SENATE COMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE - The capacity of public universities to meet Australia’s higher education needs

SUBMISSIONS

SUMMARY
Terms of Reference:   (a) (ii) and (iii) ;  (e) ;  (f) ;  (g) (i). (ii) and (iii) ; and (h)

1.	International competition
2.	Transparency
3.	Accountability
4.	Academic salaries
5.	Objective recruitment standards
6.	International standing - GRE
7.   Scrutiny   
8.	Conclusion

1.	INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION
It is time to cease handicapping Australia’s best contenders.

Currently, systemic weaknesses beset our universities,  and until now they have escaped attention :  this Senate inquiry is thus especially welcome. 

The underlying problems are lack of transparency and a failure to insist on accountability.  
Fortunately, addressing those problems will save money rather than requiring further outlay.

Among other facets of  university practice, transparency and accountability have been lost sight of  in  self-defeating recruitment practices,  through which Humanities departments in particular are losing relevance. 
Increasingly mediocre language departments, for example,  are fading away ;   and that is unfortunate,  because Australian  scholars who are manifestly expert in foreign languages make an immediate and observable impact in an international setting. 

2.	TRANSPARENCY 
(Paragraphs (a) and  (g) of the Terms of Reference)

A running sore in Australian universities  for at least two decades has been an obsession with secrecy,  quite inimical to their duty of open inquiry.

Under the cover of  an abuse of the concept of “academic freedom”, in itself a noble and necessary tradition, universities have become unprincipled.  Any criticism is said to be interference with a university’s “right” to do as it pleases, even in breach of its own rules.

Unfortunately, a long line of Federal Education Ministers have accepted  that spurious privilege, apparently intimidated by Vice-Chancellors’ formidable lobbying skills.  Indeed on most issues one follows in the media, it is astonishing how often the reported standpoints of the Vice-Chancellors are eventually reflected in ministerial press releases. 

For any individual with the temerity to raise a question, there is an automatic defensive reaction : “shoot the messenger”.    University administrations seek to discredit such people with   gratuitous character attacks,   often  delivered by  large legal firms.    If the questioner refuses to be intimidated and persists in investigating an issue,  our universities have a well-documented history of spending large amounts of  money on  legal fees to silence debate rather than addressing the problems raised.

It is on the face of it  perverse to dissipate so much time, effort and money in suppressing the very information that will improve their standards and efficiency.   

Paragraph (a) of the Terms of Reference, relating to the adequacy of current funding arrangements, is pertinent here   :   an insistence on transparency and compliance with existing regulations, as well as being desirable intrinsically,  would cost taxpayers nothing and could even produce a surplus under current funding.   

My first submissions to this Honourable Committee, therefore, are :

Submission 1 :   An account must  be taken of  legal costs outlaid by Australian universities.

Submission 2 : Compliance by a  tertiary institution with its own  regulations and statutes should  be stipulated explicitly as a condition of  funding.

3.	ACCOUNTABILITY

Federal governments riposte when anomalies are drawn to their attention that  universities know what’s best for themselves :   leave it to the “market”.  The proposition  is growing more and more implausible, as the reputations of even the “super eight’ institutions decline internationally.   In my personal experience, the stocks of the University of Melbourne and Monash University, as measured by conceded degree equivalences in Europe, began to slide dramatically in the mid-eighties. The process is thus not  a temporary one.  In the Humanities especially,  standards are steadily falling, as reflected in the loss of  language departments.   Since they are seemingly inclined to abandon scholarly aims, their existence on campus is tenuous.

In the face of an unfolding disaster,   passive reliance on invisible forces is dangerous.   In the national interest, Australia’s academic reputation cannot be left to sink or swim.

Byzantine obfuscation has become second nature in our universities,  and affects all aspects of their operations, so that there is little hope of  revival from within.  Once again, reform would not be expensive.  If  as a result of this inquiry,  the governmental  mindset were to evolve towards a willingness occasionally to entertain scepticism vis-a-vis the claims of  peak bodies in the tertiary education  sector,   improvements would occur over time.   Until now,  reform has been stymied by the refusal of  successive  Education 
ministers  to consider input from any but the “usual suspects”.    

An example of this is  the debate over academic salaries. 

4.	ACADEMIC SALARIES

The Vice-Chancellors’ Committee has long contended that academic salaries are too low.  Following that lead,  Education Minister Dr Kemp has linked a “perception of declining quality” in Australian universities  to a belief that “low rewards are driving quality staff to other fields of work or universities overseas”
 (The Weekend Australian 16 /10/99,   p. 28).    

The decline  is clear enough, but it is arguable that the analysis is wrong in two respects  :

1.	In the Humanities,  there is no shortage of top quality Australian candidates, drawn from a glut of PhD holders  who clearly demonstrate by applying for university posts that the rewards are not an issue.  However, they are often rejected in favour of less qualified competitors, not holders of doctorates,  at the initial recruiting stage.  The problem lies in improper recruiting rather than financial considerations.

2.	“Universities overseas” are not a haven for Australian scholars : witness the absence of advertisements of overseas positions in our newspapers  !   It suffices to browse the Higher Education pages in our major dailies to see that British and American universities do not recruit here.

Once again, the solution is simple and cheap  :   appoint candidates on objective merit,  and allow quality to soar virtually overnight,  with no need of salary changes.  Universities already have excellent selection rules in place, such as the University of Melbourne’s  Right Practices, Right Person.  They need only be applied.

5.	OBJECTIVE RECRUITMENT STANDARDS 
Once a policy is allowed to develop of choosing other than the demonstrably best qualified candidate,  the selection procedure runs the risk of becoming contaminated by prejudice, discrimination and other emotive factors.

For a current instance of an apparently  flawed  selection process,  I refer the Committee to the submission made to it by Dr John Love.

Two recruitment cases in the public domain involved  the University of Melbourne (reported in The Bulletin, 26 December 1995, page and 24 September, 1996, page 14, and also reported in the Canadian on-line law journal LawMagazine, 26 October, 1996 ) ;   and  The Australian  National  University (reported in Campus Review,  3-9 November 1999, page 3).
 
In both proceedings the universities appeared to accept ethnic origin as a kind of  overriding qualification and proof of aptitude for tertiary research  positions,  outweighing a doctorate.  

The University of Melbourne Department of  French Studies at the time in question appeared to favour candidates of French origin, appointing for example a French candidate with relatively minor qualifications (a BA).  The ANU for its part  opined that   :   
“It is not surprising that French-born persons were applicants for this position,  given that the position required teaching French at tertiary level.”

On that occasion also one the ultimately successful candidates held a Bachelor degree rather than a doctorate, which qualification is normally required for appointment as a lecturer.

In both cases, candidates with doctorates were overlooked.
 
Further, a cultural cringe appears to be a problem at ANU  :
“  it was arranged  via the Association of Commonwealth Universities that the advertisement [for the position] be distributed to United Kingdom universities as well as be placed in the Times Higher Education Supplement.
Additional instructions were to “ENSURE WIDEST POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION ESPECIALLY IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IF POSSIBLE AND GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND”  [ANU’S own capitals].

It seems there is a presumption against the adequacy of local scholars, as the ANU continued: 
“Such a course of action is not unusual for other (non-language-based) positions within the University,  as the University is committed to attracting outstanding scholars.”

European countries, Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not deem it necessary to advertise in Australia, as can be verified by perusal of the Higher Education pages of our major newspapers.   Since they are viewed as a source of “outstanding scholars,” it is clear that such advertisement is not a sine qua non.

In the upshot one lectureship went to a candidate with a BA, in preference to candidates with a PhD.

I believe there should be some public debate about the recruiting practices revealed by the ANU.  Preference for non-academic qualifications in appointing lecturers is not helpful in maintaining standards and international competiveness.

The facts unearthed in the Melbourne University and Australian National University investigations are a matter of public record,  having been reported in the press.   The Melbourne University case was also discussed in Peter  Couchman’s programme on the former 3LO.    As far as I am aware, the University of Melbourne has never responded in the media to the abovementioned reports. 

To this date,  the University of Melbourne and the ANU persist in their refusal to disclose the GRE (Graduate Record Examination) scores of  successful candidates.     Those scores are an internationally administered,  objective  means of ranking graduates,   and  their non-disclosure deprives academics and the public of a means of  comparison.

The practices outlined above are apparently ongoing and strenuously defended.     The cultural cringe puts Australian language scholars at a disadvantage which their counterparts do not suffer in other countries. 

Further, it appears that disabled applicants are also discriminated against,  even when more qualified than successful candidates,  as Equal Opportunity Officers on our campuses can attest.

Press reports regularly indicate discrimination against older candidates.

It appears anomalous that prospective university students are expected to compete for places in a stringent public contest with a close comparison of TER scores, while the relative merits of  their prospective teachers are shrouded in secrecy.   

High, objectively demonstrated standards are obviously relevant to the issues raised in paragraph (f), “the capacity of public universities to contribute to economic growth.” 

It is often implied that standards are a problem only  in the newer universities,  but my points relate specifically  to the elite  “sandstone” institutions,  which are  crucial to international perception of Australia’s academic standing.

Happily, here again much can be achieved by simple and inexpensive measures : we need only establish habits of openness and peer scrutiny.    Generally,  our universities already have perfectly good written regulations  requiring appointment on merit.  On the principle that sunlight is the best and cheapest antiseptic,  I make the following further submissions:

6.	If a university selection committee appoint a candidate with lower formal qualifications than competing candidates,  the university must discharge the onus of showing cause why the said candidate was appointed.

7.	GRE test results should be disclosed in the interests of peer evaluation and competition.

8.	As part of the selection process membership of selection committees should be disclosed at the outset.

9.	Once a selection is made,  the CVs of the successful candidates should be available on request to other candidates.

6.	INTERNATIONAL STANDING - GRE

To rehabilitate the international reputation of our universities, one relatively simple step would be to encourage them to insist that candidates for academic posts sit the GRE (Graduate Record Examination) test, which is  administered worldwide by the Education Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey and marked centrally.   In the period  1987-1990,  for example, 954, 995 candidates sat the test.

For many years supervised testing sessions have been available in Australia through the Australian Council for Educational Research,  so that there is no material impediment to sitting the test. 

The advantage of the GRE as  against a local test is that it has long been routinely used in the United States to rank graduates and is also used internationally, so that  Australian graduates can get immediate  feedback on international ranking.     

If it turns out that Australians perform well in that competition, so much the better.  Inferior performance on the other hand would act as an alarm signal.

Either way, hard-edged certainty is preferable to vague claims.  

7.	SCRUTINY
(Paragraphs  (g) and (h) of the Terms of Reference)

It follows from the foregoing that review and reporting mechanisms are currently inadequate, indeed barely existent.   University Visitors no longer fill their traditional role, and cannot cope with the demands outlined in the Terms of Reference.
 
A similar comment applies to paragraph  (g), “the nature and sufficiency of independent advice to the government on higher  education matters.”  Here a variant of Catch 22 applies :  Federal Governments have shown a tendency to listen only to insiders.  If insiders offer criticism, they cease to be insiders and are characterised as “disgruntled”, and therefore to be ignored.

Accordingly, in my submission mechanisms should be put in place for criticism to be given government consideration,   particularly where debate has reached the public domain.

The appointment of an independent University Ombudsman  with jurisdiction over State as well as Federal universities would be a good start.   Presumably the consent of  State universities to the jurisdiction of  an Ombudsman could  be obtained in the context of funding negotiations.

8.	CONCLUSION

Australia enjoys a strong academic tradition,  a formerly high international reputation, and for some years now a large pool of highly qualified potential academics. 

With reference to paragraph (f) of the Terms of Reference, those advantages can be a platform on which to re-build international repute and consequently a major contribution to economic growth and influence in the world at large.

With reference to paragraph (e) of the Terms of Reference, the main priority is reform, which can be implemented by rewarding universities for making whatever changes this Honourable Committee may ultimately recommend. In my respectful submission,  once such a programme were in place,  a clearer insight would be gained into actual funding needs.  The  reform would be radical only with respect to its impact on pockets of comfortable mediocrity.   After all, what is proposed is in essence conceptually modest :   that our universities aim at being elite institutions, staffed  by the most intellectually gifted women and men available,  regardless of sex, age, race, disability or any other discriminant extrinsic to intellectual capacity.    Such staff would not fear open competition, and would quickly lift Australia’s academic profile. In the Humanities at least, there is no shortage of  high quality potential recruits, given the pool of  unemployed PhD holders regularly  showing up in statistics.    

If requested,  I shall be happy to supply further information, and would welcome the opportunity to give evidence at a public hearing.

References

1.	Professor D. Anderson,   Sources of Australian Academics’ Qualifications,  AGPS, 1993)

2.	G. Maslen, “Conflict in anyone’s language,”  The Bulletin,  26 December 1995,  page 27.

3.	G. Maslen,  “Rights of man,” The Bulletin,  24 September, 1996, page 14, 

4.	LawMagazine, Internet  service, vol. 1 : Number 6,   6 October, 1996.

5.	G. Maslen “Freckleton alleges bias against merit,”  Campus Review,  3-9 November 1999, page 3.

6.	University of Melbourne, 1991,  Right Practices, Right Person : Handbook on  Recruitment and  Selection of Academic Staff (available from Equal Opportunity Office, University of Melbourne).

Dr Peter David Freckleton
Barrister
205 William Street, Melbourne (M), Victoria, 3000
e-mail: frecklep@ocean.com. 
Telephone: +61-3-9608 7444(work);  +61-3-9598 6388 (home)
Fax :   +61-3-95982810
Mobile : 0411142840