Will, Emma (SEN)
From:	pprenzler@csu.edu.au
Sent:	Thursday, 29 March 2001 5:26 PM
To:	eet.sen@aph.gov.au
Subject:	Submission to Senate Enquiry
My concerns range from how the policies of this government have 
adversely affected all universities, how they have particularly 
affected CSU, and what the implications have been for my discipline of
chemistry.

I am very concerned about the squeeze the government has put on the
tertiary sector by not funding pay increases.  This has put enormous
strains on all universities.  The implicit aim under the catch-word of
"efficiency" would appear to be to choke the sector until the weak
expire leaving only the strong, ie it is a policy to reduce the
numbers of universities.  From discussions with colleagues at some of
the Group of Eight universities - those that one would expect to be
strong - the squeeze is choking them, too.  So the whole sector is
weakened, the strong will probably survive, but they will be gasping
for breath.  Is this any way to treat the sector which will ensure
that Australia continues to be a first-world country?  There is more
than one road to a "banana republic"!

I also object to the excessive emphasis on efficiency.  McDonald's
makes hamburgers very efficiently.  Is this what we want to offer our
school leavers - a "McEducation"?  This is what is happening now as
departments in all disciplines have to make cuts to staff, resources,
etc.  Yes, universities have become more efficient, but what is now on
offer is bland, generic, and below what could be achieved if the
sector was funded properly.

Charles Sturt University has been particularly hard hit by this
government's policies.  Since the coalition came to power CSU has lost
$21 million in funding.  If the two non-funded salary increases are
included this figure goes up to $40 million.  Currently the University
budget is $160 million, of which DETYA provides $66 million.  This is
40% of the University's income.  We are de facto a private university.
 So far the university has managed (just) to supplement the government
income, but it has come at a cost.  And there have been no rewards for
our entrepreneurial activities.  In fact the University has been
penalised, for example, by the disproportionate way the cap on
postgraduate research places affects the University.  We are also
severely affected by the relative funding model (RFM), which came into
place in the early 1990s when CSU was heavily weighted towards
Business Studies.  Since then the University has made a substantial
shift to expensive health areas, but we are funded at the old rate.
Apparently DETYA and the Minister continue to ignore our requests to
have the RFM re-evaluated.

In my own discipline of chemistry we face many challenges.  One of the
biggest is declining student numbers.  When this is coupled with
inadequate funding a negative spiral takes place.  Those students that
do major in chemistry find the experience unsatisfactory because of
poor resources.  This discourages other students and then, because the
government funds only on student numbers, this means resources
continue to decline.  And so on it goes.  This pattern is being played
out in just about every university in this country.  At a recent
Professors and Heads of Departments (Chemistry ) meeting, no
Departments were found to be flourishing.  The government's policies
have severely undermined Australia's ability to train new chemists to
the point where there is nowhere that a student can go to get a top
quality degree in chemistry.  This will have a major negative impact
on Australia's ability to generate new ideas - since many of the new
advancements in technology will be chemically based.

Chemistry has suffered disproportionately on the government's instance
on funding by numbers rather than discipline.  To teach and train
chemists properly requires extensive resources.  Laboratory classes
require equipment.  The latest equipment costs large amounts of money.
 The chemistry laboratory at CSU hasn't had new equipment for teaching
for 10 years.  The equipment is outdated and in some cases in
disrepair.  Despite this our graduates continue to get good jobs. What
this means is that we are doing the best with what we have - but it
should be no substitute for trying to do better.  But doing better
means updating equipment and that requires more money.

Another resource that chemistry requires is demonstrators in the
laboratory.  This directly influences the degree of supervision and
training that a student receives, as well as the students' enjoyment
of the practical work.  When I was in first year in 1984 there was one
demonstrator for 10-12 students.  Now the norm is considered to be one
demonstrator for 20-25 students.  With these numbers students don't
learn techniques properly and they have a poor experience of the
laboratory as they miss out on the input from the demonstrator.  Under
these circumstances practical classes become an exercise in logistics,
resembling the herding of sheep, and no real learning takes place.
Worse still, as mentioned above, the word gets out that chemistry is
frustrating, hard, and not worth doing.  And so the spiral continues
downwards.  On top of this, I believe it is unfair that in 1984 I did
not have to pay HECS, yet now as students pay HECS the support they
receive has declined significantly.

So students are doing courses in marketing, business, law etc, in ever
increasing numbers and deserting the basic sciences.  We will become a
nation that is very good at selling things and battling court cases,
but where are the new ideas going to come from?  What will all our
business graduates and marketing graduates market and sell?  Someone
else's ideas?  Yes - and expensively imported from our trading
competitors because they realise the benefits that flow to a society
and to an economy from adequately funding the basic sciences.  There
is more than one road to a "banana republic"!

That quality at universities is diminishing is a difficult issue to
tackle.  What Vice-Chancellor would stand up in public and say that
their institution is offering a poor quality education?  And yet,
those of us involved in teaching and research see our effectiveness
being eroded by a lack of resources.  There are many ways to cover
this.  Dropping pass marks to very low levels is one and I know of two
sandstone universities that have had pass marks well below 50% for
first year chemistry.  Because the same numbers of students are 
passing as always, they argue that standards have not deterioted.  
Another method is to teach less and set easier assessment.  This is 
the path that some of us at CSU have chosen.  It isn't ideal, but 
what we are saying is - this is the best we can do with what we are 
given.  

The government's quality indicators are inadequate to gauge what is
going on.  Because of our society's obsession with numerical proof, we
try to quantify the unquantifiable.  The aspects of a tertiary
education that I would use as indicators of quality are not things
that can be quantified.  Elements such as being challenged and
stimulated in thinking; learning in an environment with other keen and
eager minds; having access to lecturers who have time to deal with
individuals; having lecturers who have time to think and reflect on
what they are doing - for this sort of reflective, thoughtful approach
to life is one which should be fostered in all graduates, and what
better way to develop it than to have it modelled daily by one's
teachers.  All these I'd argue are vital, if not essential, in a
tertiary qualification, yet they defy quantification.  They also defy
"bottom line" arguments because it is impossible to put a value on
them.  They are, in fact, priceless, and therefore in an economic
rationalist's world they become valueless.  Unfortunately our
government suffers from an over abundance of economic rationalists.

At the same time, I see colleagues at universities all over Australia
work harder and harder for ever diminishing personal rewards, because
they are dedicated and care about what they do.  If this wasn't the
case, tertiary education in Australia would have ceased to function
years ago.  As it is, we are all trying to do our best with what we
have been given, or in the case of CSU, gone out and earned.  But
there comes a time when so little is available that nothing can be
done.  We are fast approaching that time.  I hope there is still time
to turn the situation around.

Paul David Prenzler

Dr PD Prenzler
School of Science and Technology            
Charles Sturt University                    
Locked Bag 588                                  
Wagga Wagga  NSW  2678                      

Phone - (02) 6933 2978
Fax - (02) 6933 2737
e-mail - pprenzler@csu.edu.au