UNSW Asia: the conjuncture of events

Fred Hilmer, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, looks back on the UNSW Asia debacle. One of the question that I asked in my post immediately after UNSW's announcement was about the real reason for UNSW's sudden departure. Much news has been reported since, but none of the explanations can fully explain it. Hilmer points to the low enrollment numbers as the reason and the fact that the Singapore Economic Development Board wasn't willing to accept their rescue plan.

Today it was also reported that high fees led to the fall of the Singapore Campus. This has been said by many others but it can't be a sufficient reason. Other senior academics at UNSW Asia blamed a lack of marketing for its demise. Sure, this might be part of the explanation as well. Simon Marginson of the University of Melbourne University explained that the business plan was plain bad and based on too rosy a set of enrollment projections.

I think we have to conclude that there is not one single reason for UNSW's pull-out. It is more a concurrence of circumstances that led to a major fiasco. But why hasn't this been foreseen by a big professional organisation like UNSW? Hilmer basically inherited the whole situation and the only thing he could be blamed for is for opening the campus at all at the start of this year. The establishment of the UNSW Asia campus of course goes further back in time. At least until 2003.

It is interesting to see that the whole development of the UNSW Asia idea has coincided with a period of rather instable governance. For a period of ten years the university was under the energetic leadership of John Niland. Niland has a good relation with Singapore and extensive knowledge about the region. He is currently Member of the Board of Trustees of the Singapore Management University. However, keeping in mind that UNSW was only approached by EDB in 2003 to consider setting up a campus in Singapore, it is unlikely that Niland was involved as a VC.

This means that the whole process, from EDB invitation to the closure in May 2007, took place in no more than 4 years. In these 4 years however, the UNSW has had 3 Vice-Chancellors! The first contacts with EDB have been with Rory Hume, now Provost at the University of California. Hume became VC in 2002 and resigned in 2004, because of the way he handled a case of academic misconduct in the university. Hume's successor was Mark Wainwright who held the VC Office from July 2004 until his retirement in June 2006. This must have been the period where the main negotiations with the EDB have taken place and where the plans for the campus were formed. It was under Wainwright that UNSW Asia was officially launched, that Greg Whittred was appointed president of UNSW Asia and two deputy presidents were announced.

So in 2006 Fred Hilmer left his position as CEO of John Fairfax Holdings and became VC of UNSW. When he came into office, UNSW Asia basically was a 'fait accompli'. Hilmer has never been a true believer in the Singapore venture, but he did not really have the option to pull out since all agreements were made and everyone was set to go. The Singaporean Straight Times (26 May, 2007) reported that 'the death knell for the Singapore campus was sounded the very week that Prof Hilmer took over on June 19, 2006'. He pulled out eventually because financial risks would steeply rise with the construction of a city campus in 2008.

A leading actor in the whole saga - and the one that actually signed the MOU with the EDB in April 2004 - is Former Deputy VC for International & Development, John Ingleson. He held this position since 2001 and was also CEO of the international education, training and consultancy arm of UNSW, New South Global. While he was an outspoken advocate of UNSW Asia - and of global academe in general - he seems to be the most silent factor in its aftermath.

Ingleson left UNSW after vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer restructured the university's top level a year ago. He is now Deputy VC I & D at the University of Western Sydney and also member of the Board of Directors of IDP (a company offering student recruiting and testing services and is part-owned by the Australian universities). The same company also undertook a program-level marketing research for UNSW Asia and was the exclusive recruiter of international students for UNSW Asia.

My two cents? A bad business plan, pursued by an over-enthusiastic DVC who overestimated economic opportunities and underestimated risks in the global higher education market. While there were plenty of reasons to slow down the development of UNSW Asia and the individuals pushing it, this never happened because clear and stable leadership at the very top was lacking at that time. By the time Hilmer inherited the situation, it was a done deal. He tried to make a deal with the Singaporeans but they didn't bite. Option 1: run the risk of even higher costs because of the construction of a campus; Option 2: get out, now costs are still bearable. May 23...Press conference...option 2...closed.

'competitive' salaries in academia

In both the Netherlands and Australia the salaries of the top university leaders lead to controversy. The Australian reports that all but one of the leaders of Australia’s Group of 8 Universities earn more than 600,000 Australian Dollars (378,000 Euros). Top earner was John Hay of the University of Queensland with 655,000 Euros. But the Australian found even higher figures for La Trobe University where someone (probably the former VC) received over 930,000 Euros!

In the Netherlands, the salaries and bonuses in the public sector are a hot issue as well. Many claim that the Prime Minister’s salary should be the norm for others in the public sector. In the Netherlands that is a mere 171,000 Euros (John Howard’s salary was recently increased to 208,000 Euros). But most university leaders in the Netherlands make significantly more than that.

The new Dutch Minister for Education this week showed his discontent about the managerialism in education and the accompanying rise in salaries. He observes that most of them enjoyed enormous salary increases when they came into their current positions. And I am sure he is right about that (although that is not the case for all of them). One of the most visible cases has been the one in my own Alma Mater. Their top level managers were given a 31% salary increase, which sparked a reaction of the Minister claiming that this was ‘unbelievable’. This increase brought the salary of the Chairman of the Executive Board (more or less the CEO of the University) to 171,000 Euros. In comparison, the lowest earning VC in Australia, David Battersby of the University of Balarat (poor guy), earned over 200,000 Euros!

So how do the Dutch university CEOs compare with the Australian Vice-Chancellors? Basically, compared to Australia, the Dutch salaries are still very modest. Here is the list of the top 6 for both countries:

Netherlands (Source: Intermediair (pdf); in Euros)
1. Aalt Dijkhuizen	University of Wageningen	307,520
2. Sijbolt Noorda	University of Amsterdam	284,400
3. Rene Smit	Vrije Universiteit	245,900
4. Hands van Luijk	Delft Univ. of Technology	240,000
5. Yvonne van Rooy	University of Utrecht	233,000
6. Jos Elbers	Hogeschool Inholland	228,928
Australia (Source: The Australian; converted to Euros)
1. John Hay	University of Queensland	655,000
2. Gavin Brown	University of Sydney	454,000
3. Fred Hilmer	University of NSW	378,000 (+95,000)
4. Steven Schwartz	Macquarie University	378,000 (+63,000)
5. John Rickard	Central Queensland Univ.	425,000 - 434,500
6. Glyn Davis	Melbourne University	384,000

Don’t get me wrong! This is no justification for the Dutch salary hikes. More like a condemnation of the Australian salaries. The argument is usually that salaries have to be competitive. This argument is put forward just a bit more often when people talk about managers than when they talk about academics and professors. Australian professorial salaries average A$120,000 (75,600 Euros). I am not sure how much it is in the Netherlands but I think it will be slightly higher, or at least similar. Let’s just say that the huge gap between managerial and academic salaries in Australia better not be taken as an example for the Netherlands.

Group of 8: Seizing the Opportunities

The Group of 8, the group of Australia's leading universities (or self proclaimed Ivy League) has today shared its vision on the future of Australian higher education, or better, what needs to be done to keep it dynamic and competitive. According to the Go8, the current system was designed for a past era and does no longer provide the right framework for universities to perform in a global knowledge economy (something that National University of Singapore president Shih Choon Fong seems to agree with).

The current Australian higher education and research system is under-resourced and over-regulated (hear hear!). But it is also under-planned and insufficiently diversified for the needs of contemporary Australia. The Go8 provides eight proposals that should increase the flexibility that the universities need to remain competitive and that will serve the Australian community:

An Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC)
The establishment of an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), responsible for planning, resource allocation and regulation in respect of post-school education throughout Australia.

Student-driven higher education
Student access to undergraduate and graduate courses should be aided via a universal entitlement to an income-contingent loan and, for meritorious and needy students, via national tuition scholarships.

Mission-based block funding of universities
A new funding line, University-Community Partnerships, as a mechanism to correct for market failure in the event that student choice leaves neglected or dissipated some fields of knowledge that have national or regional importance. The ATEC should have the capacity to provide a number of places for designated ‘public interest’ courses for which the Government pays a community service obligation retainer.

National investment in university research
If Australia’s best universities are not going forward then Australia will be going backwards against international competitors. Therefore they suggest:
(i) National competitive peer-reviewed grants for research: by 2012 the amount of annual funding should be double its present value;
(ii) Adequate investment in research infrastructure: a rise in the Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG);
(iii) National research hub & spokes arrangements; for this, a program is needed to provide Australian academics with access to research universities combined with support for the host universities;
(iv) International engagement of Australian university research: Australian researchers must be able to participate in international research platforms and networks.

Performance-based block funding for research
A new, tightly targeted research funding program would allocate block funds to universities, with funding agreements subject to rigorous seven year cyclical evaluations.

Research quality evaluation
A validated metrics-based approach to the assessment of research quality and its broader societal benefits should be adopted.

A dual system of assistance for research students
A gradual expansion of research training places which should be funded with the goal of raising the total number of domestic research degree students from some 22,000 to around 30,000 over five years.

Managing the transitions
During the transition period each university should retain its research funding at close to present levels through performance-based block grants.

I guess, with all the requests for extra funding, it is written in anticipation of an election win for Labor later this year. On the other hand, it pretty much continues the new public managment and accountability agenda of the last decades. I'll have a closer look soon and address some of the proposals at a later stage. For now, here is the full report: 'seizing the opportunities' (pdf).

Questions on the UNSW ASIA debacle

After three months in operation, the Singapore adventure of the University of New South Wales has come to an end. Another 22 million Singapore dollars down the drain. The decision to establish a branch campus in Singapore was taken in 2005 and already led to some commotion at that time (see this post). In 2005, UNSW from Australia and the University of Warwick from the UK were the only two foreign universities granted special status by the Singaporean Government (through its Economic Development Board, EDB) to set up a fully fledged independent teaching and research institution offering undergraduate degrees (the UNSW ASIA website has been taken down but click here for some info from the old website and here for some facts).

At that time, the senate of Warwick declined the offer of the Singapore government. The official reason for the Warwick senate to vote against the venture was the big financial risk. An additional reason however was the concern about the lack of academic freedom. UNSW had a different opinion, after all there was "no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any country".

UNSW opened the doors of its Asia Campus at the beginning of the 2007 academic year, planning to reach a population of up to 15,000 students on the long term. But the campus will be closed down after only one semester:

Before making this decision, the University has explored an extensive range of options. However the enrollment numbers for 2007 did not meet our expectations, and this has caused us to revise our projections. The decision to close down is a difficult one but it is the prudent course of action to take.

UNSW Vice Chancellor, Professor Fred Hilmer inherited the situation when he became VC in 2006. In a press conference in the Straits Times video news he explains the UNSW decision to pull out (see the whole video here):

The economics of the campus, without significant support made it impossible to continue. While we had support for the initial concept from the EDB, as the enrollment played out and as the concept had to be changed, the risk of the venture increased.

The Economic Development Board stated that it regrets the decision of UNSW. Mr Ko Kheng Hwa, Managing Director, EDB said:

We regret that UNSW has decided to close the Singapore campus. EDB has been fully committed and has worked closely with UNSW from day one towards the establishment of its Singapore campus. EDB will push ahead with our efforts to realise Singapore’s Global Schoolhouse vision. We are fully committed to developing Singapore into a premier education hub comprising a rich diversity of high quality education institutions and programmes from all over the world.

UNSW Asia had only 140 students enrolled in its first semester, 100 of them being Singapore residents. The University had a target of 300 students for the first year. This all leaves me with two big questions:

1. What is the real reason? If the target was 300 and the enrollment was 140, would you stop an operation - that has been planned for two years and in which 17.5 million Australian dollars is invested - just after a few months? Of course not! This is just too abrupt. After investing this amount, you would at least try for a few years. Somehow I have the idea that there is more going on, but I can't figure out what it is.

2. Public universities and their private ventures. I am sure that UNSW and UNSW Asia keep separate books. But somehow UNSW, an Australian public university, will be affected by the costs of the Singaporese adventure. This discussion has come up in relation to the South African branch campus of Monash university as well. It clearly shows the risk of letting public organizations operate privately overseas. Of course, UNSW will argue that their Australian activities will not suffer from the UNSW Asia debacle. But the money has to come from somewhere. The costs are even likely to rise because UNSW has been so decent to offer their UNSW Asia students a place at UNSW in Sydney and will make scholarships available.

Two pressing questions. Whether we will ever know the answer to the first one? I don't know. But I hope the second one will be discussed because it addresses a fundamental issue.

UPDATE: look at my recent post on this issue for some explanations

The HEEF: Economist's interpretation

The Economist has an article on the Australian budget which was presented a few days ago. In my previous post I highlighted one item in that budget: the Higher Education Endowment Fund. In this fund, the government will deposit 5 billion Australian dollars, securing future funding of around 300 million a year (and more if the fund will grow in the future). The board of the fund will select 'strategic investment proposals which provide quality infrastructure and support Australian Government policy with respect to diversity, specialisation and responsiveness to labour market needs'.

I though it was quite an innovative approach to government funding of higher education but this is all what the Economist makes of it:

"the budget offered A$5 billion for new research centres in Australia's public universities"

Seems to me that there is quite a difference between the establishment of a fund (of which only the revenues can be spent) and 'offering 5 billion dollars' and a difference between research centres and investments which provide 'quality infrastructure and support Australian Government policy'.

The Higher Education Endowment Fund

Earlier this year, Kevin Rudd - leader of the Australian Labor Party - promised the country an education revolution if they would be voted into power (elections are later this year). Today, Peter Costello - treasurer of the current government - has tried to outdo Rudd in the new budget that was presented today. It's already been dubbed the education budget.

One of the most innovative items is the creation of a Higher Education Endowment Fund. The government shall set up the fund and put in an amount of 5 billion Australian dollars (4 billion US; 3 billion Euros (!)). The money is meant to build world class universities for Australia, according to Education Minister Julie Bishop:

"The fund is expected to provide a dividend of around $900 million over three years from 2008/09. The dividend will be distributed to universities by the Minister for Education, Science and Training taking into account the advice of an independent HEEF board. This investment will promote excellence, quality and specialisation in Australian universities for years to come, helping our institutions to become truly world class."

In addition to the HEEF, the Federal Government has also unveiled a $3.5 billion package to be spent over four years in higher education, vocational training and schools. The Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) by word of Professor Sutton - its president - has already welcomed the budget:

“The Australian Government through this Budget has shown its commitment to investing in Australia’s universities today, to ensure we continue to produce high quality, work ready graduates and researchers into the future. This Budget delivers on the key areas that the AVCC has been lobbying for."

Yes, I think it is good news for higher education in Australia. Maybe not so good for Labor. It will be interesting to follow this new instrument and see how it develops. Will the fund grow further by further donations from private parties and governments? After all, 5 billion for all of Australia's 41 universities becomes rather bleak when compared to US Universities. In the US, 12 endowment funds of individual (private) universities already exceed this amount, with Harvard topping the list with almost 29 billion. It will be especially interesting to see whether the availability of the fund will be an excuse for future budget cuts.

The treasurer has at least tried to assure the Australians that only the dividend will be used and that the fund itself will not be touched, not even by Labor. Mr Costello - referring to Labor's plan to use Australia's 'Future Fund' to fund a national high-speed broadband network - explained it like this:

"Let me make this clear - once the paw goes into the honey pot, it can pull all of the honey out. I put the honey in there - and I'm locking the honey against the paw."

Later this year, Australian voters will decide whether to leave Mr Costello with the key to the pot, or whether to let the bears in.

Higher Education and Statistics

The OECD has issued its latest Factbook. The OECD factbook 2007 contains a large amount of indicators on issues ranging from economics to the environment and from population to health. And of course on higher education. Some time ago I've been critical about the presentation of some of the OECD higher education statistics, but I must admit that they do a great job in collecting them. The OECD is without doubt the best source for cross-national statistics in the fields of higher education and science & innovation.

But of course you can do a lot with statistics and the media knows that. Just check out this article in the Higher Education section of the Australian:

"Australia's spending on tertiary education per student went backwards in the eight years after the Coalition came to power, leaving the nation ranked alongside Portugal, Poland and the Slovak Republic."

That sounds pretty bad... This definitely leaves the impression that funding per student levels in Australia are now behind Portugal, Poland and the Slovak Republic. I checked and... they are just behind the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, clearly above the OECD average and ranking 8th in the OECD member countries. And in the mean time, it has one of the highest attainment rates for young people in the OECD (see graph; click to enlarge). Obviously this journalist only looked at the graphs that were presented on the OECD website and didn't check any further.


But didn't it decline then? Yes it did, and yes the commonwealth government should channel more resources to universities if it expects them to be Backing Australia's Future. I've said before that I'm not exactly convinced that the current government is doing a good job in the field of higher education, but still I prefer to stay with the facts.

But what exactly the facts are is also not always clear. Some time ago, the news programme 'the 7.30 Report' featured a debate between Minister Julie Bishop and Labor education spokesman Stephen Smit. I think that they spend half the time talking about the OECD statistics and how bad Australia scores in them:

JULIE BISHOP: Between 1995 and 2007 Federal government funding for higher education has increased by 26%. Now, Stephen keeps trotting out an OECD figure that he knows is flawed, he knows is misrepresenting the situation. There has not been a decline, there's been an increase.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the OECD Education at a Glance Report 2006 said that Australia's investment in tertiary education publicly had gone backwards by 7% whereas OECD average was an increase of 48%. Comparison with OECD countries, our investment in tertiary education, we're 18th.

JULIE BISHOP: I must take issue with the suggestion that our funding has decreased. Stephen knows that figure is dodgy and he keeps trotting it out. Every time he says it doesn't make it true. We haven't decreased funding by 7%. The figure he refers to leaves out taxpayer subsidies for HECS, it leaves out the massive injection of funding from 2004 - because the figures back in 2003 he is using, 2004, we, through Backing Australia's Future, have ensured that universities are $11 billion better off over the next decade. This year they are receiving $8.2 billion from the Federal Government. Our universities are in better financial shape than they've ever been in...

Now... who's right and who's wrong?

Aussie news bites

Time for some higher education news from down under.

The biggest event the past week was definitely the launch of Melbourne University - New Style. The so-called Melbourne Model is based on six broad undergraduate programs followed by a professional graduate degree, research higher degree or entry directly into employment. In simple terms, what happened is that the old English model was exchanged for the American one. Of course this was accompanied by protests since according to some the university has decided on this move because of a lack of funding and others claim that this is just a measure that makes higher ed more elitist.

I think Glyn Davis, Melbourne's Vice-Chancellor, made an interesting move by adopting the new model. Considering Melbourne's good reputation, national and international, it's also a risky one. There's already quite some speculation on whether other universities will follow the Melbourne Model in the future. The future will tell, but at least Julie Bishop, the federal Minister for Education has seen her wish come true: finally there's some more diversity in the Australian higher education landscape.

Also this week, a study came out conducted by Gary Marks for the Australian Council for Educational Research. The study, released today, investigated attrition rates from university courses, background factors that may influence attrition and the labour market consequences of non-completion. Data were collected from a group of young Australians who commenced university study between 1998 and 2001. An analysis of the characteristics of students who fail to complete university courses has found that whether a student attended a government or independent school and their socioeconomic background made little difference to the odds of completing their course. The full report of the study can be downloaded here (pdf).

And then there was another study. Professor John Sweller of the University of New South Wales claims to have proved that powerpoint presentations have little power and even less point. According to his report, the brain cannot cope with having too much information thrown at it at once. Having someone speak and point to a screen full of facts and figures at the same time causes it to switch off. Sweller: "The use of the PowerPoint presentation has been a disaster. It should be ditched.

Clearly there's a difference between giving a ppt presentation and giving a good ppt presentation. I guess everyone by now knows that there should not be too much text on a slide and that you shouldn't read the slide during a presentation. I know not everyone obeys these rules, but ditching powerpoint seems to me a premature conclusion. I wonder whether the guys over in Redmond are getting nervous already...

Legrain on immigrants

Tonight I attended a lecture (in the Sydney Ideas Series) from Philippe Legrain on his latest book: Immigrants: your country needs them. It was also the occasion of his Sydney book launch but luckily - in this open world - I ordered the book a month ago from the UK (and thereby avoided the high Australian book prices).

Legrain's lecture will be available on the University of Sydney podcasts site, but here's a short impression of both book and lecture. In short, Legrain's message is: Let them in! Because it's better for 'Us' and it's better for 'Them' and for the countries where 'They' come from. Being trained as an economist at LSE in London, it's not surprising that this message is very much based on economic rationales.

Many countries already have accepted the belief that allowing highly skilled migrants to enter the country is a necessity in order to survive in the current global knowledge economy. Legrain first of all argues that rigid and bureacratic assessment systems - like used in Australia - don't make any sense since governments simply don't know what the labour market needs will be in the future. Furthermore, innovation can not be attributed to specific types of people, but requires diversity and creativity.

What is more provacative is Legrain's compelling case for immigration of low skilled workers. Because 'we' not just need managers, but also cleaners and taxi drivers and since 'We' don't want to do these jobs anymore, and 'They' do, we should let 'Them' in. And of course there are plenty of humanitarian reasons to do so as well.

Obviously, the immigrants themselves will benefit if western countries open their borders to legal immigration. But so do the countries where they come from, both through the skills that the immigrants return if they go back and through the remittances they send home. These remittances make up between 200 and 600 billion US$ and end up right in the pockets of the people that need it most. Compare this with the 80 billion US$ in development assistance, which might end up in the wrong pockets (or Swiss bank accounts).

While reading the book I frequently agreed with Legrain's economic arguments, but I kept asking myself: what about the friction between the 'Us' and the 'Them' after 'They' immigrate, so apparent especially after 9/11. In the last few chapters Legrain does address the issue, especially for the cases of the Latinos in the US and the Muslims in Europe (he especially addresses the problems in France, Germany and the Netherlands).

I often had the feeling that I was not the one that needed convincing; the people in inner city London, Amsterdam, New York or Sydney are not the ones that needed convincing. And I am afraid that the ones he has to convince are not very receptive to these arguments. I think I agree with Roy Williams' conclusion in The Australian:

"These are lofty ideals, yet most people in the West remain old-fashioned nationalists. They love their country viscerally and as it is, or as it was when they were younger. Rightly or wrongly, they view immigration with caution, even regret."

I hope that Legrain's book will at least make people think twice about all the myths (and political rhetoric?) surrounding the issue of immigration. The book is definitely worth a read!

...and keep your tray table and seat in the full upright position

For my flight to the United States I took some news articles that might be of interest and on which I might post later on. Here's a list of what I thought might be worthwile:

An article on the risks that Australian universities are taking by focusing so (too?) heavily on the international student market. Universities are risking their academic reputation by rushing into dubious offshore ventures and are leaving themselves financially exposed as the boom in overseas students tapers off. A report from NSW Auditor-General Bob Sendt finds universities have become too reliant on overseas students and need to find other sources of revenue:

• Foreign risks for universities (The Australian)

And in Europe, the Commission recently came up with some recommendations on how to improve higher education and make it more responsive. Or in other words, the present some thoughts on:

• why European higher education systems must be modernised? (EC Memo)
  

Although the Commission does not have any substantial authority in the field of higher education, they more and more try to incorporate higher ed. in their Lisbon Strategy. Often, they prefer to do that by using the power of exaggeration. The European Commissioner for Education has a stark warning:

• Get a grip or be 'beautiful museums' (Times HE Supplement / subscription)

But the universities themselves have some toughts about this issue as well. The League of European Research Universities (Leru), said: "We welcome the recent EU acknowledgement that universities play a key role in society, but there must be much more emphasis on the diversity of universities, and funding must be based on the excellence of their particular outputs." Read about it here:

• Europe's top 20 demand action (Times HE Supplement / subscription)

And then on a more general topic.. While global competition intensifies, governments devise strategies to protect jobs, industries and reputation. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization analyzes contrasting approaches to managing globalization that have emerged in Europe, one from France and the other from Denmark.

• Europe Faces Globalization-Part I
• Europe Faces Globalization-Part II

But of course there's also a fully loaded iPod [lots of songs and some podcasts, among which the podcasts of the ongoing Key Concepts Public Lecture Series of the Research Institute of the Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Sydney], and a good book. Hopefully that's enough to get me from SYD, over the ocean to SFO and via ORD to RDU.

The 7 secrets of doctoral mediocrity

Many, many, many books have been written on how to obtain a Ph.D degree or how to write a Ph.D thesis. I'm not really into self-help books, but I heard that some books are really helpful. In the Higher Education section of The Australian, Maria Gardiner and Hugh Kearns of Flinders University share their 7 secrets of doctoral success.

During the past 15 years the pair has studied why students battle with perfectionism, over-commit, self-sabotage and lose motivation and focus while writing a PhD. They offer free workshops and seminars to Flinders University PhD students, attracting hundreds of students to 'the seven secrets of highly successful PhD students' seminar.

"We'll have a group of probably 10 confident PhD students and at the end of probably an hour and a half they're all saying: 'I don't think I'm good enough to do this.' [Good Work!, Ed.] Those negative feelings lead to procrastination and other feelings."

One participant of their workshops explains how it works:

"I was the coffee shop's No.1 customer. I was the sort of person who sat around talking and not doing much." But after learning he did not have to be perfect and his work was unlikely to be worthy of winning a Nobel prize, Mr Moore finished his PhD on schedule. "It helped me to understand it wasn't the most important thing in the world ... and recognition that it didn't have to be perfect," he said.

It is so simple. You just lower the expectations, compromise quality, and make students realise that nothing needs to be perfect and you have created highly successful PhD students. You see, it's not that difficult. After all, to undertake a PhD you only need 10 per cent intelligence and 90 per cent persistence. According to Mr. Kearns.

And if you make it to defending your Ph.D thesis, Kerry Soper has 12 tips on "What not to say at your Dissertation Defense"

Around the World in 1 Post

I haven't had the time to write many posts this week. Besides, I did not come across any news items of real urgency this week. However, a few items caught my attention.

***

First, there was an interesting statement of Australia's Minister of Education Julie Bishop. She claims that uniform degree structures, a diploma supplement and international recognition of qualifications are among radical changes Australia needs to adopt to meet competition from a powerful higher education bloc forming in Europe. She warns that if Australia does not align itself with the changes taking place in 45 European countries under the Bologna Declaration, it will be left out of the tent. The risk is that students will no longer want to study here and those who graduate from Australian universities will find it harder to have their qualifications recognised overseas.

"The Bologna process seems likely to have a profound effect on the development of higher education globally," the paper says, acknowledging that other continents are considering it. "Lack of movement on Bologna compatibility will make it harder for Australia to demonstrate to the Europeans its bona fides in this area."

Julie Bishop expressed her concerns at a meeting of 30 education ministers from the Asia Pacific in Brisbane where they discussed their response to the challenges posed by the European Bologna Process. I have heard some people in Southeast Asia also expressing an interest in joining the process or starting a similar regional process in the region.

***

A second item is not really new, but worthwhile to read. The US News & World Report has an article on 'Blogging your way to academe'. It's about the perils and promises of academics that maintain a weblog that is somehow related to their academic activities. Some time ago the Chronicle published a few letters by 'Ivan Tribble' about the risks of blogging and especially, academic bloggers using their own names.

I haven't read much about this issue in Europe or Australia. Australia has some respected academics that maintain a weblog. Some examples from political science and economics are John Quiggen from the University of Queensland and the group blog 'Larvatus Prodeo' maintained by Mark Bahnisch of Griffith University. Some in Australia even argue that academics should blog or be damned (but obviously his arguments are rather weak and one-sided). And of course there are the Sydney Uni students blogging their way through campus life.

In the Netherlands I have not yet come across many academic bloggers. I think some members of the popular group blog Sargasso are academics. One of their new members, a female scientists that goes by the name of Akufu, keeps an individual academic weblog as well. If anyone is aware of any other Dutch academic bloggers, let me know!

***

A final thing that caught my attention is not so much a current issue but is something that has astonished me for some time now. For my own research I keep track of the news related to higher education and science in Southeast Asia and especially Malaysia and Indonesia. What amazes me about the mainstream media in Malaysia is their extensive coverage of higher education related issues. Higher education (and education in general) takes in such an important position in Malaysian society and politics that issues related to the quality of their universities are widely reported. The issue about university rankings for instance was widely discussed in the Star. The recent resignation of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Malaya and the search for his successor also featured prominently in this newspaper. This week, the selection of a few bright Malaysian students by a range of reputable US universities was shared with the rest of the nation (thanks goes to the Education in Malaysia blog for keeping me up to date).

Unhappy Chardonnay Socialists

A survey of Curtin University compares the happiness of people in all electorates in Australia reveals that the Sydney Inner West, covering Annandale, Leichhardt, Petersham, Newtown, Marrickville and Summer Hill, tops the national list for all-round UN-happiness. The Sydney Morning Herald wonders:

"is it aircraft noise, John Howard's long reign, or being overworked and underpaid that makes the so-called chardonnay socialists of Sydney's Inner West the most disgruntled people in Australia?"

I must admit that I was surprised by the findings. Arriving in Sydney almost a year ago, I immediately loved Newtown and lived there since. Somehow I think that the descriptions in the Lonely Planet about Newtown fits better:

"a melting pot of social and sexual subcultures, students and home renovators. King Street, its relentlessly urban main drag, is full of funky clothes stores, bookshops and cafes. While it's definitely moving upmarket, Newtown comes with a healthy dose of grunge, and harbours a decent live music scene"

"a swag of funky cafes and restaurants lining King Street offer an interesting introduction to the suburbs community life"

Micro-Managing Red Tape

Rumour has it that the Australian universities will soon start a new assault on red tape and over-regulation. They claim that government bureaucracy is wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars a year. In their vision for Australian higher education (Our Universities: Backing Australia's Future, released in 2003) the Howard government agreed that:

"..the reporting requirements of universities need to be streamlined and that the resulting savings should be re-invested in education. Significant reduction in regulatory intervention, to which the Government is committed, will require the development of agreed measures of educational outcomes that can replace the present heavy emphasis on inputs reporting and process monitoring."

In November 2003, the former Minister Dr. Brendan Nelson stated:

"I have agreed to a series of changes to the higher education reform legislation to significantly reduce the level of red tape and simplify the administration of the reform programmes"

Obviously, they have been unsuccessful in reducing red tape. Australian higher education has been radically marketised in the past decades. This should have given universities the flexibility to operate more entrepreneurial, more effective and more responsive. Marketisation often comes with a reduction in funding and this also happened in Australia. However, a reduction in funding should mean that there will be 'less strings attached'.

Marketisation in Australia has indeed led to decreased funding (per student) of Australian higher education (see for instance chapter 10 in this report, table B1.4 in this OECD Excel file, this publication of the Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee). However, somehow this has gone together with an increase in micro-management and micro-regulation instead of an increase in flexibility. In short: red tape is everywhere in Australian universities, despite (or due to?) increased marketisation.

Vice Chancellors agree. Australian National University vice-chancellor Ian Chubb said red tape and regulation had continued to grow:

"All sorts of approvals have to be gained for courses that shouldn't be required. We have to predict basically 12 months in advance the subjects students will enrol in. Given a third haven't finished school when we make those predictions, it is unnecessarily complicated."

University of Western Sydney vice-chancellor Janice Reid said compliance costs now amounted to millions of dollars every year:

"The explosion in fine-grained information demands by government and the ever more prescriptive policy environment is limiting our ability to be innovative and responsive to students. It means directing resources to huge compliance and reporting exercises and away from teaching research. It would be costing millions of dollars across the sector."

I completely agree with their observations. At the same time I would advise them to take on a more critical perspective on their internal operations. Red tape is not just caused by governmental micro-management and an abundance of accountability demands from governments but also by over-management by the university central-level offices. Of course the two are interrelated: the micro-management of the government triggers the need for more managers and administrators at the university level. But still, I think there is a lot of efficiency to be gained internally. Of course that does not mean that the new Minister of education is off the hook..

Disunity in binarity

In the Netherlands, the discussion about the sustainability of a binary system has again come up. The best examples of countries that have abolished their binary systems are probably the UK and Australia. Maybe the Dutch politicians should take a look at the developments in Australia.

Minister Nelson’s  recent push for graduate school universities and the push for students to complete a general degree before entering elite graduate schools at the nation's sandstone universities seems to be a return to a binary system. Maybe not of polytechnics and universities in this case, but a binary system of ‘teaching only’ and ‘research intensive’ universities. What is the difference?

Oz Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prize in Medicine 2005 was awarded to two Australians. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won the 2005 Nobel Medicine prize for discovering a bacterium that causes gastritis and stomach ulcers, according to the Nobel Assembly of Stockholm's Karolinska Institute.

White Australia Policy: the story continues

The past months Australia has witnessed an interesting example of the tension between academic freedom and freedom of speech versus the principle of non-discrimination. Andrew Fraser, Associate Professor in the Department of Public Law at Macquarie University in Sydney stirred up a debate on the re-introduction of the White Australia Policy through radio and TV appearances a couple of weeks ago. This time however he is going through the academic channels to get his ideas across.

His paper was accepted by the Deakin University Law Review after being peer reviewed. But, after a threat from an Australian lawyer acting on behalf of the Sudanees community, Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University, Sally Walker, directed the editor of the Law review not to publish the article.

Let me be clear: the content of the paper is despicable and the academic credibility is at least doubtful, as these comments show. But the question remains whether research on for instance the genetic influence on criminal behaviour should be conducted. To me, the starting point is that everything is worth of investigating, just for knowledge sake. But academics also have an ethical obligation towards society. So let’s assume that serious research on the issue is conducted, what then? What to do with the outcomes? Not admitting a Sudanees surgeon, but welcoming a British troublemaker, based on their genetic codes? Of course, using such research results as a basis for policy making, contradicts agreements that we have made and international norms that (fortunately) have emerged in the last 60 years or so.

So what would have been the best option? Of course the article should just have been published. If a wider group of peers – the readers of the Deakin University Law review and legal scholars in general – questions the academic credibility of the article, the journal will just loose its own reputation and the editor will look for other reviewers for the future. And then Fraser can just upload the paper himself to whatever website or blog, so it can dissolve in the dark corners of the Internet.    

One thing needs to be added here. A poll from Channel Nine showed that Frasers ideas have a lot of support in Australia. Neglecting this will not take these feelings away and a political solution needs to be found for that. As someone that lived in the Netherlands until early 2005, I have seen what happens if such feelings are continuously neglected and then find a mouthpiece. And that sight wasn’t pretty. But I am pretty sure that solutions can be found within the agreements and norms that we have now.