Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small
Business and Education Committee
Submission to Senate Inquiry into the capacity of public universities
to meet Australia’s higher education needs
I want to address the issue of falling academic standards. It relates
to terms of reference (a iii) and (b i).
Paradoxically, it proceeds under the jargon of Quality Assurance and
is bolstered by so-called Key Performance Indicators. The unintended effect
arises as follows:
When one supports Quality Assurance, one is likely to intend that teaching
and administration progressively improve. How is improvement measured?
Mostly by student opinion, as expressed by surveys, and by student achievements.
Both of these are subject to manipulation, not only by the cynically minded
but also by those simply interested in retaining their job or in getting
on with their job, in a climate of increasing student:staff ratios and
declining funding, without a lot of extra, non-academic encumbrance.
The mechanism proceeds roughly as follows:
First, student achievement is most simply measured by pass, credit etc
rates. Faced with ever larger classes and added administration, and demands
to increase research ‘output’ one can most readily achieve an
increase in these by pruning course content, simplifying exams and getting
on with research. (This tends also to involve putting exams into multiple-choice
format, a format that tests intuition, memory and knowledge rather than
the ability to do extensive reasoning or express an argument coherently.)
A side ‘benefit’ is that students find the courses easier and
thus make more favourable comments about both the courses and their lecturers,
in surveys. (Regrettably the brightest students tend to be turned off
by this, rather than enthused, but they are in a minority. Has anyone
investigated relationships between a student’s performance and their
response to questionnaires?)
The whole unfortunate process is reinforced by an expectation of continuous
improvement: pass rates need to (slowly) keep increasing, regardless of
(for instance) the fact that the quality of intake students may be dropping
in some areas, or that some subjects may not be much favoured by students
who are compelled to do them as ‘service subjects’ or for ‘weeding-out
purposes’. While a generation ago, when retention rates were much
lower and thereby the overall intake quality was somewhat higher, about
5% of students might have been awarded a High Distinction in a University
exam, now the figure is often around 30%. Teaching has not improved to
that extent!
The situation is exacerbated by two student-based attitudes. One is the
wide perception, frequently noted in the media and used by teachers as
motivational device, that getting a good result in the HSC is the most
crucial bit of studying one has to do, as it’s all important to get
into as ‘high’ a university course as possible. Once on the
train you can relax and enjoy the ride. The other is the fact that many
students are well aware of falling standards and operate accordingly.
I’ve heard students outlining their - admittedly somewhat flawed
- thinking along these lines: 90% (or whatever) of us will pass anyway,
and multiple choice exams are basically lotteries, so I’ve got a
90% chance of getting through, regardless of how little I study.
Why is the issue of falling standards across the system not more widely
acknowledged? Essentially because the first institution to do so is liable
to suffer a drop in applications to enrol, particularly from the brighter
students and fee-paying students, risking a drop in EFTSU-based funding
and fee income, and endangering prestige and job security.
Bob Berghout
Senior Lecturer in Mathematics
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
The University of Newcastle
Callaghan NSW 2308
Ph: (02)4921 5546
Email: rfb@maths.newcastle.edu.au