|
|
|
|
|
Set our universities free
24 January 2010
Hardly a week goes by without a government spokesman discussing an aspect of the ‘smart economy’. In the public (and perhaps government) mind, this is equated with technology. But a truly ‘smart’ economy is not based on technology, but on flexibility - especially mental flexibility.
Developing this should be the primary focus of the higher education sector. However, a set of interlinked issues render it unable to do this.
Irish higher education suffers from a conflict of mission statements. It is expected to deliver on innovation, education, social enrichment, economic growth, public health and improved lifestyles. Though research suggests that all of these - and more - arise from higher education, the effect varies across individuals and disciplines. The context is further complicated by the regional imperative.
Given the need to spread scarce funds widely, there is little chance of obtaining internationally competitive scale in any one area or institution. Higher education and innovation are also drowning in an alphabet soup: HEA, Hetac, Fetac, SFI, IRCSET, IRCHSS,HRB, EI, Fás, Forfás, NCC, IDA. . . the list goes on. Although some consolidation in qualification accreditation is now being proposed, this is only a start.
Consideration should be given to the creation of a single ministry with three divisions - education, training and employment, and innovation and research, with a minister of state with responsibility for intellectual property.
Ideally, the ministers should be appointed from the Seanad, allowing for external non-political experts to be chosen on the basis of observed international competency in these areas.
In this way, we can begin designing a holistic structure of higher education and innovation, and make real progress on eliminating many of the governance failures that currently exist, as a result of higher education and research being spread across too many government departments and agencies.
We need a visionary step forward. In the Irish educational context, we have a precedent in Donagh O’Malley’s Free Education Act - concerning the issue of secondary school access. This was met with a frosty reception from the keepers of the exchequer gates, but was a key foundation block for our modern economy and society. A similar solution is now needed for the university space.
What would such a solution entail? We suggest three main elements, implemented at the same time: freedom of academic institutions to set and deliver their own courses, quality in all aspects and adequate funding.
Academic freedom is perhaps the simplest, and yet most profound, step.
In essence, this would involve the granting of ‘university’ (ie degree granting) status to all third and fourth-level institutions (inclusive of exceptional legal entities; for example, research-orientated facilities, such as the Royal Irish Academy and the Dublin Institute for advanced Studies).
The announcement by education minister Batt O’Keeffe that he is to abolish the NUI is a first step towards this. But the road to true reform is long indeed. Each institute of technology, NUI constituent college or any other body now offering courses at diploma level or above would be freed.
Care needs to be taken that we do not replicate the failures of Britain and Australia with regard to similar reforms. In institutes of technology, new programmes go through a very rigorous evaluation. The issue is that existing programmes need root-and branch reform to ensure that they are of the same quality and intellectual standard.
With freedom comes responsibility, and the most important responsibility will be to offer educational programmes aligned with the fostering of flexible minds. Freedom of this sort would allow universities to determine their own courses, to play to their own research and teaching strength, to plan their own futures and to compete in the market for education based on these strengths.
Freedom should be extended to faculty wages. At present, within narrow bands, the best are paid the same as the worst, the most active the same as the least. Universities must be able to set wages based on the demand for the faculty and on the excellence or otherwise of its job performance.
Evidence from the US indicates that salary freedom can assist in incentivising staff, but this can arise at the cost of over-reliance on casual and adjunct lecturers at the undergraduate level. The cost of ‘superstar’ researchers must not be borne by the undergraduate programme. The US Marines have a motto, ‘Every man a rifleman’. We need to ensure that, in the newly-freed institutions, a motto of, ‘Every scholar a teacher, every teacher a scholar’, is taken just as seriously.
Freedom must also, of course, mean freedom to fail. If a university were unable to deliver on required educational outcomes, then it ultimately would be required to fold or to be subsumed by another more successful university - and mechanisms need to be created to deal with the fall-out if it happens.
We suggested earlier that a truly smart economy involves the production of flexible thinkers. Such an education must be more than purely discipline-focused at third-level. There is little point in producing graduates who are scientifically illiterate or unaware of human or social sciences.
We can broadly consider three domains of intellectual activity in universities: humanities, letters and the social sciences (arts); life sciences; and natural sciences. A true university education would involve an annual minimum of 15 per cent engagement with each domain. Specialist or technical knowledge required for entry into some (but perhaps not all) of the professions is best achieved by well-rounded graduates choosing postgraduate programmes in these areas.
To provide these postgraduate courses adequately, all academic staff in the university would be required to research actively, which would be achieved by a rolling tenure system.
This would involve the granting of tenure for a prospective five to seven year period, with biannual reviews.
A recent court decision (Cahill v DCU) highlighted the need for a legallybinding definition of tenure, granting immunity from dismissal by reason of pursuit of unpopular, unfashionable or dissenting research, and which would be automatically subject to measurable and externally verifiable outputs.
Research activity and research quality are only loosely related, but quality requires activity as a prerequisite.
To ensure quality of teaching we suggest that there be biannual reviews of teaching based on best modern practice. This would involve some element of student feedback, but also reflective portfolios and classroom observation. To oversee this quality issue, we suggest a single evaluation unit within the above suggested ministry.
A third element relates to funding. The economic argument for public funding of universities is that they are providers of public goods - well-educated citizens. The Irish rationale for full public funding was principally for narrow party political gains. Separating undergraduate from postgraduate education allows greater clarity to emerge.
People seeking to take Masters or doctoral qualifications in an area do so for one of two reasons - a desire to seek entry to an area or profession (investment), or one of personal interest (consumption).There is no obvious reason why the government should fund the latter over other consumptions.
In any case, the operation of the tax/PRSI system should, in most circumstances, offer a return to society, partly via the increased taxable earnings that better-qualified persons achieve, thus capturing the ‘public good’ element of an increase in, for example, dentists, telecommunication engineers or doctors of literature.
Research can continue to be funded through internal allocation of surplus funds from running such courses, from philanthropic and competitive sources.
What then remains is the extent to which society wishes to fund the cost of undergraduates. With a restructuring such as we recommend above, some element of public funding is appropriate, given that it would result in a greater alignment with the needs of a modern economy and society.
However, some payment at the point of use - fees - is required. These fees can either be paid upfront at a discount, deferred and repaid via the tax system or paid via social transfer for students who qualify for a grant.
As a starting point, consider 50-50 burden sharing - universities should produce a full economic cost of their undergraduate provision, and then retrospectively be funded half of this en bloc by the state.
The consequence would be differential fees for courses in the same university and across the university sector. When combined with the freedom to offer such courses and directions as desired, and a CAO-like entry system, a system of student place allocation could combine financial incentives and academic integrity. Such a set of solutions is radical. It requires bravery in facing up to entrenched vested interests in politics and universities. It requires a willingness to be frank with the public.
Whether this can be achieved in the Irish political system is dubious, but the role of leaders is to lead.
Charles Larkin is research associate in the school of economics, and Brian Lucey is associate professor in the school of business, Trinity College Dublin
|
|
|
