Sunday, September 27, 2020

When will India build world-class research universities?

It is true to say that India in 2020 does not have any world-class research universities.

It does have several outstanding research institutes in various scientific fields. It also has some excellent technology and management institutions – the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institutes of Management. And a few outstanding public institutions, such as the Indian Institute of Science, and some excellent private initiatives such as Manipal, Ashoka, and a few others.

But none of these are comprehensive research universities that can compare with the best universities globally – or which are recognised by any of the global higher education rankings.
Without question, India needs some world-class research universities. India has an expanding economy and plays an increasingly important role in global affairs. Indian brainpower plays a key role in Silicon Valley in the United States and Indians can be found at the top ranks of universities around the world.

But India is not yet a scientific or research power. For India to be fully successful as a global scientific and intellectual force, it needs research universities.

This requirement has finally been recognised in several of the impressive initiatives proposed by the Government of India – most importantly the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, approved by the government in August, and programmes such as the Global Initiative of Academic Networks, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and several others.

A differentiated academic system
Research universities are necessarily a small but central part of a differentiated academic system. India, which now has the second-largest student enrolment in the world, has a highly complex but poorly articulated academic system.

It is important to recognise the importance of having research universities at the pinnacle of that system, but to understand that the number of such institutions is a small part of the total – and that choosing which universities will be research-intensive is quite important.

The NEP suggests that about 100 universities be identified as research universities in the near future. These universities will focus strongly on research and doctoral programmes, in addition to having high quality education at bachelor and masters degree levels.

The rest of the more than 900 universities will be teaching universities, which will mainly deliver high quality education. These universities are also expected to do a modest amount of research and have small doctoral programmes.

This differentiation is extremely important, since without carefully articulating this, all universities try to do both research and education without adequate resources or the quality of faculty that is needed for high quality research, meaning they will end up being mediocre at both.

How the research universities will be differentiated from the rest must be done in a transparent manner using a sound classification framework (like the Carnegie Classification in the United States) that uses a few important measures of research, such as the size of doctoral programmes, the number of research faculty with doctorates, the level of research funding, publications and citations, among others. (The Carnegie framework was adapted for India in a paper published in Higher Education last year, which identified about 70 universities from the top 200 in the NIRF as research universities).

Some have argued that India needs to develop its own university model. While a research university, or any academic institution, must take into account national realities, the basic model of the research university is well established and necessarily reflects the patterns followed by the best universities globally.

China, which has been quite successful in developing a number of successful research universities by, among other things, spending vast sums of money on the effort, talked about “universities with Chinese characteristics”.

In fact their successful universities follow established, mainly Western, models. Indeed, the main elements that are ‘Chinese’ are negative – limitations on academic freedom, restrictions on access to some information and too much bureaucracy – and actually slow down progress.

Thus, successful Indian research universities will inevitably resemble the best universities worldwide.

Pathways to excellence
India has traditionally taken the path of creating small and specialised institutions in areas like engineering, medicine, law, social sciences, business and others – the best known of which are the Indian Institutes of Technology.

Globally, however, most research universities tend to be multidisciplinary. The reason for this is that, in the modern world, where the main challenges are multidisciplinary, high quality innovation and research require institutions to have multiple disciplines in the same university.

The NEP, in keeping with this globally successful approach, expects all research universities to scale up and become multidisciplinary, each having up to 25,000 students.

If the existing top Indian institutions and universities can expand in size and add more disciplines, this will provide them with the scale and disciplinary diversity needed to be included in the world’s top research universities.

It may also be possible to merge some existing institutions, as has been successfully done in France recently.

India has several important advantages as it emerges as an academic power. The widespread use of English means that India is immediately part of global scientific communication.

India also has a sizable cadre of accomplished academics and researchers – both within the country and as part of the diaspora. Creating a productive academic environment for the most talented academics requires careful attention, good organisation and adequate funding.

Involving the diaspora is quite important as the talent pool is immense – a significant number of Indians currently serve as university presidents and provosts of, for example, American universities, and could contribute knowledge about building research universities, even if they do not actually return to India.

Similarly, Indian professors in the diaspora can contribute to building research capacity by participating in collaborative research and other initiatives.

The research universities need substantially expanded resources for research. Current levels of funding for research in universities is dramatically insufficient – India has consistently underfunded all aspects of higher education in the past.

The NEP has correctly identified this as an area to be developed and has proposed establishing a National Research Foundation which will have significant funds for supporting research in four areas – technology, science, social science and arts and humanities.

The NEP also suggests that the different ministries should set aside funds for research, increase investment in research and enhance linkages of universities with the economy and society.

Overall, if these measures are implemented well, it will enhance the level of research in universities while making them more relevant for society and more globally competitive.

Research universities also need full autonomy – they are too complex to be governed in any other manner. That is why even the publicly funded institutions in most developed countries enjoy almost full autonomy, with little or no direct involvement by the government in the management or governance of these institutions.

The NEP has recommended making research universities fully autonomous, with self-perpetuating boards having a very limited representation of government people or government appointees, with the board selecting and appointing the chief executive.

This would be a dramatic change from current Indian practice where the government appoints top leaders and controls the purse strings.

These changes in the board structure and appointment of the chief executive, in addition to increased funding, could usher in a new dynamism in public research universities in India. The NEP also recommends full financial autonomy for universities.

The stars are aligned for India to play an important part in the global knowledge system and to build world-class research universities. The talent exists, the need is clear and there are some promising initiatives from the government. The challenge is no longer a lack of ideas – it is sustained support and effective implementation. But in the Indian context, these are indeed significant hurdles.

Authors: Philip G Altbach, Research Professor and Founding Director, Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, USA & Pankaj Jalote, Distinguished Professor and Founding Director, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi, India.

Source: University World News, September 26, 2020

Thursday, September 24, 2020

EU-China research relationship ‘unbalanced’, policy head warns

The European Union’s research relationship with China is “unbalanced”, according to one of the bloc’s policy chiefs, who has accused Beijing of failing to open up its scientific data or allow collaboration in fields where it is particularly strong. 

Jean-Eric Paquet, the European Commission’s director-general for research and innovation, also raised concerns about Chinese internet censorship. 

While stressing that cooperation should continue, particularly in areas such as climate change and sustainable development, Mr Paquet made it clear that Brussels no longer believes that scientific links with China are reciprocal. 

“The relationship is perceived, and I think rightly on the European side, as unbalanced,” he told delegates during a discussion on 23 September as part of the European Research and Innovation Days, an annual EU research conference, held online this year. 

“There is really essentially full access to Europe, but very cumbersome, and sometimes even formally limited, access to resources on the Chinese side,” he added. 

His comments mirror growing unease in Brussels with what it sees as a similarly unbalanced economic relationship between the two powers, meaning that certain European industries are excluded from the Chinese market. 

This was one of the key issues debated during a virtual summit between the EU and China held earlier this month, after which the bloc also called for “reciprocity” and a “level playing field” in science and technology. The EU’s concerns span several areas, Mr Paquet explained. 

Chinese researchers had struck up collaborations in research areas where Europe was strong, such as information technology, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, he said. 

But it had proved much harder for European scientists to do the same for areas of expertise in China, he said. “So the reciprocity dimension is very difficult to find,” he added. 

Another bone of contention is access to scientific data. In the spring, the EU created an open portal for scientists to share data and results about Covid-19. 

“This is accessible to partners around the world,” Paquet said. “But at the same time, the opposite [access to Chinese data] is much more difficult.” 

Chinese internet censorship was another example of the “difficulties” in having a “balanced and reciprocal relationship” with China when it came to research, he continued. 

And he added that he was “a bit unhappy” about uneven researcher mobility. “You [Chinese academics] are coming to Europe in great numbers, and you are bringing a lot of knowledge – you take, of course, a lot as well – but our researchers don’t go to China in the same numbers,” he said. 

His comments were echoed by Charlotte Roule, vice-president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, who also told delegates that the relationship was “relatively unbalanced”. 

Over the past four years, she said, the EU had spent far more than China on joint research and innovation projects between the two powers. “So we have a discrepancy here,” she said. 

Brussels is now creating a common framework, set to be released in the “coming months”, that should more clearly define how European universities and research organisations should partner with China, taking into account issues such as “security” and intellectual property rights, added Mr Paquet. 

Source: Times Higher Education, September 24, 2020

International students could be in NSW by early 2021, senior minister says

A senior state government minister says NSW is aiming to welcome international students by early 2021, as it shores up lessons from hotel quarantine to share with the university sector.

Stuart Ayres, the minister for jobs, investment, tourism and Western Sydney, said NSW's record of quarantining 60,000 returning travellers through Sydney had built a "strong bed of evidence that we can learn from" in managing overseas student arrivals.

"I foreshadow that we’ll be able to open borders to international students through a quarantine regime much earlier than we’ll be able to open borders to the visitor economy," he said, speaking at the ATN International Education Summit on Wednesday.

"I see no reason why we can't be optimistic here in NSW about doing something for the start of 2021. That’s definitely something that I’ll be working towards. I’ll be talking to vice-chancellors further about our lessons learned and how we can work more closely with the university sector."

For months universities have been urging governments to establish a secure corridor scheme for overseas students to return to Australia, to protect next year's planned intake and billions of dollars in revenue for both the sector and the state.

A trial program to establish a safe corridor for overseas students was put on the backburner in Julybecause of the dire coronavirus situation in Victoria, the repatriation of Australian citizens and pressure on the hotel quarantine system.

But Mr Ayres said he was now having "a number of conversations with vice-chancellors" about how to set up a quarantine system based on the government's experience and collaboration with NSW Police.

He said a 14-day quarantine was seen as a manageable request for overseas students who would stay in the country for an extended period.

A University of Sydney spokeswoman said the university looked forward working with the NSW government. "This very welcome step will be complex and require all levels of government, universities and the private sector including airlines to work together," she said.

University of Technology Sydney deputy vice-chancellor said NSW universities would welcome students as soon as possible. "This would be a win not just for the universities but of general benefit to the state's economy," he said.

Mr Ayres did not rule out the potential for a sooner return, such as the end of the year, but said student safety would be paramount.

Phil Honeywood, chief executive officer of the International Education Association, said it was vital for universities to have some international students able to return to their studies by the start of first semester next year.

"It is heartening to have a senior NSW government minister indicating proof of life for our beleaguered industry," he said.

"Clearly with South Australia and the Northern Territory already indicating they are bringing international students back, NSW want to keep their market share. Other states such as WA, Queensland and Victoria are likely to be left behind if the NSW government make good on this rhetoric."

A senior government source said the NSW government had not yet sought approval from the federal government for a safe corridors pilot in NSW, but that it was hoped international students could return as soon as it was safe for them to do so.

The Northern Territory is expected to receive a small number of international students on a chartered flight including returning Australian citizens this year, as part of its federal government approved safe corridors trial.

Mr Ayres said he thought Australia had maintained its reputation as a COVID-safe study location despite the Victorian outbreak and that all states would be glad to see the return of international students.

"I don’t think we need to have our state colours on," he said. "I think everyone around Australia… has a really strong appreciation of the value international students bring to our economies, to our cities, to our regional communities."

University of Wollongong deputy vice-chancellor of global strategy, Alex Frino, said he was "confident we can safely bring international students into the country".

A spokesperson for the Department of Education, Skills and Employment said state and territory governments are responsible for any pilot programs to return international students in their jurisdictions.

"The Australian Government does not have an active proposal under consideration from the NSW Government," the spokesperson said.

This article written by Natassia Chrysanthos and Anna Patty.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, September 24, 2020

Government briefing to allay universities' fears over foreign veto laws adds to uncertainty

Australian universities could get the green light to strike deals with international counterparts under the Morrison government’s new foreign veto laws, only to have the agreements ripped up years down the track because “foreign policy considerations are not static”.

As concerns grow within the higher education sector about the reach of a proposed bill giving Canberra the power to cancel international deals, Guardian Australia has learned that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Dfat) attempted to allay those concerns at a briefing for universities last week.

University representatives raised fears at the briefing that the new laws could have a “chilling effect” on international research collaboration – given that Australia’s foreign affairs minister could initially allow an agreement to enter into force, only to veto at a later stage.

Universities fear such wide discretion could erode international partners’ confidence to enter into negotiations with Australian researchers. Universities have begun lobbying the government to either carve them out of the legislation or make changes to reduce the impact.

The laws also targets deals states and territories make with overseas governments – and those are the types of agreements that will face the highest scrutiny.

The legislation allows the minister to scrutinise deals that Australian universities reach with foreign universities that lack “institutional autonomy”.

The definition of institutional autonomy is expected to be spelled out only when Marise Payne, the foreign affairs minister, issues more detailed rules clarifying how the bill will work in practice.

But the minister will have the power to tear up arrangements that would have “adverse effects on foreign relations” or were “inconsistent with foreign policy”.

When university representatives suggested this provided very wide latitude, and that foreign policy could potentially change day-by-day, a Dfat official is believed to have replied that “foreign policy considerations are not static”.

Government officials argued the legislation was “country-agnostic” – meaning it was not aimed against any particular country. There was no specific guidance offered when university representatives suggested no Chinese institution would meet the criteria of “institutional autonomy”.

Instead, officials noted that just because an institution was not considered to have autonomy, that would not automatically disqualify a deal – it just meant it would be scrutinised under the bill.

Universities are worried that a minister could disqualify any deal at any point after the notification – giving a wide envelope of discretion to the minister of the day, including after changes of government.

But officials insisted that “the intent is not to impede a beneficial arrangement”.

It is understood the briefing only deepened concerns among universities that the bill was onerous and unworkable in the way it applied to the higher education sector.

The briefing was a teleconference held on Wednesday last week with about 20 people on the call, including DFAT and education department officials and university representatives.

Universities have previously complained of being “blindsided” by the legislation, which the government never flagged through a taskforce it set up a year ago to deal with concerns about foreign interference in the Australian university sector.

A DFAT spokesperson said the bill was “intended to consider Australia’s foreign relations and foreign policy as it relates to every country”.

“Certain arrangements entered into by universities will also be picked up by the legislation, however the bill is not intended to impede the beneficial business of universities with their foreign counterparts,” the spokesperson said.

“It is expected that much of the routine business of universities will proceed as normal.”

But Vicki Thomson, the chief executive of the Group of Eight, said: “We have serious concerns about this legislation and the extent that it might stop international research collaboration, but we want to work with government to mitigate against that.”

In early September, Universities Australia said it held “grave concerns regarding the effect the laws may have on research collaboration, which is the lifeblood of knowledge and job creation”.

The Morrison government has made no secret of its concerns about the Victoria’s deal with the Chinese government to cooperate under Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative. But Scott Morrison has insisted he will not prejudge any decision on particular agreements.

Labor has called on the government to use the proposed veto powers to unwind the sale of Darwin’s port to a Chinese company.

In addition to universities, it is understood officials have been briefing state and territory governments and councils on the legislation over the past few weeks.

This article written by Daniel Hurst.

Source: The Guardian, September 23, 2020

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

$7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: How much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024

Australian university research funding is made up of discretionary income that comes from various sources, including international student fees. This is additional to the funding, including government grants, specifically received for research activities. 

Universities spent A$12.2 billion on research in 2018. Discretionary income used to fund Australian university research that year amounted to $6 billion, of which $3.1 billion of this came from international student fees. 

This means international student fees made up 51% of all the externally sourced research income. 

We have estimated the loss of international student revenue due to COVID-19 will mean the discretionary income available to support research will decline to less than 30% of external funding for 2020 and beyond. This is equivalent to a decrease of between $6.4 billion and $7.6 billion from 2020–24. 

The associated reduction in the Australian university research workforce will be in the range 5,100 to 6,100 researchers. This includes graduate research students, research assistants and academic research leaders. This amounts to around 11% of the current research force. 

 We relied on cost of teaching data used by the Australian government to determine funding rates for domestic student places to make our estimates. 

The universities most affected 
All Australian universities will be affected. But our modelling identifies 13 universities likely to be most at risk because of the size of their research effort and their international student programs. 

These are the research-intensive Group of Eight universities: The University of Sydney, The University of Melbourne, UNSW, Monash University, The University of Queensland, ANU, The University of Western Australia and Adelaide University. These universities account for 70% of the total research funding shortfall. 

Five other universities account for 18% of the research funding shortfall: UTS, Deakin University, Macquarie University, QUT and Griffith University. The impact of the fee losses on the other 25 universities is just 12% of the total. 

Some of the 13 universities are facing significantly greater risk to their research programs because they are committing a proportionately greater amount of discretionary fee income than the sector average of 51% to fund research. 

We have rated UTS, Deakin and Macquarie at extremely high risk. For Sydney, Melbourne, UNSW, QUT, Griffith and Queensland the risk will be very high, while for Monash, Adelaide, ANU and UWA, risks will be moderately high. 

Research rankings and global university reputations are at risk if effective mitigation actions are not achieved. 

What needs to be done 
Given their reliance on international student revenue to sustain research, universities must place a high priority on restoring, as quickly as possible, existing international student markets or building new markets in other countries. The government can help by promoting stronger international engagement and fast-tracking student visas when borders reopen. 

Universities will need also to identify savings in other spending areas such as infrastructure investment, and identify alternative revenue sources such as increased donations, royalties and investment income. 

Broader collaborations between industries, universities and government research agencies such as CSIRO, DST (Defence, Science and Technology) and AIMS (The Australian Institute of Marine Science) are in the national interest, as it pools expertise across sectors. 

Unfortunately, enhanced collaborations between industry and universities will be limited because Australia’s current level of business research and experimental development is low, compared to the OECD benchmark. In 2018, Australia’s research and development investment was 1.97% of GDP compared with the OECD average of 2.4%. 

Establishing an independent “research and innovation council” representing private research institutes, universities, publicly funded government research agencies and industries with a strong research and development focus has considerable merit. 

Such a body could provide governments with independent strategic research advice to underpin internationally competitive programs. This includes proposing national research priorities important for economic development and social well-being. This council could also play a valuable advocacy role in promoting the national benefits of investment in research. 

Individual universities should rigorously reappraise their own research strengths and potential capabilities. This could sharpen their focus on priority areas and increase research performance. 

These actions can be combined with an analysis of other university spending — including on administrative services and corporate overheads — to reduce the need for further savings in high-performing research areas.  

The federal government needs to acknowledge there is a crisis in university research funding. To date, a coordinated policy response has been muted. While the government has established a research sustainability working group — made up of vice chancellors and others who are to provide advice to the education minister — no other initiatives have been announced. 

Undoubtedly, the most vexed issue is the under-funding of the indirect costs of research linked to competitive grants and contracts. This is a critical unresolved policy issue sought by universities for at least two decades. 

The pandemic highlights the research contribution universities are making to state and regional economies. State governments should also be identifying initiatives they can take to mitigate the research disruptions universities are confronting. 

Fundamentally, increased collaborative investment across industry, governments, universities and private research institutions are essential to alleviate the research funding shortfall and protect Australia’s international research and innovation standing in a post COVID-19 world.

Source: The Conversation, September 23, 2020

UK universities recruit record numbers of international students

UK universities are on course to recruit record numbers of international students during the global pandemic, defying predictions of financial disaster, the latest admissions figures reveal.

The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) said UK universities enjoyed a 9% increase in the number of undergraduate students from outside the UK and the EU starting their studies this autumn, rising to a new record total of 44,300.

The increase marks a remarkable turnaround from earlier this year, when vice-chancellors feared there would be a collapse in international student numbers and warned that a sector-wide financial crisis was likely to follow.

Ucas’s figures usually include fewer than half of the more than 100,000 international undergraduates coming to the UK, with the remainder and postgraduates applying directly to individual universities rather than through the admissions service.<
Admissions officers have also been celebrating record numbers of first-year students coming from disadvantaged areas in the UK, with 22.5% of students from areas with the lowest educational attainment now continuing on into higher education.

The overall proportion of the UK’s 18-year-olds entering higher education will reach 36%, itself a new record. That will also come as a relief to many in higher education, after the bungled efforts to assess entry grades using statistical models to replace exams. In most cases the grades were replaced with school assessments, meaning more students are likely to have met entry requirements.

“Overall demand for higher education has increased during the coronavirus pandemic, and there are currently a record 515,650 students with a confirmed place, up 4% on last year,” Ucas said, noting that the increase followed three years of falling enrolments.

But the figures also show a drop in acceptances from new EU undergraduates, down 2% compared with 2019-20, to just under 30,000.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: “The data clearly tell a very positive story. It was always clear that domestic demand would be up, despite the reduction in 18-year olds, because the alternatives to more education are so poor this year.

“It was also always likely that EU numbers would be down, given the Brexit uncertainties and shenanigans. No one predicted such a big increase in non-EU international students and we have to wait to see if they will all actually arrive and then stay the course.

“But it is a great testament to the underlying strength of our higher education sector, as well as a reflection of the improved migration regime and rising geopolitical tensions between China and the US, that so many people still want to come and study at our fantastic institutions.”

Fears that a significant proportion of students would defer entry because of campus restrictions on socialising have not been borne out: the figures showed only a slight uptick in the proportion of deferrals, 5.7% compared with 5.4% in 2019.

Separately, the Student Loans Company said it had processed and distributed more than £1bn in maintenance loans to 414,877 students by this week, marking its biggest single payment date.

This article written by Richard Adams, Education Editor.

Source: The Guardian, September 23, 2020

Australian universities cower as disaster looms

By the time you read this, I fear it will be too late to stop the federal government blowing up universities. Not the buildings. Those sandstone wonders, those sturdy red brick boxes, those glorious fantasies of Frank Gehry, they will still stand, memorials to critical thinking. 

This tragedy is not a product of any real ideological war. It is not developed enough for that. It is anti-university partisanship, a judgment made by those in the Coalition who think that university employees would never vote for the Coalition so why bother to protect them. What better time to punish them than straight after the damage wrought by COVID-19? By all means, put the boot in when the victim is down, when it can't even defend itself. 

Those who work within those buildings, they will soon be gone and for the purpose of Australian life and culture and, indeed, our future, they may as well be dead. The ideas, the energy, the research, the ability to make your children, and maybe even you, sit up and think, so many of the people who provoked, inspired and guided will be gone, lost forever. By December, I calculate that at least 30,000 jobs across the university sector will be lost and the people who worked there will have joined Centrelink queues, fed into the gaping maw of this recession. 

Not all of those jobs are full-time jobs – we know at least 5000 permanent positions have definitely disappeared already and that number is likely to double by Christmas, according to the National Tertiary Education Union's president Alison Barnes. Included in my number are also 20,000 casuals or sessional staff. They are the ones who bring special expertise into universities, so students can be taught by those with the latest big ideas; they are newly minted PhDs bringing their most recent research into the classroom, they are PhDs in training for a sector which, behind primary school, is the most important in the nation. In the professions many of them are women (and men) trying to keep their hand in with childcare responsibilities. It is sad for those who have been in the sector for decades but devastating for those who were making higher education their future. 

This is a tragedy wrought by an arrogant government, doubling down on its decision to refuse JobKeeper to all but private universities, and introducing the most flawed higher education funding bill Australia has ever seen, the Higher Education Support Amendment( Job-ready Graduates package). It is so bad in its design that the impacts of COVID will look like a bruised knee in comparison, so terrible even the exceptionally calm Grattan Institute chief executive Danielle Wood described it as one of the worst-designed policies she has ever seen. Never mind its design, modelling reveals humanities students will be paying off their student debts for 20 years. How lucky for our current crop of politicians to have avoided that kind of impost. 

The Australian National University's Andrew Norton, professor in the practice of higher education policy at the Centre for Social Research and Methods, says the government has been dangling various carrots so that uni chiefs will mute their criticism and no individual vice-chancellor nor university peak body will "want to ruin their chances". Keeping quiet and compliant is an implied condition of the research funding, he says. 

The universities should be trying to block the Job-ready Graduates package, says Norton. It will cause grief for many years to come; and Norton, with decades of experience in the sector, thinks there is a good chance the crossbench could be persuaded. 

Yet the bill persists. This can only be a continuation of the mindset revealed when we all discovered former minister for education, Simon Birmingham, rejected grants for research he didn't like the look of, well after the expert panel thought those grants should be funded. The university sector knew then this government wanted to wage a war against higher education. In 2017, when Birmingham's reforms were on the table and then defeated, it had notice worse was coming. 

Instead, the sector is sitting by, hoping October 6, Budget Day, will save it. Every single institution fears retribution and so will not speak up. Every single segment of the higher ed market, from the Group of Eight to regional and rural universities is being bought off by promises, promises, few enshrined in the enabling legislation. That research money. That special funding for regional unis. This small change and that small change. 

Universities do a terrible job of communicating what they do. As Sally Kift, visiting professorial fellow at the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education and formerly deputy vice-chancellor (academic) at James Cook University, wrote in the Times Higher Education on Sunday, "As a national sector (let alone as a global community), our disparate and visceral institutional self-interest is such that we find it exceedingly difficult to 'do' holistic." 

And instead of uniting behind the peak, Universities Australia, there is nothing. It has barely raised its voice since this disaster began. UA's submission to the Senate committee is meek. Instead of standing up and fighting back, it writes: "Universities Australia has some further proposals to make for amendments to enshrine key aspects of the package in legislation and to improve particular elements of the Bill." 

No vice-chancellor or deputy vice-chancellor with whom I communicated thinks this bill is any good. Tinkering won't fix this mess. 

The university sector has a number of peak bodies each representing different segments. In this instance, when Australia needs it most, each of the segment peak bodies is quieter than a lab rat although the worst might be those who spoke up. Innovative Research Universities's executive director Conor King decided to tweet: "At a personal and old fashioned democratic level I believe an elected government should be able to get on with governing – as it thinks best and with approval or not at following election." What kind of university lobbyist writes in a press release, "Rejecting the bill is not an option." King again. 

Silence won't save you folks. Only mobilising, organising, campaigning, at all levels will fix this oncoming disaster. Only enlisting every company which ever benefited from your research, every friend you ever had, every powerful alumnus, maybe even the university enrolled children of politicians. Take the government on. Because it has taken you on and it is winning. 

This article written by Jenna Price, an academic at the University of Technology Sydney and a regular columnist of SMH. 

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, September 23, 2020

Monday, September 21, 2020

More job losses planned at Australian universities

The University of New South Wales has announced that it will reduce staff numbers by another 256 this year in order to save A$39 million. 

In an email to staff on 16 September, UNSW estimated that it had originally faced a A$370m budget shortfall for 2021 but had made up all but A$75m of that from reserves. Voluntary redundancies covered 47 per cent of the remainder, and the newly announced losses are likely to be forced departures. Vice-chancellor Ian Jacobs said he felt “deep regret” at the impact on staff. 

On the same day, the Australian National University announced that 215 more positions would go, in addition to around 250 “voluntary separations” already in motion. ANU vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt said in a message to staff that “the stark reality is: we need to save money, and this will mean spending a lot less, both on our non-salary expenditure but also on salaries”. 

The 215 jobs have not been identified but are expected to come from across the university and affect both academic and professional staff. The ANU’s recovery plan calls for savings to be found by attrition and other means, but concedes that involuntary departures may be needed. 

Michael Thomson, the National Tertiary Education Union’s secretary for New South Wales, told Research Professional News that the union was in urgent talks about its response to the UNSW cuts. “The union strongly opposes these cuts. The union believes that university management should look at cutting other costs rather than making staff pay.” 

Thomson said union figures showed that more than 10,000 jobs had been lost from Australian universities this year. 

The University of Melbourne’s National Tertiary Education Union branch is also campaigning against cuts. On 15 September, it released a draft motion urging members to “continue to campaign for a pandemic response that puts staff and students first, and…oppose any management plans to cut jobs or conditions of staff”. 

RMIT University in Melbourne said in a statement that it had received 355 applications for redundancies, adding that it “regularly reviews the requirement for casual staff taking into account student demand, resourcing requirements and available budget”. 

On 17 September, the University of Adelaide’s interim vice-chancellor Mike Brooks told the Senate committee inquiry into the Job-Ready Graduates fee reforms that the university was expecting to lose 200 jobs over the next nine months through “turnover”. Flinders University reported that it was not planning forced redundancies but would rely on reductions to contract and casual staff to make savings. 

At the University of Sydney, some students and staff protested on campus on 16 September against planned cuts and were asked to move on by mounted police. Staff in Sydney’s faculty of arts and social sciences launched a campaign under the banner “For people, against austerity”, calling for cuts to executive salaries and reinstatement of around A$1m that has been cut from the budget for casual teaching staff in the second semester. 

“Instead of compromising both the careers and livelihoods of casualised staff members, management should draw on the university’s extensive capacity to borrow money to protect both staff and courses,” staff said in the letter. They also demanded that senior executives take pay cuts, specifying a 20 per cent cut for anyone earning over A$400,000. 

On 15 September, Sydney vice-chancellor Michael Spence clashed with a member of the Senate inquiry over the university’s spending. Liberal senator Matt O’Sullivan asked Spence how much of the university’s budget was spent outside teaching and research. Spence responded: “I really don’t understand your question. What we do is teach and research.” Spence told the inquiry he had taken a 20 per cent pay cut to assist the university’s budget problems. Spence’s salary was around A$1.5m and he is due to leave the university at the end of the year. 

Source: Research Professional News, September 21, 2020

Blog Archive