THE PRESS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1987. Universities under review

Press, 17 October 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1987. Universities under review

The main recommendation of the review committee that has examined New Zealand universities is that student numbers should be doubled over the next two decades. The number of New Zealanders who attend universities is low by international standards. The committee believes that the present participation rate of 8.4 per cent in the 18 to 24 age group should be increased to 17 per cent by the year 2007. “As we see it,” the committee argues, "the choice is very simple: does New Zealand attempt to harness its intellectual resources in order to develop as a modem economy? Policies which are essentially laissez-faire will fail to produce sufficient educated graduates to meet future requirements.” If New Zealand failed to achieve a participation rate of 13 per cent by the year 2007, according to the committee, this would impose serious handicaps on the economy and on society.

That surely makes a great deal of sense. There is a lot of evidence available that those countries whose economies have prospered have a reasonable number of university graduates in their population. To have a technologically advanced society based on a well-educated population is not only desirable, but there would seem to be no alternative: it is no longer possible for New Zealand to base its economy on a reliance on brawn. It has become almost too obvious to say that information is the key. Nor should it be assumed that because the computer sciences, engineering, the medical sciences, and accounting have clear practical applications, the social sciences and the humanities which form a very large part of any university’s activities, do not fit people to contribute substantially to the development of the country, including its economic development. What good universities teach is a method of organising and using information; universities do not merely impart the information required for certain courses.

This tying of the development of the economy to university student numbers bears directly on much of the thinking in the report, which significantly enough is called: “New Zealand Universities. Partners in National Development.” The report was compiled for the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee and was the work of four people: the chairman, Professor Ronald Watts, a Canadian with considerable experience in university administration; Dame Jean Herbison, who has been deeply involved in university, polytechnic, and teachers’ college administration in Christchurch; Dr Tom Johnston, an eminent Scottish university administrator; and Professor Sir Rupert Myers, a metallurgist who has been involved in. Australia’s university teaching and administration.

The composition of the committee meant that international comparisions between the New Zealand university system and the systems in universities in other countries were possible. The report comments on the low New Zealand spending, by international standards, on each student, the amount of money available for research, the academic standards (the committee was generally impressed). It also makes suggestions about the requirements for doctorates, which it thinks should be completed rather sooner than many in New Zealand universities complete them, should be much more closely supervised, and should be much more integrated into a co-operative effort. The last point about Ph.Ds is probably true of many of the science subjects; it is difficult to see how such research as the examination of a text, which forms the basis of a doctoral thesis in some of the humanities, could be part of a team effort. The review committee generally favours fewer tenured positions than there are at present in New Zealand universities and believes that systems for judging academic performance should be used. Much of that makes good sense too. There are difficulties about having untenured positions, but university teachers should not only teach, but contribute to society and to their university through research. A period of trial during which it becomes clear whether someone appointed to a university position will carry out research seems reasonable. Measurements of spending on students and spending oh research have been conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which groups the countries with economies like New Zealand’s. The report argues for more spending on research than was advocated by the Beattie report on science and technology. For both the doubling of student numbers and the amount of money devoted to research, the report argues for a Government commitment to financing. It believes that spending on universities will have to be increased from its present level to cope with the increased numbers it suggests should be attending. But it wants more than that from the Government: it wants the Government to define the role of the universities in New Zealand society. The Government is reviewing tertiary education, and this review may fulfil the requirements of the recommendations within the report presented to the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee.

However, there has been a long tradition of ad hoc decisions about university education in New Zealand and the Government may not be prepared to be precise in a way that would allow its own words to be used against it The review committee approaches the subject from several angles. It argues that the Government should set a target for enrolments at universities. In effect this would do away with the notion of open entry to universities, which has been the policy to the present, although, as university administrators often point out, the open entry does not apply to all courses. It seems doubtful whether any New Zealand Government would renounce the open entry policy, but that should not prevent the Government from announcing goals for increased enrolment.

In fact the Government is already in something of a bind: the numbers who are staying at schools for the bursary examination this year are very much greater than last year. It is not known how many will want to go to universities next year. The recent supplementary increase that the Government gave the universities will do little other than hold matters as they now stand.

If even a quarter of the extra numbers of those staying at school for the bursary year want to enter the universities, there will be a very marked strain on resources. What would be improper on the part of the Government would be to continue to give lip-service to the principle of open entry to universities, but to fail to make provision for extra numbers. The review committee considers funding proposals. It suggests that New Zealand universities have less private funding from business than some universities elsewhere. It also suggests that graduates could well contribute to their universities. In this the overseas experience of the review Committee may have its shortcomings. While it is true that some graduates are sufficiently wealthy to make useful contributions to their universities, most are probably not. This is not a society, of marked wealth. But the committee does a good job in quantifying the amount it costs a student to attend university. Even allowing for the Tertiary Assistance Grant, a grant for fees, and an allowance for living away from home, the student usually has to find about $3300 a year. This is a considerable sum and needs to be borne in mind by those who have been arguing for a user-pays approach to university education. The report is generally dismissive of the more extreme forms of the user-pays system and advocates a system not greatly different from that applying at present. The report has one serious and basic flaw. In considering assistance to students, it argues for a redistribution of grants. It recommends that tertiary study grants, accommodation grants, and hardship grants be concentrated on specifically targeted students whose families are means-tested. The purpose is to encourage more students from low-income families and other groups to attend university. For others it advocates a State-subsidised and guaranteed loan system, the loans being repayable over about 25 years. • ' While there is good reason to be doubtful about a system in which students take out large loans to fund their own education, the effect of the removal of the present grants system from universal application to students would wreak havoc within the university student community. As the report notes elsewhere, the reason why people from some groups do not attend universities is not primarily financial. To a large extent it is cultural. In the case of the Maori people, who are woefully underrepresented at universities, one clear reason why so few go to universities is that so few stay at high school long enough to get anything like a minimum qualification. The committee lists many factors about why more New Zealanders do not attend universities. It has useful suggestions about making the benefits of university education better known. Such measures would undoubtedly overcome some reluctance on the part of some people to attend universities. But it is strange that the committee fails to follow the logic of its own evidence on this point.

The outcome of removing student grants from all but the poorest students would have the effect of dissuading many of those who would aspire to, be qualified for, and be motivated towards, university study from pursuing their hopes. This would be a tragedy for them and for the country. The committee shows itself well aware of the economic mood and movements that have been sweeping the country.

It is a pity that given the opportunity of presenting a thorough and careful report it fell down in this important respect and might, in fact, have fed ammunition to some of the more extreme economic positions that have been espoused in the Treasury. However, apart from that lapse, the committee’s report contains a great deal that is valuable and presents well the fundamental need for more university graduates.