UTS Students’ Association Response to the 
Terms of Reference of the Senate Inquiry into:

The Capacity
of Public Universities 
to Meet Australia’s 
Higher Education Needs

Prepared by Cath Murphy, Postgraduate Researcher/Organiser, UTS Students’ Association.

The Postgraduate Network of UTS welcomes the opportunity to speak to the following submission at the Senate Inquiry hearings. 
a) the adequacy of current funding arrangements with respect to:
i.	the capacity of universities to manage and serve increasing demand

UTS Fees for Research Degrees

The Year 2000 was a disastrous one for UTS research postgraduate students. The release of the White Paper, Knowledge and Innovation, in December 1999, and the implementation strategies of the policy, resulted in UTS losing students through the new Liberal Government funding formulae, which removed 3336 places for Research Masters and PhD students in Australian universities overall, down from last year’s 24,980 places. UTS effectively lost 52 HECS-funded research places (gap over gap), where students paid their own HECS. Faculties have now taken over that payment function for 2001, until the current students complete. Once these students have completed, the places will not be renewed. These places were essential for UTS to develop their research cohort. 

The current public funding of the 500 places for Masters and PhD by research students, which will generate $10.7 million for 2001 (Higher Education Report for 2001-2003 Triennium. Minister for DETYA) is fully contestable at the end of the EFTSU cycle. This means that the places may be lost if UTS does not compete in the criteria used to measure worthiness for public funding: completions, research income and research publications as set out in the DETYA schedule for Research Training Scheme funding. Funding is now provided to institutions when a student completes rather than upon their entry, which establishes a culture of competitiveness amongst institutions who may “poach” students upon them nearing completion of their research. 

As for new students, UTS has implemented, in a completely unlimited capacity, research full fee-paying places for 2001. For the first time, UTS is now charging research Masters and PhD students upfront fees- the amount of which is akin to local fees. There is no limit upon how many students can enter UTS via this scheme and there is no limit upon fees charged. 

UTS will increase fees by 3% in 2001. The UTS Students Association believes that any amount of fee-paying is prohibitive and puts students into poverty during their study. As the Latona research on completions clearly shows, student poverty is a risk and an inhibit to student completion. (Kris Latona: Some Factors Associated with Completion of Research Higher Degrees, UTS, 2000- see Appendix 1). An awareness of this factor did not stop the University Graduate School from implementing fees and a user-pays system. 

The following information is taken from the UTS University Graduate School Website. The fees schedule for 2001, is as follows:

If you are liable for fees, then the fees per semester for undertaking a higher research degree at the University of Technology, Sydney, will be as follows for 2001:

Full-Time				Part-Time
FACULTY
 		Full Fee no discount	40% discount	Full Fee no discount 	40% discount 
 		(0.5 EFTSU)		(AMS)*	(0.33 EFTSU)		(AMS)*

Business	6000			3600		4000			2400
DAB*		6000			3600		4000			2400
Education	4500			2700		3000			1800
Engineering	6500			3900		4332			2599
HSS*		5000			3000		3334			2000
IT*		6500			3900		4332			2599
ISF*		6500			3900		4332			2599
Law		6000			3600		4000			2400
NHM*		5000			3000		3334			2000
Science	6500			3900		4332			2599

NB  	*(AMS) = Academic Merit Scholarship	*DAB = Design, Architecture and Building	*HSS= Humanities and Social Sciences	IT = Information Technology	ISF = Institute for Sustainable Futures 	*NMH = Nursing, Midwifery and Health

Course Fees

Course fees are paid on a semester basis and statements will be sent to students shortly after the beginning of the semester by the Fees Office. The due date for payment will be indicated on the statement.
Most students will qualify for the 40% Academic Merit Scholarship, that is a 40% discount on fees and this reduction is shown on the above table. In addition, some faculties offer additional scholarships of up to 60%. Students will be notified in their letter of offer the total discounted fee payable by them.

(from http://www.gradschool.uts.edu.au/f&s/research_fees.html)

The above details the price to a student of a Masters by Research and a PhD under a user-pays system at UTS. The figures in the left column are the maximum a student would have to pay per semester. Hence a HSS student without any financial assistance from UTS would pay $10,000 per annum and a student from the Institute for Sustainable Futures would pay $13,000 per annum. The UTS Students’ Association also challenges the equity of a part-time student being required to pay 2/3 fees of a full-time student. 
At both Academic Board and University Council in December 2000, the Students’ Association argued passionately against implementing fees for research degrees at UTS. What had been termed “Fee-Based Places for Research Students” in an agenda item for The University Graduate School board (despatched 7th November, 2000), reappeared as the more palatable “Non-HECS Places For Research Students” to minute the same agenda item (despatched 5th February, 2001). There was no coincidence in this reinvention of the terms: the UTS Students’ Association had expressed outrage at the proposed implementation of fees. The UGSB decided it was not enough to have the seeming objectivity of the term “non-HECS students” and went even further in an attempt at the innocuous: the students who once were fee-paying students had now become “UTS Scholarship Places”. And thus was it sold to University Council members on 14th December, 2000. A newly repackaged identity for the fee places ensured easy passage through University Council. 

Meanwhile assurances had been given that students would not bear the burden of fees, but merely enjoy the “option” of scholarships. Merit students, we were told, would still have the same access, and it was only the rich that would be have to pay for their place. We were told that UTS would contribute up to 40% (but the table above taken from the website indicates that this is not guaranteed: “Most students will qualify for the 40% Academic Merit Scholarship” [Italics added to show emphasis]) and that faculties would contribute up to 60% of the fee. We were told that the Students’ Association were selfish to deter the progress that the fees would ensure, and that we were petty for pursuing and opposing the issue. A truer story emerges in Item 6.3 of the unconfirmed minutes of the UGSB Meeting held on 13th February, 2001. In a summary of the allocation of RTS places, 20 applicants missed out on the funded places. Six of these applicants were offered an Equity Scholarship. For the remaining 14 candidates, one declined the offer of an unfunded place. The other 13 applicants would have to pay full fees (up to $13,000 pa) unless the Faculty was prepared to fund the place in full or in part. 

The initial response of the faculties to contributing to paying student fees in 2001 was:

•	Business and NMH would not offer Faculty scholarships until 2002;
•	HSS would offer 3 scholarships in 2001, and in principle, 2 in ever following year with close monitoring of how the new scheme worked;
•	Education supported the Scheme in principle but would not offer any faculty scholarship this year;
•	Science had two places supported by industrial funding;
•	Engineering would offer one scholarship and was in the process of negotiation with the applicant for another scholarship place.

The reality of full-fee paying places for UTS research students hit hard in 2001, despite assurances that UTS was acting in the best interests of students. As UTS works to increase its research profile, each year we will see increasing fee-paying research Masters and PhD students, in the fear that UTS may lose its publicly funded places, and in an increasing acceptance of the rhetoric of corporate funding acting as the panacea to a starved system.
Operating Grant funding at UTS

The proportion of UTS Income funded by the operating grant funding by the Federal Liberal Party is approximately 42% in 2001 from a position of 90% in 1990. This funding provides for 13,000 of 17,000 EFTSU. UTS has not received and increases in government funded load since the mid 1990’s. It is estimated there will be no increase in the quantum of UTS government funding over the next three years and a likelihood of a decrease over the next triennium (Planning a Thriving Future for UTS, Council Retreat Papers, 17th February, 2001) There is also  a projection of a possible $1 million loss from its operating grant under the research training scheme in 2002, based on modelling of the position in 2000 (p. 6)

ii.	Institutional Autonomy and Flexibility

Corporate Sponsorship and Corporatisation at UTS

UTS Research and Development Key Strategic Plan 2001-2003

The limits on public funding has forced UTS into a position whereby the University has moved into relying on corporate funding to survive. Other than force the University into bankruptcy, thereby forcing a crisis and action from the government, UTS has devised a range of options to deal with the issues of a University starved of public funding. The UTS Research and Development Key Strategic Plan 2001-2003 sets out a plan for UTS to try to compete with the universities who have a more established research profile, such as the Group of Eight Universities. UTS is forced to compete against the Gof8 due to the White Paper research policy Knowledge and Innovation, upon which the receipt of public funding is contingent upon institutions bringing in private funding. The UTS Students’ Association believes that public funding is a public good, and should be provided to public Universities to ensure the integrity and autonomy of institutions. 

The Strategic Plan acknowledges that UTS currently rates 23rd of 37 Universities on a range of indicators concerned with research income. The Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research and Development) Professor Lesley Johnson, has claimed that measures to be undertaken at UTS in the next 3-5 years have the aim of moving UTS into the top 1/3rd of Australian universities in attracting industry funding by 2004, and to be in the top 18 of Australian universities in attracting external research income by 2005. This involves a massive corporate plan involving research staff and students that will cost $4 million. The UTS Students’ Association has a number of concerns about some aspects of the Plan, and is opposed to other aspects on an industrial, equity, or pedagogical basis. 

The UTS Students’ Association expresses concern at the ideal of creating 6-8 areas of Key University Research Strengths (KURS) on the grounds that it will establish some areas of research as more important than others. We believe that research is important in and of itself and believe that the motivation for UTS to develop these Key Research Strengths is as a push into earning corporate dollars and being seen to compete with the GO8 via the Research and Research Training Management Plan. This is demonstrated in that the areas will be funded “on the basis of performance in attracting research quantum funds (Institutional Grants Scheme funding from 2002)” (Leadership in Collaborative Research and Education. Research and Development Key Strategic Plan 2001-2003) The UTS SA expresses its opposition to funding faculties and areas within the University based upon how much funding from corporate entities the KURS can generate, rather than on more academic measures of, for example, the quality and excellence of research undertaken. This not only has serious implications for institutional autonomy but also is questionable in terms of the pedagogical aspects of research. 

It is also problematic that students will be funded with a Research Training Place partly on the basis of whether their candidature is in one of the KURS. (Document 6.2 UGSB, Review of Ranking and Allocation Processes for APA and UTS Doctoral Scholarships and RTS Places). I refer to the following:

Criterion 5: Strategic importance of Area of Proposed Research [not used in 2001]:
1.	Involvement in a UTS or a faculty deisgnated area of current strength
2.	Involvement in a UTS or a faculty-designated area of developing strength
(From: Research Training Scheme Place Point Score System, as at 16 December 2000)

KURS measure neither academic excellence nor potential, as is suggested. Neither does KURS measure an equity experience. It is therefore inappropriate to use this as an indicator for the highly in-demand RTS publicly funded places. To suggest students need bring in corporate funding to earn a publicly funded place is to accept an erosion of a system which suggests it is based on rewarding merit and being concerned with equity. 

There is a real fear in the UTS community that funding to research students will be eliminated, be reduced or remain the same despite growth. Responding to pressure from funding cuts, UTS has responded with providing incentives for research active staff, such as a new team in the Research and Development Office of UTS, to be called the “Industry and Commercialisation Team.” UTS also intends to have the corporate “one-stop shop” of the University, UTS Connections (a result of the restructure of the University in the policy document UTS2000) providing a “funding scheme of risk capital to assist in the establishment of start-up companies”. The Students’ Association is appalled that despite the funding shortfalls and depression in the sector about privatisation of Universities, that UTS will continue to promote privatisation by offering small business incentives within the university. (UTS Research and Development Key Strategic Plan 2001-2003, p.7) The UTS SA believes that any funding received by the University should be inserted back into the core business of a University- not into enterprise, but rather into teaching and learning concerns, which will benefit not only individuals, but all staff and students. 

iii.	the quality and diversity of teaching and research;

Completion times:

The current discourse on completion times represents more a debate about funding than any real issue on completion times. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that completion times are slower today than they have been at any time in history and certainly at UTS, there is evidence to suggest that student completion times are equal amongst faculties. To argue anything other than this is spurious and mischievous. John Byron, President of CAPA disputes the recent claims by David Kemp: 

The earlier ‘study’ abjectly failed to measure actual completions, since it did not account for suspension of candidature, relocation to another institution, maternity leave, and other realities that don’t fit the primitive model. 
(John Byron CAPA Media Release 28 March, 2001)

Whilst the government viciously chose to reduce completion times for students completing Master and PhD’s, UTS chose to also take measures to “ensure” completions. Research was undertaken about completions (the Latona research – See Appendix), which compiled all research undertaken on completions from International studies, and which had a special focus on UTS completions. The research showed a range of things, including the impact material conditions have upon students completing: 

Overseas studies suggest that students working full time on their degree and without major financial worries fare better than part-time or impoverished students.
	 (From the Latona Research)

UTS is fortunate to have high rates of completion and insignificant differences between faculties completing: 

Discipline differences are clear in the rates of completions with science-based students more likely to complete than those in humanities. There is however evidence from some universities (including the University of Technology, Sydney) that humanities and social sciences' students have rates equivalent to the rates of completion in other disciplines. (from the Latona Research)

Despite the above evidence of comparisons of faculties, UTS has approached the issue of completions in a punitive and inequitable way. The UTS Students’ association expresses its concern about current practices designed to make it harder for students to access leave of absence. The Leave of Absence policies at UTS represent as much a contribution to notions of equity as to completion times. The Humanities Faculty at UTS has been undertaking a process of tightening access to Leave of Absence. This will mean that students who are in need of the break from study for a variety of reasons will be unable to do so, hence risking them dropping out of the system. Not only does this represent a real risk to equity provisions at UTS. It will also in the long term lead to a change of demographic for research students, as only those with few caring responsibilities or any other reasons associated with the need for LOA, will be able to complete degrees in the new minimum time frames. 

It is also ironic that UTS charges fees for research degrees and at the same time reduces access to leave of absence so that students may be able to take time out for paid employment to pay for those fees. 

(b) the effect of increasing reliance on private funding and market behaviour on the sector’s ability to meet Australia’s education, training and research needs, including its effect on:
i.	the quality and diversity of education

The increasing reliance of UTS on private funds, and the status of UTS as a member of the ATN  in an increasingly competitive educational environment has created a number of negative consequences for UTS and for postgraduate students. The White Paper “Knowledge and Innovation” created a false dichotomy in placing applied research ahead of basic research, creating a notional idea of where funding would be favoured. UTS has responded to this by seeking to establish itself as a Research University similar to the GO8. It is regrettable that what had become a tradition of cooperative systems among universities will, in future become a system of competitive tendering for precious and rare public funding. This system of competitive tendering has become a part of the community sector, and results in larger institutions receiving funding as they have greater infrastructures to win tenders. Smaller institutions like UTS miss out arbitrarily, more due to an institutionalised University class system than to any real system where merit is rewarded.

It is not only amongst Universities that competition will be forced and reinforced. The new system that UTS has developed of “areas of research strength” inevitably, and by definition, means that there will be areas which are considered worthy, and areas that will be deemed less worthy. The areas of research strength will ensure that those participating in that research will have money, most of which will be private funding, injected into them. The other faculties will become second-class citizen faculties, and remain “uncompetitive”. This is a very narrow approach to education and research.

From institutional competition to faculty competition, and dancing a finale of individual competition, the dance is complete when performance-based funding is allocated to individual academics for their contribution to research and to attracting corporate money into UTS. It is interesting to note that it is the aim of UTS to make ALL academic staff “research active” but that only one model is provided- the corporate model, requiring all staff to tow the line and corporatise their research. 

The damage these policies will have on research students and the integrity of research is inestimable, as students struggle to come to terms with the inequitable nature of the corporatised University that UTS has become.
ii.	the production of sufficient numbers of appropriately-qualified graduates to meet industry demand

Brain Drain

The Federal government White Paper “Knowledge and Innovation” cut 3336 publicly funded places from research Masters and PhD’s in 2001 and this number will remain constant for the future. Whilst there are willing candidates hoping to undertake studies at UTS, the Federal Government cut public funding arguing that there is an over-supply of research graduates. Kemp developed this spurious justification and cut places in the negotiations and implementation of the White Paper. Interestingly, in the Federal Government’s Education Innovation Statement of 2001, it has been promised that some funds will be returned to the sector, as the government realises that “brain drain” is a real reality and member of the scientific community, philosophers, nurses and a range of others have realised with what little regard their research is held in Australia, and so have left the country. Whilst Australian industry cries out for qualified professionals, graduates leave to develop their potential in countries which spend a greater proportion on R&D and other incentives. 

Credential Creep

Credential creep is a phenomenon that ensures that students continue to pay deregulated fees over and above what the professional skills of the position might require. Increasing interest in higher education has led to more graduates with PhD’s, but now postdoctoral qualifications are considered to be the entry point to an academic position. Credentialism increasingly affects coursework students as Graduate Certificates are phased out and disappear and the Graduate Diploma becomes the new essential qualification as entry level into industry. Similarly, Graduate Diplomas are phased out and a Masters degree becomes the new professional qualification. These changes do not always occur with major changes to course structures. Sometimes the changes are nominal. When degrees disappear from University handbooks, they become virtually worthless to the holder of it Credentialism occurs more due to the changing nature of the corporate University and educational expectations in society rather than any academic argument towards upgrading skills.

The Deschooling of Society- the TAFE experience

A series of cutbacks and freezes on employment in the public sector has had a devastating effect on UTS. The increasing casualisation of TAFE and the reliance on part-time (casual) teaching staff has meant that the mandatory and publicly funded 1-year Adult Education course at UTS has had significant problems with enrolments, due to there not being significant demand. The Education Faculty in 2000 lost 20 staff to redundancies and left the Faculty in crisis. The reducing public sector in Australia has a flooding effect on the education sector that supports a public sector workforce.

(c) public liability consequences of private, commercial activities of universities;

Flexible delivery; Work-based learning

Public liability is increasingly an issue for postgraduates as the nature of university methods and modes of delivery are explored and tried out. “Flexible delivery” has been hailed as a new and exciting accessible pedagogic saviour in Universities. In some aspects, however, flexible delivery has increasing risks to the user (the student). There is currently very little discourse around how, for example, students will be able to work under differing conditions other than the formalised classroom setting, and reconcile issues, of, for example, public liability, insurance, and occupational health and safety concerns. Within the traditional learning environment, Universities have developed policies and procedures relating to all aspects of student health and safety issues of both the learner and of others on campus. Flexible delivery raises new challenges for Universities to deal with these questions. 

Flexible delivery takes many forms, the most popularly discussed of which is that of online learning. This mode of delivery has a range of issues and problems- isolation; a lack of proper resourcing and face to face teaching for students; issues for students with special needs in terms of access and appropriateness; and an additional issue for student organisations-who have less access to their student members when the latter are not substantively on campus. 

There is another problem, and that is how universities deal with issues of OHS and protection of students when a student studies, for example at home, for a course where the mode of delivery is either purely, or mostly online. 

(d) the equality of opportunity to participate in higher education, including:

i.	the levels of access among social groups under-represented in higher education

Structural inequalities in Scholarship forms at UTS
 
In a recent Review of the APA and UTS PhD and RTS places, findings related to the wide series of equity students who may miss out on scholarship places due to the structural inequality of measurement devices. The absence of students belonging to professional employment bodies, having long and strong industrial/professional experience, or being a young person in study, means that these groups are structurally disadvantaged, and are locked out of a place by definition and history- not necessarily by measurements based upon merit and ability. Isolated people miss out, and those returning to study late, as do those whose occupations have not had a professional background. Armed with this knowledge, it is up to institutions to provide assurances that students can receive funding for their studies based upon true notions of merit, talent and ability, not based upon a privileged background and prior access to professional employment. 

Thesis Completion Equity Grants- the Backlash continues

Erroneously, and despite women’s unequal position in higher education, DETYA have removed women from the DETYA official equity groups.  The rationale for this, argues DETYA, is the increasing number of women in higher education. The UTS Students’ Association believes that women remain an equity group in terms of outcomes, and experiences throughout their education. Women still earn less than men, still make up less management positions, and still suffer structural disadvantage, manifesting in such things as sexual harassment, discrimination, and unequal access to resources, including information technologies. 

Students, particularly postgraduate women, are generally mature aged adults and have a number of responsibilities- paid work (often full-time) as well as childcare and other caring responsibilities. The removal of women as a designated DETYA Equity group invisibilises the issues of women and creates a false notion of equality where none exists. 

UTS has, in alliance with the UTS Equity and Diversity Unit, taken on the Liberal Government DETYA conservative approach. Already, scholarships and equity services are provided, on some level, to women only in non-traditional areas (such as Engineering, Computer Science, Architecture, Building Studies), instead of ALL women. 

The newly created Thesis Completion Equity Grants for Research Degree Students at UTS are an example of how the backlash against women has worked to disadvantage women and to favour men. A group that will have access to the grant is “men in non-traditional areas such as Nursing and Midwifery”. The UTS Students’ Association expresses its concern about an amount of $5000 being set aside for this group, when clearly this group does not have any equity basis for being considered a special group with entitlement. The UTS Students’ Association believes that men in non-traditional areas choose to undertake such courses from interest, whereas equity groups are structurally disadvantaged. 

Fees for university degrees, such as most postgraduate students pay (coursework, International, and now research Masters and PhD), the deterrent factor is undisputed. Individuals who struggle in the underclass have no access to postgraduate at all, despite token liberal democratic responses to equity notions. Working class people have marginal access to postgraduate education. HECS is a deterrent but allows some access, the down side being a continuing and often lifelong debt to repay. The UTS Students’ Association remains committed to public and accessible education. 

ii.	the effects of the introduction of differential Higher Education Contribution Schemes and other fees and charges and changes in funding provision on the affordability and accessibility of higher education
 
The PELS Scheme

In terms of fees and the disincentive to study, since 1996 enrolments in all postgraduate areas except MBA’s and IT have fallen in Australia by 7.5%. Howard’s HECS-type loans are not driven by any market forces - which clearly don’t work with regard to higher education, but by student demands - a real, tangible and statistical reference to the untenable situation of students- the income-poorest in our community- not being able to afford fees. The loans scheme is a clear indication that Howard recognises that the market has failed. 

Institutions have expressed alarm at enrolment levels for some courses. The Academic Profiling Group at UTS has overseen a number of courses being removed, due to falling “demand” and measured by enrolments. It is highly likely that this demand more correlates with student inability to pay fees rather than some more organic desire not to enrol in the course.  At UTS, difficulties with enrolments for nursing postgraduate courses has led the Nursing Faculty to offer some courses as HECS rather than fees for 2001. 

Howard’s Innovation Statement significantly overstates the amount of funds contributed to universities by counting $1Billion to be paid directly by students. Whilst HECS acts as less of a deterrent than upfront fees, it has become clear that in a fully deregulated higher education market, universities are able to charge any amount of fees. 

The amount of loan for the student will be up to the limit of the tuition fee charged by the university. This allows for, and in fact encourages, universities to raise their fees, with the Commonwealth paying upfront and the students deferring repayment. The Commonwealth still isn't actually funding a place per se, and students will end up with sizeable debts. Currently, former students will owe more than more than $7.9 billion in HECS debts by next year. 

This type of funding arrangement- full deregulated fees which can be deferred through the tax system, is exactly what the Go8 were lobbying for late last year in their elite and divisive document titled "Imperatives Principles for Policy Reform of Higher Education Funding".

Using the discourse of a HECS-“style” loan, means it is not clear that there will be any level of discount for upfront payment as is with the current HECS scheme. 

The scheme discusses “eligible students”- a clear reference to the fact that there will not be universal access. Currently, universities provide HECS-equity scholarships. This is a conversion from fee-paying to HECS deferred payment for their postgraduate coursework degrees. The “scholarships” are based upon income and academic achievement. UTS provides these scholarships to10% of students across all courses. It is unclear from the Innovation Statement what is to become of HECS Equity Scholarships, but it seems likely that they will disappear, and the figure saved will be usurped into the government’s PELS profit.

The scheme also relates only to coursework students. UTS recently implemented fees for postgraduate Research students. Whilst the Innovation Statement makes many statements about supporting research, there has been no reference to ensuring that research students will be able to undertake their studies without the burden of fully deregulated fees.

In fact, the Liberal Government’s own research indicates that the PELS scheme will be highly profitable for the government. The figures below represent how the government will fare over 5 years of implementing the PELS scheme. All figures are in millions.

	2001/2		2002/3		2003/4		2004/5		2005/6		Total
PELS	-0.7		2.0		7.7		11.7		15.9		36.6
 http://www.innovation.gov.au/iap/info_pack/templates/factd26.doc?ois=y;template=inntem.html

The footnote to the table states: 

	The positive impact of this initiative on the fiscal balance largely reflects the estimated revenue to the Commonwealth arising from the indexation of students' loan debt over time. Under accrual accounting, the actual amount loaned to students, estimated to be some $995 million over five years, does not impact on the fiscal balance.

There is also no guarantee that once the Commonwealth has access to university students’ funds, that they won’t then privatise that agreement and sell it off to private providers, such as banks, as was mooted in 2000.

There are many concerns in this scheme. The primary concern is that if the fully deregulated market and the necessity for the government to put a cap on fees. What is certain is that the government will continue to profit from students and the PELS scheme guarantees revenue to the government and at the expense of students. 

(e) the factors affecting the ability of Australian public universities to attract and retain staff in the context of competitive local and global markets and the intellectual culture of universities

Performance-based funding 

The Draft Policy Document on UTS Research: Leadership in Collaborative Research and Education. Research and Development Key Strategic Plan 2001-2003, has as Objective 1:

“To be in the top one-third of Australian universities in attracting research funding, particularly for collaborative research.” 
(Draft Policy Document, p.3)

To do this, the document states, resources will be needed, including a:
3.	Possible change to the way in which faculties are funded to recognise research strengths
4.	Possible changes to remuneration packages for staff designated as research leaders
(Draft Policy Document, p.3)

The UTS Students’ Association and the NTEU remain very concerned about and opposed to differential remuneration packages for both faculties and for individual academic staff at UTS. The implementation of performance-based funding (PBF) at any level within the University would create a two-tiered system of faculties and academics. 

Within faculties, the structural bias in favour of Science and Business as potentially far greater money spinners, than say, Humanities and Social Sciences, will add further disadvantage and create an underclass within the University. The rhetoric that those faculties who traditionally bring in less corporate dollars than others can rely on systems such as logos and patents to receive performance-based funding, is spurious and mischievous. It creates a false argument by UTS management to deny the serious crisis that will occur for faculties who will have funding famine while others flourish. 

In the case of individual academics, performance-based funding would create divisions between those who would be rewarded as "research-active" staff, (currently defined at UTS as 15% of staff who bring in corporate funding); and teaching staff, who would be considered as second rate academics. They will be considered as lesser beings within the structures of UTS as it is intended that only those considered “research active” (that is, those bringing in significant corporate dollars) will be considered to “perform” well enough to be favoured with monetary bonuses. It is difficult to feel equal to one’s colleagues when one is earning less for equal work.  

Whilst the UTS Students’ Association acknowledges the important place research has within universities, it appears University Management at UTS fails to see the importance of teaching, as reflected in the rationale for the decision to define and delineate “research-active staff”: 
“In particular, there are a number of indications that many of our outstanding researchers are increasingly finding it difficult to maintain their productivitiy because of the nature of their teaching and academic workload.”
(Strategic Plan, p.2)

The SA disagrees with the discourse that teaching is somehow extraneous to the role of the academic within Universities. If UTS wishes to maintain staff, then a closer look at the role of the academic within the University is timely. Within Universities, the activities of research and teaching have an intimate relationship based upon reciprocity- one informs the other. The future of the University in attracting students will be, not only in research, but also in having appropriate infrastructures and opportunities, and in ensuring the continued participation in academic life of those who possess excellence skills in teaching. 

(g) the regulation of the higher education sector in the global environment, including:

external mechanisms to undertake ongoing review of the capacity of the sector to meet Australia’s education, training, research, social and economic needs

The continuing unaccountability of universities, as answerable only to the Minister through the Australian University Quality Agency is inappropriate. The Agency has been referred to as a toothless tiger and has been considered ineffective in actually doing anything. Of course, the best reporting mechanisms will have little validity if the sector is starved of public funds. Using the AUQA to measure the effectiveness of universites when they are in a continual state of crisis, is a humiliating and ineffective practice. 

Meanwhile, Federal Government propaganda of ensuring quality for international students suggests that "Australia’s legal protections for international students are among the best in the world, ensuring quality and integrity and providing financial assurances," (Dr Kemp Media Release, “Australian Government Welcomes International Students” 20th February, 2001). The UTS Students’ Association believes that the funding of Universities has reached such a critical point that the fees from International students form a great part of revenue for Universities. International students are used as cash cows, numbers are fully deregulated, and there are not suitable infrastructures put into place to ensure International students are able to have a quality education. Academics expressed these concerns in the media attention this year around quality issues for International students. The most lucid arguments related to there being inadequate structures available to support international students, whose needs vary from those of their local counterparts.

Evidence of the academic issues for International students lie in the work undertaken by the Postgraduate Researcher/Organiser at the UTS Students’ Association. Casework for UTS Postgraduate students overwhelmingly has a significant proportion of International students who are overly represented in student appeals against assessment. These students are often high achievers in countries overseas. Students are referred to the Equity and Diversity Unit within the University in cases where a student is discriminated against on the basis of culture or background. 

i.	university governance reporting requirements, structures and practices; and

The UTS Students Association believes that Universities are accountable bodies and as such, need to be answerable to students and staff. The UTS Students Association recently saw an example where University Council bypassed its own properly constituted and endorsed Complaints Policy in order to appoint an external investigator to a complaint. The UTS Students’ Association is concerned that University Councils lack accountability in decision-making. A complaint, using the (bypassed) UTS complaints policy has been made to Council regarding this matter. 

Appendix - the Kris Latona Research, Copyright 2000

A. Institutional/Environmental Factors

(i) Differences between the disciplines in terms of their traditions and the way they conduct research need to be recognised. For example, the experience of science students is typically within a tightly-knit community of researchers among whom the supervisor is but one (albeit important) source of guidance and support. At the other end of the scale, social sciences and humanities' students tend to work in a more intense relationship with their supervisors in the absence of highly integrated research cultures.
(ii) Milestone protocols around candidature milestones are useful; e.g. guidelines to be used in assessment of candidature; statements of infrastructure support which can be expected at different stages.
(iii) A sense of belonging to a group or institution is critical. In the case of science-based students this comes primarily through a research team or department. For humanities it is more often built on participation in institutional activities for research students; co-authorship of papers with supervisors; presenting work at seminars; being part of a cohort, e.g. in a professional doctorate.

B. Individual Supervisory Arrangements

(i) Feedback from the supervisor is important but needs to be in the form that is appropriate at the time. For example, a student may require a broad brush response to an idea being developed in writing, and at another time more detailed advice on the structuring of an argument or the text as a whole.
(ii) Meeting frequently is important to students although the phrase begs the question of what "frequently" means. For some, it may mean several times per week, for others once a month or less. The key is not so much the temporal aspect as the sense of structure within and between the meetings to give a sense of purpose and building towards the completion of the work and the thesis.
(iii) Supervision protocols which allow students and supervisors to negotiate their expectations of each other and establish ground rules for working together can contribute to productive working relationships.
(iv) Positive relationships between student and supervisor are essential as general quality of the interaction and personal qualities of supervisors are key variables in completions.
(v) Getting started early on the topic is a major contributor to success. Preparation of research proposals as a requirement before enrolment can curtail some of the uncertainty and help most students to move more rapidly.
(vi) Keeping the same topic and supervisor. The evidence, not surprisingly, is that students are significantly slowed down by changes in arrangements or topics. 

C. Student Cohorts and Characteristics

(i) Entry qualifications make a substantial difference. Students who have not come through traditional academic paths such as Honours often need opportunities to develop their research knowledge and skills.
(ii) Overseas studies suggest that students working full time on their degree and without major financial worries fare better than part-time or impoverished students. There is evidence from Australian universities, however, that part-time students in full-time employment complete in similar timeframes, and at the same rate, when adjustments are made to calculate full-time equivalence.
(iii) There is no conclusive evidence that either males or females complete at higher rates.
(iv) Discipline differences are clear in the rates of completions with science-based students more likely to complete than those in humanities. There is however evidence from some universities (including the University of Technology, Sydney) that humanities and social sciences' students have rates equivalent to the rates of completion in other disciplines.
(v) Psychological factors are to some extent outside the control of the institution, but supervisors may be able to move students through to completion if they can identify personality traits such as a tendency to procrastination.