, we do need more nurses, specialist doctors and IT professionals. But we cannot fall into the trap of thinking that reaching a universal quota of bachelor degrees solves our problems. We need skills in the right areas and we need to acknowledge that not everyone is best suited to university.
That's the problem with these expanded university targets. There is a real focus in the report on opening up universities to disadvantaged students and making our universities more equitable (by taxing bigger unis and redistributing to smaller ones). There is a stench of socialism and paternalism in all of this.
The proposal is socialist in its intent to cut down the well performing universities and redistribute their funds. And it's paternalistic in its intent to aggressively promote university degrees to the disadvantaged.
Like our current Education Minister, Jason Clare, I grew up in southwestern Sydney somewhat removed from the circles of wealth and elite private schools. And just like Jason Clare, I didn’t find the obstacles to a university education insurmountable. Of course, many people in disadvantaged regional communities face a greater challenge but we must not fall into the trap of telling kids university is the best and only option and causing them to make the wrong decision.
As Judith Sloan recounts: ‘Many students simply are not suited to university study and it is selling them a pup to suggest university is the best post-school pathway for them. I once taught economic statistics to university students with low entry scores – it was a nightmare. Most of them struggled, many lost self-confidence and a reasonable chunk failed. My advice to many of them was to consider alternative opportunities, such as becoming a tradie.’
This week, we are seeing cracks starting to emerge in the quest for more university graduates. The University of Sydney announced plans to scrap its requirement for students to have studied ‘Advanced Mathematics’ as a prerequisite for degrees in Economics and Medicine (amongst other areas). This decision was obviously in response to the decline in high school students taking HSC Advanced Mathematics subjects.
By lowering these standards, the university anticipates more students to enrol in these degrees. However, this compromises the quality of the education. Removing prerequisites means that incoming students may not have those foundational skills and be ill-equipped and unprepared for the coursework.
Sydney University’s decision may further disincentivise high school students from taking HSC Advanced Mathematics, and discourage schools from lifting proficiency in maths. Lowering the entry requirements will open up these courses to more students who are likely to struggle with the coursework because standards in mathematics have been declining in our primary and high schools. The mathematics test from the latest OECD-run Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that Australian 15-year-old students scored more than 25 points below students of the same age from the early 2000s. Students have lost a whole year in learning, with today’s 15-year-olds scoring at a level that would have been expected of 14-year-olds, 20 years earlier. Half of all students tested performed below minimum standards. Australia is ranked 17th globally in maths, down six spots from 11th in the early 2000s.
The other problem with pushing prospective students too aggressively into degrees that may not suit them is the debt which they will be straddled with. A debt that still exists and accrues interest even if they drop out after a year.
Universities, in their quest to churn out more graduates and meet quotas, need to be more mindful of their social responsibility. At the Menzies Research Centre we are investigating reforms to encourage universities to be more focused on the employment outcomes of students. Last year, the average student debt increased by $1,760 on account of inflation alone.
There is a misalignment of incentives in the system whereby universities market and offer places to students (through the HELP loan system). As the universities are not a direct party to these student loans they don't have sufficient incentives to ensure the student ends up in meaningful paid employment and is able to repay their loan. This lack of skin in the game can encourage universities to accept students who are not well suited to be undertaking a particular course. Universities can pocket the public funding with each student but bear little or no responsibility in relation to their post graduation employment, income and endeavours.
While graduates are often grappling with their debt two decades later, universities are absolved of their responsibility the moment the student steps out of their graduation ceremony. In many cases, graduates never end up reaching the repayment threshold for their debt and this costs the taxpayer. So it’s appropriate for us to consider a mechanism where the universities have a greater responsibility and incentive to consider the post-university future for their graduates.
It’s time we rebalance the equation so students and universities share responsibility for the outcomes they produce.