Watch this space …
Written by Steven Schwartz on March 19th, 2008
A new government, another higher education review. Whatever the new inquiry - announced by Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard - determines should be the way forward for universities, it now appears we won’t get any significant new funding until 2010.
In the meantime, the work of universities must go on.
I’ve recently uploaded several new videos onto my website in which I talk about various plans for Macquarie University, what makes Macquarie a distinctive university, our work on developing a sustainable campus, and a discussion about the deeper purposes of universities.
You can view them by clicking here.
As I note in the film titled ‘Why we make these videos’ this medium is one way of informing you about what’s going on at Macquarie this year, and in sharing thoughts about higher education in general.
If you want to comment on any of the videos email me at vc@vc.mq.edu.au or leave a reply here on my blog.
Another new video on my site features a “hypothetical” panel which I hosted at a function Macquarie was engaged in along with the Sydney Chamber of Commerce. The panellists were excellent – former NSW premier Bob Carr, Macquarie’s own Professor Tim Flannery, radio and TV personality James O’Loghlin, and KPMG partner Jennifer Westacott. They were in top form in responding to my various scenarios.
Although hypotheticals can seem absurd and funny, they do serve a serious purpose. Hypotheticals ask “what if? and challenge participants to think about important issues in different ways.
This hypothetical was designed to explore the sacrifices that we are prepared to make in order to preserve the environment. You can check it out here.
You can also listen to and watch other recordings I’ve made here.
Higher education: threats and opportunities
Written by Steven Schwartz on March 11th, 2008
Recently The Economist magazine reported on what happened when the British music company EMI invited some teenagers in for a focus group.
The kids provided feedback on their music interests. At the end of the session, the marketers invited the participants to help themselves to free CDs piled on a table near the door.
No one took any of the CDs.
The company couldn’t give away their product, not even to their main target customers.
What went wrong? EMI has been around a long time, first as HMV. It changed its name to Electrical and Musical Industries (EMI) in 1931 (but kept the HMV brand). This was the same year it opened its studios in Abbey Road.
Over the next 30 years, it recorded Enrico Caruso, Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole but its best move was to sign The Beatles in 1962.
The enormous profitability of The Beatles allowed EMI to run a research laboratory.
One of the researchers working there, Godfrey Hounsfield, used his knowledge of signal processing to invent the CT (CAT) scanner.
Hounsfield won the Nobel Prize, but EMI sold the right to the CT scanner, deciding instead to stick to its core business of music.
Today, EMI publishes Kylie Minogue, Norah Jones, The Rolling Stones, Janet Jackson, and many other stars.
It is the third largest recording company in the world and the largest in terms of its income from music publishing.
But CDs sales have been slipping.
A product that did not exist a few years ago, the iPod and its competitors, combined with a distribution method that also did not exist a few years ago, the on-line music store, are making CDs obsolete.
Universities are not music companies but there are lessons in this story for us.
First, no business (or education) model lasts forever.
Second, putting all your eggs in one basket can be a dangerous strategy.
Third, disruptive technological change is hard to anticipate and difficult to resist.
Is our way of conducting ourselves sustainable? Do we have a sufficient spread of activities? Are we susceptible to disruptive change?
There are many threats and challenges, but, as always, there are opportunities as well. To ensure our future, we need to understand what our community requires and see how we can deliver it efficiently and with high quality.
We need to know what we are trying to achieve for our students, our companies and our other stakeholders and we need to show that we are really delivering on our stated goals.
At Macquarie we are constantly asking ourselves these questions to identify where we are, where we want to be and how we can get there. I’ll keep you informed of our progress.
Deregulate to stimulate higher ed
Written by Steven Schwartz on March 3rd, 2008
The higher education sector has been buzzing with comment and opinion about what the Labor government should or should not do to our universities.
I was particularly interested in the views of Professor Richard Larkins, vice-chancellor of Monash University, which he expressed in an address recently to the Melbourne Press Club.
In a thoughtful and well-crafted speech on the future of Australia’s higher education sector, Professor Larkins said that the student contribution amount for HECS students should be deregulated.
“There is no evidence that HECS is a disincentive for students and if our best universities are to be internationally competitive a step change in funding is required. Competition and the universities’ own sense of fairness will ensure these fees are not excessive and the extra income will be used in part to support disadvantaged students.”
Professor Larkins stressed this was his personal view, “not shared by all vice-chancellors and not an official position of Universities Australia” (the peak body representing 38 of Australia’s universities).
I certainly believe competition would be a good thing for the sector.
It’s my view that every eligible student should be given a scholarship equivalent to the amount the Commonwealth currently pays for each university place. Students would take this scholarship to their university, which would then collect the money from the Commonwealth.
In a deregulated environment universities would have to compete for students in order to survive.
By forcing institutions to find a distinctive niche, competition would foster diversity. Some universities would, for example, target adult learners, others would go for residential students while still others would focus on vocational training. In each case, universities would lift their game or risk being beaten by the competition.
In other words, universities would be subject to the same forces as other businesses.
And in order to ensure the highest level of excellence, fees should also be deregulated.
An elite seminar at a high demand university in a desirable location should cost more than a large lecture class in a low demand institution.
By allowing the best courses to charge more, our universities would be able to compete with the best in the world. To ensure that access to elite education is not limited to the rich, universities that sought to raise fees should be required to use some of their new income to support disadvantaged students. We should also introduce a needs-based scholarship system so that students without means are not left out.
Universities, forced to compete, would find their niches. Students, who control the purse strings, would influence what gets taught, by whom and when.
Institutions would benefit because they would be able to adjust their offerings to meet student demand and the country would benefit from having the strong universities we need to ensure our continued economic and social progress.
What do students learn?
Written by Steven Schwartz on February 25th, 2008
The Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Chubb, has recently called for the skills of graduates to be assessed in order to demonstrate what they have learned.
He is not alone. Last year’s Top of the Class report produced by the Australian Senate recommends that universities assess graduating teachers to “guarantee that all students who graduate with a qualification in education have thoroughly demonstrated that they have high level literacy and numeracy skills”.
The US Commission on the Future of Higher Education has also called for direct testing of university graduates, as has the Paris-based OECD.
Indeed, as an outgrowth of the Bologna process, the OECD has proposed the cross-national examination of the generic skills of university graduates. This is similar to the OECD’s existing cross-national assessment of school performance in which 62 countries participate, including Australia.
Not surprisingly, test publishers have been quick to spot a new market. Rather than test every graduate, the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), produced by the Council for Aid to Education, permits comparisons at the institutional level. There are currently 225 universities using the Collegiate Learning Assessment.
Each year, universities select a random sample of 100 entering students and 100 graduating students to take an on-line examination of critical thinking, analytic reasoning, written communication and problem solving.
Unlike the MAPP, the CLA is not a multiple choice examination. It requires students to analyse complex materials and engage in real life activities (preparing a memo, for instance).
Here is a sample question from the CLA: You are the assistant to Pat Williams, the president of DynaTech, a company that makes precision electronic instruments and navigational equipment. Sally Evans, a member of DynaTech’s sales force, recommended that DynaTech buy a small private plane (a SwiftAir 235) that she and other members of the sales force could use to visit customers. Pat was about to approve the purchase when there was an accident involving a SwiftAir 235.
In addition, students are given newspaper reports of the accident, articles and reports about small plane performance and accidents. Students are asked to: Please prepare a memo that addresses the questions in Pat’s memo to you. Be sure to describe the data that support or refute the claim that the type of wing on the SwiftAir 235 leads to more in-flight breakups, as well as the factors that may have contributed to the accident and should be taken into account. Please also make an overall recommendation about whether DynaTech should purchase the plane and cite your reasons for this conclusion.
Surely the answer to this question would provide us with a much better idea of what students have learned than the current approach in which we survey graduates with the CEQ, which asks graduates whether they believe their course has “sharpened” their analytic skills.
Universities that use the CLA can not only be compared with one another, they can also compare incoming students with departing ones to see how much students have learned during their time at university. This “value-added” approach can also be used to make cross-university comparisons although this would require that the results be adjusted for the initial competencies of the students accepted by different universities.
Of course, the CLA cannot tell us why some students do better than others. This will have to come from course reviews and experimental studies. However, because the CLA is a standardised test, it can be used over time to track the effects of new teaching methods and new courses on student learning.
So, we have a choice. We can continue to use indirect proxy measures of learning like the CEQ. We can pretend that small differences in survey results, differences that are well within the error variance of the survey, are actually meaningful. We can try to convince ourselves that asking people whether they have learned is the same as testing what they have learned. And we can put up with large realignments of universities each year.
Or, we could admit that this particular emperor is stark naked and start doing what the Australian Senate, the OECD and the American Commission all recommend - testing what students have actually learned.
The taboo topic
Written by Steven Schwartz on February 21st, 2008
Writing in the Australian Higher Education supplement this week, I described how mental illness has become a taboo topic. As I think this is an important issue, I’d like to repeat for you here some of what I said.
In my 11 years as a vice-chancellor I have attended three memorial services for students who took their own lives. Two of our students have also committed murders - five violent deaths in total.
According to a report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 28 per cent of Australians hospitalised for intentionally harming themselves are between the ages of 15 and 24.
Among young people, suicide accounts for more than one-quarter of all male deaths and almost one-fifth of all female deaths. A study has found that 10 to 15 per cent of university students contemplate suicide at some point in their university careers.
Mental illness has been called a taboo topic, something we should not talk about. Suicides, for example, often are hushed up, disguised and reported as accidents.
The truth is we feel guilty and ashamed when someone we know commits suicide - guilty because we think we should have been able to prevent such behaviour; ashamed because we did not succeed.
It is easy to avoid personal responsibility for the psychologically disturbed. They are ill, we think, and should be looked after by mental health professionals. But this is not enough. All of us who work in universities must do our part.
Many students lead stressful lives. More than half work and study full time. Making ends meet financially is a constant struggle as is finding time to study. Examinations have become not just a means to a final grade but the determiners of careers.
But there are things we can do to help. University staff must become more aware of the signs of mental illness so we can spot problems early - and do something about it.
Students also need to get involved. They need to learn the warning signs and to look for them among their friends. If a classmate gets seriously depressed or makes remarks about not being around much longer; if a friend begins to give away prized possessions and talk about ending it all, then students need to help. They must refuse, for their friend’s sake, to keep violent plans secret.
Universities need to continue to make clear to students where they can obtain help and advice for friends and for themselves. They also need to make provision for emergency calls and to publicise the appropriate telephone numbers to all students.
To read the article in full click here.
To find out about Macquarie’s Support Services, including medical, counselling and welfare, click here.
For a list of emergency contact phone numbers click here.
The general emergency number for Macquarie is (02) 9850 9999
What it takes for innovation to flourish
Written by Steven Schwartz on February 18th, 2008
In the 1400s, when most Europeans were subsistence farmers, China was on the verge of industrialising. Chinese farmers used hydraulics, Chinese veterinarians treated farm animals and Chinese crops were enhanced with artificial fertilisers. The Chinese invented paper, explosives, clocks, moveable type, compasses and they were masters of ship design while Europeans were still living in caves.
Despite their impressive head start, by 1600 the Chinese had fallen scientifically and economically behind Europe. By 1800, the economic gulf between China and Europe was huge, and the Chinese have not yet caught up.
What happened? The Chinese example shows that inventiveness, although necessary, is not sufficient to ensure economic growth and prosperity. It also takes an openness to change.
New inventions produce new industries and wipe out old ones. Medieval Chinese rulers feared change. In the 15th century, to avoid foreign contamination, they forbade trading with distant lands, rendering their superior shipbuilding useless. They were less interested in economic progress than in maintaining the social status quo.
In addition to openness to change, economic growth and prosperity require private property rights. In China, state ownership meant that inventors could not realise any value from their inventions.
A similar situation existed in modern times in the USA where, until fairly recently, scientists and universities were not permitted to profit from discoveries they made while supported by federally-funded research grants.
The result is that few discoveries were commercialised and the public did not benefit from the research their tax dollars supported. The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, passed in 1980, gave US universities ownership of their discoveries. The result was an explosion of new industries.
The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr, has initiated an Innovation Review. In the past, these reviews have ended up recommending that tax payers “support” certain industries (or particular research and development projects) with bounties, tariffs and research grants.
These programs have rarely succeeded because it is difficult to pick winners in advance and governments do not have crystal balls.
What is needed, instead, is a sound foundation on which inventors and entrepreneurs can grow their ideas and their businesses - a tax system that encourages investors to risk their capital in research and development; a patent regime that allows inventors to protect their intellectual property; a regulatory system that favours competition; universities that can afford to hire the very best academics; free trade and a government that knows when to stay out of the way.
Green universities: bring on the comp
Written by Steven Schwartz on February 14th, 2008
Blogging in The Australian this week, higher education analyst Gavin Moodie points out that two recent publications from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) highlight how far Australian universities are lagging in making their operations more environmentally sustainable.
Moodie looks at the HEFCE strategic review of sustainable development in higher education in England, which he says sets out to establish a baseline of sustainable development in higher education against which progress can be measured, or at least demonstrated.
He also refers to a HEFCE Consultation on the aims and operation of a revolving green fund which it is hoped will provide about $64-86 million over three years in repayable grants to higher education institutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Moodie says that hopefully the Australian Government and higher education sector will soon develop similar projects.
I think he’s right - we need to do something to encourage sustainability practices in Australian universities.
We’ve made a great start at Macquarie University. Last year we established Sustainability@MQ, the university’s Sustainability Office, to improve the sustainability performance of the university and to provide a platform to embed sustainability into the university’s culture.
Take a look at its website to find our exactly what we are doing, and what’s planned.
There is also a short film, made by Macquarie Media Studies undergraduate Iain Brew, which highlights our attitude towards sustainability.
In the United States, universities have become very competitive in developing sustainability measures. One example is the College Sustainability Report Card, an independent sustainability evaluation of campus operations and endowment investments. Published by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, it assesses the 200 public and private universities with the largest endowments and grades them according to their sustainability efforts across operations.
It says results “clearly show a ‘green groundswell’ on campuses, with nearly 45 per cent of colleges committing to fight climate change through cutting carbon emissions”.
We need to introduce some competitive measures here in Australia. It’s been shown time and again that competition leads to better practice.
I know Macquarie is not alone in having a sustainability policy and office - a number of other universities, including the University of Sydney, Newcastle University, and the Australian National University, have also gone in a similar direction.
Now the sector needs some way of measuring progress among universities – and I think some kind of competition would help to do that.
At Macquarie we’ve set a baseline, and we want to get even better when it comes to sustainability. We’re ready to compete.
Time to improve teacher salaries
Written by Steven Schwartz on February 12th, 2008
It’s been an interesting week so far in the world of education.
First up was a paper by two researchers from the Australian National University, Chris Ryan and Andrew Leigh (who by the way has a very interesting blog about “New ideas on economics, politics and current events”.)
In ‘How Has School Productivity Changed in Australia?’, Leigh and Ryan present data on literacy and numeracy scores of Australian children aged in their early teens. Combining data from two nationally representative sets of tests, they compare numeracy scores from 1964 to 2003, and literacy scores from 1975 to 1998. They then compare this with per-child school expenditure.
They find that numeracy and literacy performance among school students has declined since the 60s and 70s, with the data suggesting “that the numeracy of the typical young teenage student in 2003 was approximately a quarter of a grade level behind his or her counterpart in 1964”.
“We find a small but statistically significant fall in numeracy over the period 1964-2003, and in both literacy and numeracy over the period 1975-1998,” they write.
They estimate that “real per-child school expenditure” increased by 258 percent over the period 1964-2003 with the increase in spending funding “a substantial reduction in student-teacher ratios”.
In a report on the paper in The Australian Dr Leigh says cutting class sizes by about 20 per cent over the past 40 years had increased the number of teachers, but at the same time teachers’ salaries were allowed to fall in comparison with those of other professions, also by about 10 per cent.
Are we spending money wisely in our schools? I think that if the Rudd Government is serious about an education revolution it should immediately find ways of encouraging the states to improve teachers’ salaries. The best and brightest will not be drawn to teaching while salaries are below what they could earn in private industry.
This is important for higher education, and indeed the nation, because what happens in schools has consequences for universities. The country needs well-educated graduates – and that process begins in schools.
Speaking of universities … a report in The Australian on figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics says that the number of students would have passed one million last year.
The total student body grew to 984,100 in 2006, it says. Females continue to dominate on campus, taking up to 55 per cent of the places. Management and commerce was the most widely taught subject, with 284,000 students in these courses. Society and culture was second with 216,200 students.
These figures show just how big higher education has become, but I’m concerned that a majority of these students may come from traditional backgrounds. They’re very welcome, but we need to do more to ensure access and equity for those from other socio-economic groups.
Among other initiatives, Macquarie University operates uniTEST, an equity measure which recognises that the Universities Admissions Index (UAI) is not always the best indicator of aptitude or ability to undertake tertiary studies. It may be a good way forward for those who may have experienced difficulties or disadvantage at a crucial time in their schooling and that impacted on their final results.
Finally, I was interested to read in The Financial Review Education section an interview with Michael Chaney, the immediate past president of the Business Council of Australia, chancellor of the University of Western Australia, and chairman of the National Australia Bank.
Chaney says that simply training graduates for one role in the workforce is the wrong approach. “I’ve never been all that empathetic with views about universities needing to train people work-ready,” he’s quoted as saying in Rachel Lebihan’s article. (‘More businesses should attend university’, p34)
Rather, universities should be “centres of academic excellence and intellectual excellence – not technical colleges. They should be places where students broaden their minds beyond their immediate speciality”.
Readers who have been following my discussion about the nature of universities - see here and here for example - will know that I am interested in drawing out the values, attitudes and expectations embedded in their missions.
I agree with Chaney that graduates should come away from university with more than just knowledge about their proposed job. In coming months I’ll be sharing with you what I think a university education should provide.
Just for you: U@MQ
Written by Steven Schwartz on February 6th, 2008
A new website you should check out is that of our very own U@MQ, the new Macquarie University student services organisation committed to creating a vibrant and healthy university campus environment.
It’s an excellent guide to U@MQ’s services, which range from sport and recreation through to childcare: in other words, all the non-academic services and facilities that give a boost to university life. A major goal of the U@MQ team is to support a healthy and balanced approach to life for students and staff.
One major facility managed by U@MQ is the excellent Macquarie University Sport and Aquatic Centre which, with its heated swimming pools and fitness studios, is available to everyone.
The website provides information about food, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, and entertainment on campus.
The “Get Involved” link provides information on how to take a full part in campus life with sections about student groups, events, the Global Leadership Program, alumni, volunteering, the student publication and much more.
This year U@MQ is driving several initiatives to create a healthier and sustainable campus including increasing the healthy food options on campus, improving environmental sustainability and expanding the social sport competition and recreation calendar.
U@MQ is also involved in this year’s O-Week (O for orientation), which is held over the first three days of semester.
Students and staff with childcare needs can also find out about the three childcare centres on campus – Banksia Cottage, Gumnut Cottage and Waratah Cottage.
If you want to contact U@MQ to find out more about its services, or to offer an idea click here.
How far will Charters go?
Written by Steven Schwartz on January 29th, 2008
The Science Minister, Kim Carr has called for scientists to be “liberated” from any impediment to communicating their research results or expressing their opinions on contentious issues.
Carr plans to create Charters for Commonwealth research agencies - CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. These Charters will be designed to support open communication, dissemination and debate about the results of scientific, technical and social research.
The Government does not have the authority to devise Charters for university researchers, but we can develop our own. Here, at Macquarie, we already have policies about research ethics and we have a set of fundamental principles, which include being courageous.
Many academics have endorsed Carr’s ideas (and so do I), but I wonder just how far the Charters will go.
For example, the free sharing of information represents a bedrock academic value. Yet, Government laboratories and universities frequently sign confidentiality agreements with commercial partners.
These agreements keep researchers, and sometimes PhD students, from publishing their work until the investor’s commercial rights can be protected by a patent or licence or sale. Can this be reconciled with Carr’s view that scientists have an “obligation” to share their work?
