Australian universities
There were 39 recognised universities in Australia in 2007, of which 37 were public institutions and 2 are private. For a list of all universities in the Australian university system , both public and private, see the article List of universities in Australia.
These universities are represented through the national universities' lobbying body Universities Australia (previously called Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee). Eight universities in the list have grouped themselves together, in recognition of their perceived status and/or history, and classify themselves as the ‘Group of Eight (Australian universities)’ or ‘G8’. Other university networks also exist with less prominence (e.g., the Australian Technology Network of Universities; the Innovative Research Universities - Australia.
Allocation of responsibilities
The Commonwealth has the primary responsibility for public funding of higher education.
Commonwealth funding support for higher education is provided largely through:
the Commonwealth Grant Scheme which provides for a specified number of Commonwealth supported places each year;
the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) arrangements providing financial assistance to students;
the Commonwealth scholarships; and
a range of grants for specific purposes including quality, learning and teaching, research and research training programmes.
The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) administers Commonwealth funding and develops and administers higher education policy and programs.
Decision-making, regulation and governance for higher education are shared among the Commonwealth, the State and Territory Governments and the institutions themselves.
By definition within Australia, universities are self-accrediting institutions and each university has its own establishment legislation (generally State and Territory legislation) and receive the vast majority of their public funding from the Australian Government, through the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
Some aspects of higher education are the responsibility of States and Territories. In particular, most universities are established or recognised under State and Territory legislation.
The Australian National University, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Maritime College are established under Commonwealth legislation.
The Australian Catholic University is established under corporations law. It has establishment Acts in New South Wales and Victoria.
Many private providers are also established under corporations law.
States and Territories are also responsible for accrediting non-self-accrediting higher education providers.
As self-accrediting institutions, Australia’s universities have a reasonably high level of autonomy to operate within the legislative requirements associated with their Australian Government funding.
The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) provides descriptors for qualifications accredited through the higher education sector, as well as those accredited by the vocational and technical education sector and the schools sector. All accredited higher education providers are listed on the AQF register.
Classification of tertiary qualifications
In Australia, the classification of tertiary qualifications is governed in part by the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), which attempts to integrate into a single classification all levels of tertiary education (both vocational and higher education), from trade certificates to higher doctorates.
However, as Australian universities (and a few similar higher education institutions) largely regulate their own courses, the primary usage of AQF is for vocational education. However in recent years there have been some informal moves towards standardization between higher education institutions.
In Australia, higher education awards are classified as follows:
Certificate, Diploma and Associate Degrees, which take 1-2 years to complete, and consist primarily of coursework. These are primarily offered by TAFEs and other institutions as vocational training. Universities tend mainly to award Certificates and Diplomas as adjuncts to another degree, e.g. many Australian school teachers have completed a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science with a Diploma of Education (DipEd). They are also awarded at the graduate level, in which case they are called Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma (or sometimes Postgraduate Certificate and Postgraduate Diploma), and consist of similar material to a Masters by Coursework, but do not go for as long. The distinction between Graduate and Postgraduate Certificates and Diplomas is somewhat arbitrary and dependent on the institution offering them.
Bachelors degrees, generally the first university degree undertaken, which take 3-4 years to complete, and consist primarily of coursework. Bachelors degrees are sometimes awarded with honours to the best-performing students.
In some courses, honours is awarded on the basis of performance throughout the course (usually in 4yr+ courses), but normally honours consists of undertaking a year of research (e.g. a short thesis or Masters by Research). If honours is undertaken as an extra year, it is known as an honours degree rather than a degree with honours.
Honours may be divided into First Class, Second Class (normally divided into Division I and Division II), and Third Class. This is roughly equivalent to the American classification of summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude. Individuals who do not attempt honours, or who fail their honours course, are awarded a degree with a grade of Pass.
Masters degrees, which are undertaken after the completion of one or more Bachelors degrees. Masters degrees deal with a subject at a more advanced level than Bachelors degrees, and can consist either of research, coursework, or a mixture of the two.
Doctorates, most famously Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), which are undertaken after an Honours Bachelors or Masters degree, by an original research project resulting in a thesis or dissertation. Admission to candidature for a PhD generally requires either a Bachelor's degree with good honours (First Class or Second Class Division I), or a Masters degree with a research component.
In many cases a student with only a Pass Bachelor's degree can enroll in a Masters program and then transfer to a PhD. Australian PhDs do not tend to take as long as American or British ones, and consist of less coursework than most American PhDs. There are also professional doctorates which consist of advanced coursework and a substantial project in an area such as education (DEd). There is no concept of a "first-professional doctorate" like those awarded in the United States.
Higher Doctorates, such as Doctor of Science (DSc) or Doctor of Letters (DLitt), which are awarded on the basis of a record of original research or of publications, over many years (often at least 10).
Australian Universities tend to award more named degrees than institutions in some other countries. Most Australian universities offer several different named degrees per a faculty. This is primarily for marketing purposes. Universities often try to outdo each other by offering the only degree titled with a popular major.
By contrast, at an undergraduate level at Oxford University, almost all students complete a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), even if they are studying areas such as Chemistry or Economics, whereas at most Australian institutions only students choosing to concentrate in the humanities would be awarded a B.A. However, although there is a large proliferation at the level of Bachelors and Masters, at the Doctorate and Higher Doctorate level most institutions only have four or five degrees in all, and almost all Doctorates are PhDs.
Unlike American institutions, where most medical doctors or lawyers (known as solicitors in Australia) will graduate with an M.D. or J.D., medical doctors and solicitors in Australia generally only graduate with Bachelor's degrees. In Australia, a degree of Doctor is only awarded after original research or honoris causa, although by custom medical doctors are permitted to assume that title without having completed a doctorate.
In the case of medical doctors, the most common award is M.B.B.S., the double degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (this is similar to the case in Britain). The most common award for lawyers is LL.B. or BLaws (which are both abbreviations, one Latin and the other English, for Bachelor of Laws).
Traditionally in Australia, medical degrees were commenced immediately after secondary education, unlike in the United States where student generally complete an undergraduate degree first before going to medical school. However, some universities have introduced graduate entry only degrees in medicine, but these are still classified as Bachelors degrees.
Law is commonly studied as a combined degree, such as with Arts or Science (BA/LLB, BSc/LLB), with only a small number of places available for a 'straight' law degree. The large number of combined courses enable students to develop skills in a diverse range of areas. Another common combination is Commerce and Law, which opens up many positions in business, commerce and industry. The Law degree in Australia is seeing fewer graduates going on to become practicing solicitors; instead many graduates take work in private industry or government sectors.
Australian Bachelors degrees are commonly only 3 years in duration, unlike the four year degrees found in the United States, although some institutions offer four year degrees as well. The length of the degree usually depends on the field of study; for example engineering usually takes four years while medicine takes six. Combined degrees are also available and usually add an extra year of study. Australian universities tend to have less of an emphasis on a liberal education than many universities in the US, which is reflected in the shorter length of Australian degrees.
Associate's degree have recently been introduced. These generally take two years to complete and can be seen as equivalent to the Associate's degree in the US and the Foundation Degree in the UK. They are also equivalent to the older Australian qualifications the Diploma and the Advanced Diploma.
Prior to the 1980s health science disciplines were being established by Colleges of Advanced Education, who were forbidden to award "degrees". Courses were conducted and classified as a "Diploma of Applied Science in (discipline)". These courses had considerable content requirements, some having over 32 contact hours per week over a three year period. These "diplomas" have been somewhat devalued by the newer naming conventions, as some diploma courses conducted nowadays may only consist of attending 12 training days for a total of less than 72 contact hours. However, many former "diplomates" have either converted or upgraded their DipAppScis to the corresponding Bachelor degree, or have undertaken further post graduate study.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
MORE INFORMATION
Criticism
In the 1990s, during the early years of the unified national system, the solution to future sustainability, as perceived by Australia’s (then) vice chancellors, was to get more money into the system, rather than to rationalize the system itself. The Australian Vice Chancellors Committee argued on a number of occasions about the level of funding provided to Australian Universities relative to those in other OECD countries.
Another problem with the unified national system was that the major source of university funding (the Federal Government, through the Department of Education Science and Training) was performance-based (calculated via a performance formula) and, because the total funding was fixed, represented a zero-sum-game. In other words (arithmetically), if all universities simultaneously boosted their performance by expending more money then, in practice, they were financially disadvantaged. If all universities simultaneously decreased their performance by reducing their expenditure on staffing then, in practice, they were all potentially in a better financial position.
University fund raising schemes – international students
As a consequence of the ‘zero-sum-game’ funding model imposed by the Federal Government, by far the largest non-Government contributor to funding of the Australian University system is the international student ‘fee-paying’ market – in the order of $5,000,000,000 per annum by 2004. Australia’s share of the international student market is disproportionately high by international standards. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimated that the Australian higher education sector accounted for some 12% of all education in countries with an English speaking base in 2004. This extraordinary success was essentially the product of three factors:
Early penetration of Australian universities into the emerging Asian market for education
The good international reputation established by the traditional universities.
Opportunistic fortune
The opportunistic elements of the success led to an over-confidence in fast-money schemes based upon fee-paying international students. It also led to numerous accusations of declining educational standards in Australian universities and a culture of ‘fee-for-degree’. The Australian Broadcasting Commission's (ABC's) flagship current affairs television program '4 Corners' highlighted this problem in 2005, stating:
"And as foreign students have flooded in, universities have become mired in allegations about falling standards, soft marking, plagiarism and backdoor immigration..."
This was particularly evident in postgraduate coursework programs (particularly Master’s coursework degrees) which had significant appeal to the burgeoning Asian markets.
Governance
With a larger proportion of university turnover derived from non-Government funds, the role of university vice chancellors moved from one of academic administration to strategic management. However, university governance structures remained largely unchanged from their 19th Century origins. All Australian universities have a governance system composed of a vice-chancellor (chief executive officer); chancellor (non-executive head) and university council (governing body). However, unlike a corporate entity board, the university council members have neither financial nor vested specific interests in the performance of the organization (although the state government is represented in each university council, representing the state government legislative role in the system).
Melbourne University Private venture
The late 1990s and early years of the new millennium therefore witnessed a collection of financial, managerial and academic failures across the university system– the most notable of these being the Melbourne University Private venture, which saw hundreds of millions of dollars invested in non-productive assets, in search of a ‘Harvard style’ private university that never delivered on planned outcomes. This was detailed in a book ("Off Course") written by former Victorian State Premier John Cain and co-author John Hewitt who explored problems with governance at the University of Melbourne, arguably the nation's most prestigious university.
The Melbourne Age newspaper reported in regard to the Melbourne University Private affair, and John Cain's book that:
"It (the Cain/Hewitt book) argues that the University of Melbourne has put the raising of money from private sources above its duty as a public university, that its most strenuous efforts in this endeavour have failed, that it refuses to admit the failures and reports them inadequately."
A number of universities and research centres/institutes were also plagued with financial and academic scandals arising from poor governance; lack of management experience; lack of strategic planning capability and direction. Many of these were reported in the Australian media, including:
The ABC's 2000 4 Corners program which looked at the public float of the Melbourne IT company from the University of Melbourne
The ABC's 2003 4 Corners program which looked at issues of academic impropriety at the University of New South Wales
The ABC's 2005 Latelineprogram which examined inappropriate conduct in the Cooperative Research Centre for Photonics
One of the underlying governance problems for Australian Universities is that, as a legacy of their establishment, legislative control of universities resides with the states, but funding is derived from the Australian Federal Government. This means that whenever there is no consensus between state and Federal governments in regard to directions, universities are subsequently left in an ambivalent position with potentially conflicting objectives. Moreover, despite having a Federal funding system, the legislative process for universities can vary from state to state and hence, nationally, there is no uniformity of governance.
Management approaches
By the early years of the 21st Century, the participation rate in Australian Universities had increased significantly. The DEST 2005 Statistics showed that enrolments in Australian universities had reached 674,092 effective full time students, an increase of more than tenfold since 1960. It was infeasible to scale the fee-per-student, provided by the Government to each university in the 1960s, accordingly to the levels required in the 21st Century. Either costs had to be reduced (through a combination of rationalization, technological change and administrative efficiency) or income had to be increased through additional fee raising mechanisms.
In 2002, Jim Breen of Monash University wrote in his paper Higher Education in Australia: Structure, Policy and Debate
"Despite, or because of the massive growth in the higher education sector, there is a general view that all is not well:
staff are mostly unhappy:
increased teaching loads
falling staff/student ratios (from 1/12 in 1980 to 1/19 in 2001)
entrepreneurial and management practices dominating research and scholarship
decline and elimination of traditional areas such classics, physics, etc.
university administrations are asking for more flexibility to charge fees, specialize, etc.
a common public perception that a good higher education system is important for the country's future, and that more can/should be done.
a refusal by the Commonwealth to increase funding levels, in line with philosophies of tight fiscal control and user pays."
An inability to scale up operations, in a climate of reducing dollars-per-student, was manifested in reports of poor operational performance of individual faculties, particularly those in high cost areas such as science and engineering. Indeed, in 2006, Lord Alec Broers of Cambridge University conducted a review of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Melbourne. The resulting ‘Broers Review’ confirmed the sorts of issues raised earlier, and presented a litany of maladministration, poor teaching methods, collapse of undergraduate infrastructure, lack of planning, and so on. There was evidence to suggest that these poor practices were not restricted to one university but existed throughout the entire system– indeed, by some external measures the faculty reviewed by Broers had previously been judged to have been performing well relative to other comparable faculties in Australia.
In 2006, the Federal Education Minister (Julie Bishop, Liberal Party) made a number of public statements about the need for reform and rationalization. In one statement, the Minister suggested that Australia’s interests might be best served by having only a dozen generalist universities and a collection of other specialist entities. To date, this is the only indicator of significant change at a Federal level.
Federal Government quality measures
The Australian Federal Government has established two quality systems for assessing university performance. These are the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) and the Research Quality Framework (RQF). The AUQA reviews of universities essentially look at processes, procedures and their documentation. The AUQA exercise, largely bureaucratic rather than strategic, is currently moving towards its second round of assessments, with all Australian universities having seemingly received mixed (but generally positive) results in the first round. AUQA’s shortcoming is that it does not specifically address issues of Governance or strategic planning in anything other than a bureaucratic sense. In the April 2007 edition of Campus Review the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales (Fred Hilmer) criticized both AUQA and the RQF:
"... singling out AUQA, Hilmer notes that while complex quality processes are in place, not one institution has lost its accreditation - 'there's never been a consequence - so it's just red tape...'"
"...The RQF is not a good thing - it's an expensive way to measure something that could be measured relatively simply. If we wanted to add impacts as one of the factors, then let's add impact. That can be achieved simply without having to go through what looks like a $90 million dollar exercise with huge implementation issues."
The RQF (scrapped with the change in government in 2007), was modeled on the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) system, and was intended to assess the quality and impact of research undertaken at universities through panel-based evaluation of individual research groups within university disciplines. Its objective was to provide government, industry, business and the wider community with an assurance that research quality within Australian universities had been rigorously assesseded against international standards. Assessment was expected to allow research groups to be benchmarked against national and international standards across discipline areas. If successfully implemented, this would have been a departure from the Australian Government’s traditional approach to measuring research performance exclusively through bibliometrics. The RQF was fraught with controversy, particularly because the cost of such an undertaking (using international panels) and the difficulty in having agreed definitions of research quality and impact. The Labor government which scrapped the RQF, has yet to outline any system which will replace it, stating however that it will enter into discussions with higher education providers, to gain consensus on a streamlined, metrics-driven approach.
Current university performance – the Melbourne Institute study
Australian universities do not feature prominently in the top 100 international universities as ranked by the Jiao Tong Index. The two universities which regularly appear therein are the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University. Australian universities do, however, perform somewhat better in the Times Higher Education Rankings, which are more Anglo-centric in their composition.
Overall, however, the relative international performance of Australian universities suffers from the dilution associated with a unified national system which encourages almost 40 universities to be generalist in their nature and approach.
In 2006, the Melbourne Institute conducted a ‘discipline by discipline’ study of the performance of all Australian universities, and combined this with a national and international survey. Notwithstanding the fact that the Melbourne Institute is part of the University of Melbourne, the Institute's Discipline by Discipline Rankings Paper provides the most comprehensive assessment of the status of Australian universities which is currently available. A number of parameters (including undergraduate entry scores; student satisfaction; the official Federal Department of Education Science and Training research figures; publication data from Thomson Scientific; student/staff ratios, international rankings, etc.) were assessed to provide a discipline by discipline ranking of universities, on a scale of 0 – 100.
Of the universities which were included in the rankings, only six were able to average a relative score of more than 50 in the areas in which they competed. Two of the G8 universities (University of Adelaide and University of Western Australia) did not achieve a 50% average. Most of the newer universities average around 30% relative performance in their chosen disciplines. This study highlights a lack of capacity, investment and focus in chosen areas (a number of universities average zeros in their chosen research areas in terms of outputs). It should also be noted that a score of 100 is relative to other Australian universities and is not an absolute measure in an international sense.
Future directions
The current Australian Federal Government (Liberal Party) and the Federal Opposition Party (Labor Party) have both signaled that the ‘one size fits all’ approach to universities, which emerged from the Dawkins’ reforms, is nearing an end. Universities are being encouraged to find their own niches. The difficulty with this is that the undergraduate and postgraduate programs which prove to be financially lucrative (i.e., profitable) in terms of sustaining the core business of a university are limited (Medicine, Law, Business, Economics and Commerce), and there is a tendency for all universities to pursue high profile areas, rather than invest in high cost areas which have national economic significance (engineering and science). None of the Australian universities have currently taken steps for significant cost cutting in administration and rationalization of duplicated services and facilities.
Of the current universities, only the University of Melbourne has signaled a change in direction in terms of its education. Again, this is based upon increasing income rather than through cost reductions through modern management principles. The so-called ‘Melbourne Model’ is due for implementation in 2008. The objective is to pursue an American-style educational program composed of generic undergraduate degrees which as yet have no professional recognition in Australia, and then follow these with professional postgraduate degrees which do have professional recognition (e.g., Law or Engineering). This strategy enables the University to by-pass the current Federal Government restrictions on fee-paying undergraduate places by effectively reclassifying former undergraduate programs as a combination of generic undergraduate and professional graduate programs. In its website The University of Melbourne claims that this will provide a broader educational model in line with the so-called Bologna Model of education applied in Europe. Opponents claim that identical educational outcomes could have been achieved by a five year undergraduate program without the introduction of full-fees.
None of the other G8 universities have signaled any intention to make any fundamental changes to the way in which they function, although some have indicated interest in the Melbourne Model of fee paying education.
Given the positions of both the Federal Government and Federal Opposition, it is clear that universities will change over the coming years. The data from the Melbourne Institute Study (particularly the research output data which the study derived from Government DEST figures and Thomson ISI) highlights the fact that a number of the current universities have insufficient capacity in their chosen disciplines to achieve threshold performance at an international level.
Australian Universities
Many universities in Australia have gained international recognition. Two of the most acknowledged are the Academic Ranking of World Universities, produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the THES - QS World University Rankings, which in 2006, had no fewer than 13 universities amongst the world's top 200.
Vocational Education and Training
The major providers of vocational education and training (VET) in Australia are the various state-administered institutes of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) across the country. TAFE institutions generally offer short courses, Certificates I, II, III, and IV, Diplomas, and Advanced Diplomas in a wide range of vocational topics. They also sometimes offer Higher Education courses, especially in Victoria.
In addition to TAFE Institutes there are many Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) which are privately operated. In Victoria alone there are approximately 1100. They include:
commercial training providers,
the training department of manufacturing or service enterprises,
the training function of employer or employee organisations in a particular industry,
Group Training Companies,
community learning centres and neighbourhood houses,
secondary colleges providing VET programs.
In size these RTOs vary from single-person operations delivering training and assessment in a narrow specialisation, to large organisations offering a wide range of programs. Many of them receive government funding to deliver programs to apprentices or trainees, to disadvantaged groups, or in fields which governments see as priority areas.
All TAFE institutes and private RTOs are required to maintain compliance with a set of national standards called the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF), and this compliance is monitored by regular internal and external audits.
VET programs delivered by TAFE Institutes and private RTOs are based on nationally registered qualifications, derived from either endorsed sets of competency standards known as Training Packages, or from courses accredited by state/territory government authorities. These qualifications are regularly reviewed and updated. In specialised areas where no publicly owned qualifications exist, an RTO may develop its own course and have it accredited as a privately owned program, subject to the same rules as those that are publicly owned.
All trainers and assessors delivering VET programs are required to hold a qualification known as the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAA40104) or demonstrate equivalent competency. They are also required to have relevant vocational competencies, at least to the level being delivered or assessed.
In the 1990s, during the early years of the unified national system, the solution to future sustainability, as perceived by Australia’s (then) vice chancellors, was to get more money into the system, rather than to rationalize the system itself. The Australian Vice Chancellors Committee argued on a number of occasions about the level of funding provided to Australian Universities relative to those in other OECD countries.
Another problem with the unified national system was that the major source of university funding (the Federal Government, through the Department of Education Science and Training) was performance-based (calculated via a performance formula) and, because the total funding was fixed, represented a zero-sum-game. In other words (arithmetically), if all universities simultaneously boosted their performance by expending more money then, in practice, they were financially disadvantaged. If all universities simultaneously decreased their performance by reducing their expenditure on staffing then, in practice, they were all potentially in a better financial position.
University fund raising schemes – international students
As a consequence of the ‘zero-sum-game’ funding model imposed by the Federal Government, by far the largest non-Government contributor to funding of the Australian University system is the international student ‘fee-paying’ market – in the order of $5,000,000,000 per annum by 2004. Australia’s share of the international student market is disproportionately high by international standards. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimated that the Australian higher education sector accounted for some 12% of all education in countries with an English speaking base in 2004. This extraordinary success was essentially the product of three factors:
Early penetration of Australian universities into the emerging Asian market for education
The good international reputation established by the traditional universities.
Opportunistic fortune
The opportunistic elements of the success led to an over-confidence in fast-money schemes based upon fee-paying international students. It also led to numerous accusations of declining educational standards in Australian universities and a culture of ‘fee-for-degree’. The Australian Broadcasting Commission's (ABC's) flagship current affairs television program '4 Corners' highlighted this problem in 2005, stating:
"And as foreign students have flooded in, universities have become mired in allegations about falling standards, soft marking, plagiarism and backdoor immigration..."
This was particularly evident in postgraduate coursework programs (particularly Master’s coursework degrees) which had significant appeal to the burgeoning Asian markets.
Governance
With a larger proportion of university turnover derived from non-Government funds, the role of university vice chancellors moved from one of academic administration to strategic management. However, university governance structures remained largely unchanged from their 19th Century origins. All Australian universities have a governance system composed of a vice-chancellor (chief executive officer); chancellor (non-executive head) and university council (governing body). However, unlike a corporate entity board, the university council members have neither financial nor vested specific interests in the performance of the organization (although the state government is represented in each university council, representing the state government legislative role in the system).
Melbourne University Private venture
The late 1990s and early years of the new millennium therefore witnessed a collection of financial, managerial and academic failures across the university system– the most notable of these being the Melbourne University Private venture, which saw hundreds of millions of dollars invested in non-productive assets, in search of a ‘Harvard style’ private university that never delivered on planned outcomes. This was detailed in a book ("Off Course") written by former Victorian State Premier John Cain and co-author John Hewitt who explored problems with governance at the University of Melbourne, arguably the nation's most prestigious university.
The Melbourne Age newspaper reported in regard to the Melbourne University Private affair, and John Cain's book that:
"It (the Cain/Hewitt book) argues that the University of Melbourne has put the raising of money from private sources above its duty as a public university, that its most strenuous efforts in this endeavour have failed, that it refuses to admit the failures and reports them inadequately."
A number of universities and research centres/institutes were also plagued with financial and academic scandals arising from poor governance; lack of management experience; lack of strategic planning capability and direction. Many of these were reported in the Australian media, including:
The ABC's 2000 4 Corners program which looked at the public float of the Melbourne IT company from the University of Melbourne
The ABC's 2003 4 Corners program which looked at issues of academic impropriety at the University of New South Wales
The ABC's 2005 Latelineprogram which examined inappropriate conduct in the Cooperative Research Centre for Photonics
One of the underlying governance problems for Australian Universities is that, as a legacy of their establishment, legislative control of universities resides with the states, but funding is derived from the Australian Federal Government. This means that whenever there is no consensus between state and Federal governments in regard to directions, universities are subsequently left in an ambivalent position with potentially conflicting objectives. Moreover, despite having a Federal funding system, the legislative process for universities can vary from state to state and hence, nationally, there is no uniformity of governance.
Management approaches
By the early years of the 21st Century, the participation rate in Australian Universities had increased significantly. The DEST 2005 Statistics showed that enrolments in Australian universities had reached 674,092 effective full time students, an increase of more than tenfold since 1960. It was infeasible to scale the fee-per-student, provided by the Government to each university in the 1960s, accordingly to the levels required in the 21st Century. Either costs had to be reduced (through a combination of rationalization, technological change and administrative efficiency) or income had to be increased through additional fee raising mechanisms.
In 2002, Jim Breen of Monash University wrote in his paper Higher Education in Australia: Structure, Policy and Debate
"Despite, or because of the massive growth in the higher education sector, there is a general view that all is not well:
staff are mostly unhappy:
increased teaching loads
falling staff/student ratios (from 1/12 in 1980 to 1/19 in 2001)
entrepreneurial and management practices dominating research and scholarship
decline and elimination of traditional areas such classics, physics, etc.
university administrations are asking for more flexibility to charge fees, specialize, etc.
a common public perception that a good higher education system is important for the country's future, and that more can/should be done.
a refusal by the Commonwealth to increase funding levels, in line with philosophies of tight fiscal control and user pays."
An inability to scale up operations, in a climate of reducing dollars-per-student, was manifested in reports of poor operational performance of individual faculties, particularly those in high cost areas such as science and engineering. Indeed, in 2006, Lord Alec Broers of Cambridge University conducted a review of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Melbourne. The resulting ‘Broers Review’ confirmed the sorts of issues raised earlier, and presented a litany of maladministration, poor teaching methods, collapse of undergraduate infrastructure, lack of planning, and so on. There was evidence to suggest that these poor practices were not restricted to one university but existed throughout the entire system– indeed, by some external measures the faculty reviewed by Broers had previously been judged to have been performing well relative to other comparable faculties in Australia.
In 2006, the Federal Education Minister (Julie Bishop, Liberal Party) made a number of public statements about the need for reform and rationalization. In one statement, the Minister suggested that Australia’s interests might be best served by having only a dozen generalist universities and a collection of other specialist entities. To date, this is the only indicator of significant change at a Federal level.
Federal Government quality measures
The Australian Federal Government has established two quality systems for assessing university performance. These are the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) and the Research Quality Framework (RQF). The AUQA reviews of universities essentially look at processes, procedures and their documentation. The AUQA exercise, largely bureaucratic rather than strategic, is currently moving towards its second round of assessments, with all Australian universities having seemingly received mixed (but generally positive) results in the first round. AUQA’s shortcoming is that it does not specifically address issues of Governance or strategic planning in anything other than a bureaucratic sense. In the April 2007 edition of Campus Review the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales (Fred Hilmer) criticized both AUQA and the RQF:
"... singling out AUQA, Hilmer notes that while complex quality processes are in place, not one institution has lost its accreditation - 'there's never been a consequence - so it's just red tape...'"
"...The RQF is not a good thing - it's an expensive way to measure something that could be measured relatively simply. If we wanted to add impacts as one of the factors, then let's add impact. That can be achieved simply without having to go through what looks like a $90 million dollar exercise with huge implementation issues."
The RQF (scrapped with the change in government in 2007), was modeled on the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) system, and was intended to assess the quality and impact of research undertaken at universities through panel-based evaluation of individual research groups within university disciplines. Its objective was to provide government, industry, business and the wider community with an assurance that research quality within Australian universities had been rigorously assesseded against international standards. Assessment was expected to allow research groups to be benchmarked against national and international standards across discipline areas. If successfully implemented, this would have been a departure from the Australian Government’s traditional approach to measuring research performance exclusively through bibliometrics. The RQF was fraught with controversy, particularly because the cost of such an undertaking (using international panels) and the difficulty in having agreed definitions of research quality and impact. The Labor government which scrapped the RQF, has yet to outline any system which will replace it, stating however that it will enter into discussions with higher education providers, to gain consensus on a streamlined, metrics-driven approach.
Current university performance – the Melbourne Institute study
Australian universities do not feature prominently in the top 100 international universities as ranked by the Jiao Tong Index. The two universities which regularly appear therein are the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University. Australian universities do, however, perform somewhat better in the Times Higher Education Rankings, which are more Anglo-centric in their composition.
Overall, however, the relative international performance of Australian universities suffers from the dilution associated with a unified national system which encourages almost 40 universities to be generalist in their nature and approach.
In 2006, the Melbourne Institute conducted a ‘discipline by discipline’ study of the performance of all Australian universities, and combined this with a national and international survey. Notwithstanding the fact that the Melbourne Institute is part of the University of Melbourne, the Institute's Discipline by Discipline Rankings Paper provides the most comprehensive assessment of the status of Australian universities which is currently available. A number of parameters (including undergraduate entry scores; student satisfaction; the official Federal Department of Education Science and Training research figures; publication data from Thomson Scientific; student/staff ratios, international rankings, etc.) were assessed to provide a discipline by discipline ranking of universities, on a scale of 0 – 100.
Of the universities which were included in the rankings, only six were able to average a relative score of more than 50 in the areas in which they competed. Two of the G8 universities (University of Adelaide and University of Western Australia) did not achieve a 50% average. Most of the newer universities average around 30% relative performance in their chosen disciplines. This study highlights a lack of capacity, investment and focus in chosen areas (a number of universities average zeros in their chosen research areas in terms of outputs). It should also be noted that a score of 100 is relative to other Australian universities and is not an absolute measure in an international sense.
Future directions
The current Australian Federal Government (Liberal Party) and the Federal Opposition Party (Labor Party) have both signaled that the ‘one size fits all’ approach to universities, which emerged from the Dawkins’ reforms, is nearing an end. Universities are being encouraged to find their own niches. The difficulty with this is that the undergraduate and postgraduate programs which prove to be financially lucrative (i.e., profitable) in terms of sustaining the core business of a university are limited (Medicine, Law, Business, Economics and Commerce), and there is a tendency for all universities to pursue high profile areas, rather than invest in high cost areas which have national economic significance (engineering and science). None of the Australian universities have currently taken steps for significant cost cutting in administration and rationalization of duplicated services and facilities.
Of the current universities, only the University of Melbourne has signaled a change in direction in terms of its education. Again, this is based upon increasing income rather than through cost reductions through modern management principles. The so-called ‘Melbourne Model’ is due for implementation in 2008. The objective is to pursue an American-style educational program composed of generic undergraduate degrees which as yet have no professional recognition in Australia, and then follow these with professional postgraduate degrees which do have professional recognition (e.g., Law or Engineering). This strategy enables the University to by-pass the current Federal Government restrictions on fee-paying undergraduate places by effectively reclassifying former undergraduate programs as a combination of generic undergraduate and professional graduate programs. In its website The University of Melbourne claims that this will provide a broader educational model in line with the so-called Bologna Model of education applied in Europe. Opponents claim that identical educational outcomes could have been achieved by a five year undergraduate program without the introduction of full-fees.
None of the other G8 universities have signaled any intention to make any fundamental changes to the way in which they function, although some have indicated interest in the Melbourne Model of fee paying education.
Given the positions of both the Federal Government and Federal Opposition, it is clear that universities will change over the coming years. The data from the Melbourne Institute Study (particularly the research output data which the study derived from Government DEST figures and Thomson ISI) highlights the fact that a number of the current universities have insufficient capacity in their chosen disciplines to achieve threshold performance at an international level.
Australian Universities
Many universities in Australia have gained international recognition. Two of the most acknowledged are the Academic Ranking of World Universities, produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the THES - QS World University Rankings, which in 2006, had no fewer than 13 universities amongst the world's top 200.
Vocational Education and Training
The major providers of vocational education and training (VET) in Australia are the various state-administered institutes of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) across the country. TAFE institutions generally offer short courses, Certificates I, II, III, and IV, Diplomas, and Advanced Diplomas in a wide range of vocational topics. They also sometimes offer Higher Education courses, especially in Victoria.
In addition to TAFE Institutes there are many Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) which are privately operated. In Victoria alone there are approximately 1100. They include:
commercial training providers,
the training department of manufacturing or service enterprises,
the training function of employer or employee organisations in a particular industry,
Group Training Companies,
community learning centres and neighbourhood houses,
secondary colleges providing VET programs.
In size these RTOs vary from single-person operations delivering training and assessment in a narrow specialisation, to large organisations offering a wide range of programs. Many of them receive government funding to deliver programs to apprentices or trainees, to disadvantaged groups, or in fields which governments see as priority areas.
All TAFE institutes and private RTOs are required to maintain compliance with a set of national standards called the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF), and this compliance is monitored by regular internal and external audits.
VET programs delivered by TAFE Institutes and private RTOs are based on nationally registered qualifications, derived from either endorsed sets of competency standards known as Training Packages, or from courses accredited by state/territory government authorities. These qualifications are regularly reviewed and updated. In specialised areas where no publicly owned qualifications exist, an RTO may develop its own course and have it accredited as a privately owned program, subject to the same rules as those that are publicly owned.
All trainers and assessors delivering VET programs are required to hold a qualification known as the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAA40104) or demonstrate equivalent competency. They are also required to have relevant vocational competencies, at least to the level being delivered or assessed.
HELP loans
HELP loan management
HELP debts do not attract interest, but are instead indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on 1 June each year, based on the annual CPI to March of that year. The indexation rate applied on 1 June 2006 was 2.8% and 3.4% on 1 June 2007. Indexation applies to the part of the debt that has been unpaid for 11 months or more. Thus, indexation is calculated on the opening HELP debt balance on 1 July of the previous year plus any debt incurred in the first half of the current year (usually for first semester courses) less any compulsory and voluntary repayments, with bonus. Any HELP debt incurred on second semester courses (usually determined in June) will not be subject to indexation until the next year. After indexation, the new balance is rounded down to a whole dollar amount.
HELP account debtors can make voluntary repayments. These repayments attract a 10% bonus for repayments over $500. This means that if a person voluntarily repays $1000, the debt is reduced by $1100. If the remaining debt is less than $500 the bonus still applies on repayment of their balance of the debt. As making voluntary repayments does not exempt the person from compulsory repayments, if the person intends to pay off the total debt voluntarily, it is financially advantageous for them to do it before lodging the tax return. This will attract the 10% bonus on the repayment, and there would be no balance on the debt to which the compulsory repayment provisions can apply. Better still, if the voluntary repayment is made before the indexation date of 1 June, the avoiding of the indexation adjustment is an additional bonus. Even factoring in the 10% bonus on voluntary repayments, many people elect not to pay off their debt in advance of the required repayments because it still works out to be probably the cheapest loan someone will ever receive.
If a person with a HELP debt dies, the debt is cancelled (the debtor's estate is not required to pay the debt).
HELP debts do not attract interest, but are instead indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on 1 June each year, based on the annual CPI to March of that year. The indexation rate applied on 1 June 2006 was 2.8% and 3.4% on 1 June 2007. Indexation applies to the part of the debt that has been unpaid for 11 months or more. Thus, indexation is calculated on the opening HELP debt balance on 1 July of the previous year plus any debt incurred in the first half of the current year (usually for first semester courses) less any compulsory and voluntary repayments, with bonus. Any HELP debt incurred on second semester courses (usually determined in June) will not be subject to indexation until the next year. After indexation, the new balance is rounded down to a whole dollar amount.
HELP account debtors can make voluntary repayments. These repayments attract a 10% bonus for repayments over $500. This means that if a person voluntarily repays $1000, the debt is reduced by $1100. If the remaining debt is less than $500 the bonus still applies on repayment of their balance of the debt. As making voluntary repayments does not exempt the person from compulsory repayments, if the person intends to pay off the total debt voluntarily, it is financially advantageous for them to do it before lodging the tax return. This will attract the 10% bonus on the repayment, and there would be no balance on the debt to which the compulsory repayment provisions can apply. Better still, if the voluntary repayment is made before the indexation date of 1 June, the avoiding of the indexation adjustment is an additional bonus. Even factoring in the 10% bonus on voluntary repayments, many people elect not to pay off their debt in advance of the required repayments because it still works out to be probably the cheapest loan someone will ever receive.
If a person with a HELP debt dies, the debt is cancelled (the debtor's estate is not required to pay the debt).
Repayments
HELP debts are administered by the Australian Taxation Office and will be repaid compulsarily over time through the taxation system. If the HELP Repayment Income (HRI) of a person with a HELP debt exceeds a certain threshold, which for the 2007/08 financial year is $39,825, a compulsory payments will be deducted from the person's tax for the year. To work out the HRI, the ATO will add back to the person's taxable income any net rental loss claimed against that taxable income and add fringe benefits and exempt foreign income received, which have not been included in the taxable income. Unlike marginal tax rates, the repayment rate applies on the full HRI, so that a person with a HRI of $39,500 in the 2007/08 tax year would not have to make any compulsory HELP repayment, but a person with a HRI of $40,000 would make a payment of $1,600. This is 4% of the HRI (not taxable income or the debt balance) of $40,000. The compulsory repayment amount cannot exceed the balance of the HELP debt.
The rates for compulsory repayment for the 2007/08 financial year, also compared with previous years, are:
HELP Repayment Income (HRI) compulsory repayment
2006-2009 HRI 2005/06 HRI 2006/07 HRI 2007/08 HRI 2008/09 Repayment Rate
Below $36,185 Below $38,149 Below $39,825 Below $41,595 Nil
$36,185–$40,306 $38,149-$42,494 $39,225-$44,360 $41,595–$46,333 4% of HRI
$40,307–$44,427 $42,495-$46,938 $44,360-$48,896 $46,334–$51,070 4.5% of HRI
$44,428–$46,762 $46,839-$49,300 $48,897-$51,466 $51,071–$53,754 5% of HRI
$46,763–$50,266 $49,301-$52,994 $51,466-$55,322 $53,755–$57,782 5.5% of HRI
$50,267–$54,439 $52,995-$57,394 $55,323-$59,915 $57,783–$62,579 6% of HRI
$54,440–$57,304 $57,395-$60,414 $59,916-$63,068 $62,580–$65,873 6.5% of HRI
$57,305–$63,062 $60,415-$66,485 $63,069-$69,405 $65,874–$72,492 7% of HRI
$63,063–$67,199 $66,486-$70,846 $69,406-$73,959 $72,493–$77,247 7.5% of HRI
$67,200 and above $70,847 and above $73,960 and above $77,248 and above 8% of HRI
HELP debts are administered by the Australian Taxation Office and will be repaid compulsarily over time through the taxation system. If the HELP Repayment Income (HRI) of a person with a HELP debt exceeds a certain threshold, which for the 2007/08 financial year is $39,825, a compulsory payments will be deducted from the person's tax for the year. To work out the HRI, the ATO will add back to the person's taxable income any net rental loss claimed against that taxable income and add fringe benefits and exempt foreign income received, which have not been included in the taxable income. Unlike marginal tax rates, the repayment rate applies on the full HRI, so that a person with a HRI of $39,500 in the 2007/08 tax year would not have to make any compulsory HELP repayment, but a person with a HRI of $40,000 would make a payment of $1,600. This is 4% of the HRI (not taxable income or the debt balance) of $40,000. The compulsory repayment amount cannot exceed the balance of the HELP debt.
The rates for compulsory repayment for the 2007/08 financial year, also compared with previous years, are:
HELP Repayment Income (HRI) compulsory repayment
2006-2009 HRI 2005/06 HRI 2006/07 HRI 2007/08 HRI 2008/09 Repayment Rate
Below $36,185 Below $38,149 Below $39,825 Below $41,595 Nil
$36,185–$40,306 $38,149-$42,494 $39,225-$44,360 $41,595–$46,333 4% of HRI
$40,307–$44,427 $42,495-$46,938 $44,360-$48,896 $46,334–$51,070 4.5% of HRI
$44,428–$46,762 $46,839-$49,300 $48,897-$51,466 $51,071–$53,754 5% of HRI
$46,763–$50,266 $49,301-$52,994 $51,466-$55,322 $53,755–$57,782 5.5% of HRI
$50,267–$54,439 $52,995-$57,394 $55,323-$59,915 $57,783–$62,579 6% of HRI
$54,440–$57,304 $57,395-$60,414 $59,916-$63,068 $62,580–$65,873 6.5% of HRI
$57,305–$63,062 $60,415-$66,485 $63,069-$69,405 $65,874–$72,492 7% of HRI
$63,063–$67,199 $66,486-$70,846 $69,406-$73,959 $72,493–$77,247 7.5% of HRI
$67,200 and above $70,847 and above $73,960 and above $77,248 and above 8% of HRI
History
IN AUSTRALIA
In 1940, the Curtin Labor Government saw a need for the country to increase the number of university graduates and for more civil and military research. To do this, it dramatically increased the number of scholarships it offered to enter university and allowed women to apply for these scholarships (they were previously exclusive to men). The Menzies Liberal Government also supported and extended the ability of ordinary Australians to attend university.
In the 1960s, the Menzies Government encouraged and funded the establishment of new universities to cater for increasing demand. These universities were built in outlying suburbs and offered special research scholarships to encourage students to undertake postgraduate research studies. Many of the universities that were established under this scheme are members of Innovative Research Universities Australia.
In 1967, the Menzies Government created a category of non-university tertiary institution (called College of Advanced Education (CAE)) that would be funded by the Commonwealth. These CAEs were easier to access and cheaper to attend than the traditional university, while delivering many university-equivalent Bachelor degrees.
During the early 1970s, there was a significant push to make tertiary education in Australia more accessible to working and middle class Australians. The Whitlam Labor Government abolished university fees on the 1st of January 1974. This decision did not greatly change the socio-economic backgrounds of students attending universities because only 20 to 25 percent of students paid fees as most had Commonwealth scholarships. Another reason for the lack of change was because low high school retention rates had resulted in many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds not completing secondary education and therefore never having the opportunity to choose to attend university.
In 1989, the Hawke Labor Government set up the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS), which was developed by economist and lecturer at the Australian National University, Bruce Chapman and championed by Education Minister John Dawkins (see Dawkin Revolution). Under the original HECS, a $1,800 fee was charged all university students, and the Commonwealth paid the balance. A student could defer payment of this HECS amount (in which case it was called a HECS debt) and repay the debt through the tax system, when the student's income reached a certain level. As part of the reforms, Colleges of Advanced Education entered the University sector by various means.
In 1996, the new Howard Coalition Government, while otherwise retaining the HECS system, created a three-tier HECS fee structure. Fees were charged on the basis of the perceived value of courses. Courses considered to have most likelihood of generating higher income for students in the future (eg. Law and Medicine) were the most expensive and those least likely to generate higher income (eg. Nursing and Arts) were the least expensive. At the same time, HECS charges increased by an average of 40% and universities were permitted to create full-fee places on which they could charge full up-front fees to students who missed out on a HECS place.
2005/6 reforms
In 2005 the Commonwealth government deregulated university fees, permitting universities to increase fees by a maximum of 25%.
As part of the changes, from 2007, HECS places became known as Commonwealth supported places (CSP). A student in a CSP is only entitled to study for a maximum of 7 years full-time (16 years part-time) at CSP rates. This is known as Student Learning Entitlement (SLE). After that period the student must take either a post-graduate FEE-HELP load (if available) or study at full-fee rates.
The HECS debt became a pre-2005 debt, while HECS-HELP referred to a post-2005 debt. HECS-HELP (formerly HECS) maintains the same principles as HECS. If a student receives a HECS-HELP loan, the Commonwealth government pays the loan amount directly to the higher education provider on behalf of the student.
An alternative option is FEE-HELP (formerly PELS). FEE-HELP provides eligible fee-paying students with a loan to cover their postgraduate fees. This option is only available for post-graduate students attempting an eligible post-graduate course. In 2007, the FEE-HELP lifelong limit is $80,000, and $100,000 for students studying dentistry, medicine or veterinary science. Students cannot borrow any more than $50,000, even if once debt is repaid.
When a student has used up the SLE, he or she may only study under a FEE-HELP course (capped at $50,000) or as part of a full-fee course. Full-fee courses are relatively expensive because the student must pay the costs upfront, resulting in a significantly larger debt than a standard HECS-HELP loan, usually taken for its lower academic entrance requirements.
FEE-HELP courses are available at a post-graduate level (and occasionally for some undergraduate full-fee places) however they are not available at every institution or in every course. The only remaining option is a full-fee place paid upfront.
In 1940, the Curtin Labor Government saw a need for the country to increase the number of university graduates and for more civil and military research. To do this, it dramatically increased the number of scholarships it offered to enter university and allowed women to apply for these scholarships (they were previously exclusive to men). The Menzies Liberal Government also supported and extended the ability of ordinary Australians to attend university.
In the 1960s, the Menzies Government encouraged and funded the establishment of new universities to cater for increasing demand. These universities were built in outlying suburbs and offered special research scholarships to encourage students to undertake postgraduate research studies. Many of the universities that were established under this scheme are members of Innovative Research Universities Australia.
In 1967, the Menzies Government created a category of non-university tertiary institution (called College of Advanced Education (CAE)) that would be funded by the Commonwealth. These CAEs were easier to access and cheaper to attend than the traditional university, while delivering many university-equivalent Bachelor degrees.
During the early 1970s, there was a significant push to make tertiary education in Australia more accessible to working and middle class Australians. The Whitlam Labor Government abolished university fees on the 1st of January 1974. This decision did not greatly change the socio-economic backgrounds of students attending universities because only 20 to 25 percent of students paid fees as most had Commonwealth scholarships. Another reason for the lack of change was because low high school retention rates had resulted in many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds not completing secondary education and therefore never having the opportunity to choose to attend university.
In 1989, the Hawke Labor Government set up the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS), which was developed by economist and lecturer at the Australian National University, Bruce Chapman and championed by Education Minister John Dawkins (see Dawkin Revolution). Under the original HECS, a $1,800 fee was charged all university students, and the Commonwealth paid the balance. A student could defer payment of this HECS amount (in which case it was called a HECS debt) and repay the debt through the tax system, when the student's income reached a certain level. As part of the reforms, Colleges of Advanced Education entered the University sector by various means.
In 1996, the new Howard Coalition Government, while otherwise retaining the HECS system, created a three-tier HECS fee structure. Fees were charged on the basis of the perceived value of courses. Courses considered to have most likelihood of generating higher income for students in the future (eg. Law and Medicine) were the most expensive and those least likely to generate higher income (eg. Nursing and Arts) were the least expensive. At the same time, HECS charges increased by an average of 40% and universities were permitted to create full-fee places on which they could charge full up-front fees to students who missed out on a HECS place.
2005/6 reforms
In 2005 the Commonwealth government deregulated university fees, permitting universities to increase fees by a maximum of 25%.
As part of the changes, from 2007, HECS places became known as Commonwealth supported places (CSP). A student in a CSP is only entitled to study for a maximum of 7 years full-time (16 years part-time) at CSP rates. This is known as Student Learning Entitlement (SLE). After that period the student must take either a post-graduate FEE-HELP load (if available) or study at full-fee rates.
The HECS debt became a pre-2005 debt, while HECS-HELP referred to a post-2005 debt. HECS-HELP (formerly HECS) maintains the same principles as HECS. If a student receives a HECS-HELP loan, the Commonwealth government pays the loan amount directly to the higher education provider on behalf of the student.
An alternative option is FEE-HELP (formerly PELS). FEE-HELP provides eligible fee-paying students with a loan to cover their postgraduate fees. This option is only available for post-graduate students attempting an eligible post-graduate course. In 2007, the FEE-HELP lifelong limit is $80,000, and $100,000 for students studying dentistry, medicine or veterinary science. Students cannot borrow any more than $50,000, even if once debt is repaid.
When a student has used up the SLE, he or she may only study under a FEE-HELP course (capped at $50,000) or as part of a full-fee course. Full-fee courses are relatively expensive because the student must pay the costs upfront, resulting in a significantly larger debt than a standard HECS-HELP loan, usually taken for its lower academic entrance requirements.
FEE-HELP courses are available at a post-graduate level (and occasionally for some undergraduate full-fee places) however they are not available at every institution or in every course. The only remaining option is a full-fee place paid upfront.
STUDENT & THEIR EDUCATION
Student
Student are earnament of contry, future star, future way, of that country, Which the country can developed their new study new technology that country can developed all of the world, many country provide student loans to their student's study.
As a general rule, all students who attend Australian tertiary education institutions are charged higher education fees. However, several measures are in place to relieve the costs of tertiaryeducation in Australia.
Most students are Commonwealth supported. This means that they are only required to pay a part of the cost of tuition, called the "student contribution", while the Commonwealth pays the balance; and students are able to defer payment of their contribution as a HELP loan. Other domestic students are full fee-paying (non-Commonwealth supported) and receive no other direct government contribution to the cost of their education. They can also obtain subsidised HELP loans from the Government up to a lifetime limit of $100,000 for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science programs and $80,000 for all other programs. Australian citizens and (with some limitations) permanent residents are able to obtain interest free loans from the government under the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) which replaced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS).
HELP is jointly administered by the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
In addition, qualified students may be entitled to Youth Allowance or Austudy Payment to assist them financially while they are studying. These support payments are means and assets tested. Further assistance is available in the form of scholarships.
Overseas students are charged fees for the full cost of their education and are ineligible for any loans from the Commonwealth, but may apply for international scholarships.
Student are earnament of contry, future star, future way, of that country, Which the country can developed their new study new technology that country can developed all of the world, many country provide student loans to their student's study.
As a general rule, all students who attend Australian tertiary education institutions are charged higher education fees. However, several measures are in place to relieve the costs of tertiaryeducation in Australia.
Most students are Commonwealth supported. This means that they are only required to pay a part of the cost of tuition, called the "student contribution", while the Commonwealth pays the balance; and students are able to defer payment of their contribution as a HELP loan. Other domestic students are full fee-paying (non-Commonwealth supported) and receive no other direct government contribution to the cost of their education. They can also obtain subsidised HELP loans from the Government up to a lifetime limit of $100,000 for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science programs and $80,000 for all other programs. Australian citizens and (with some limitations) permanent residents are able to obtain interest free loans from the government under the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) which replaced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS).
HELP is jointly administered by the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
In addition, qualified students may be entitled to Youth Allowance or Austudy Payment to assist them financially while they are studying. These support payments are means and assets tested. Further assistance is available in the form of scholarships.
Overseas students are charged fees for the full cost of their education and are ineligible for any loans from the Commonwealth, but may apply for international scholarships.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
