The Sydney Morning Herald published a colourful opinion piece by Lisa Pryor on full-fee paying local students in Australian universities (1). The gist of her article was that the full-fee paying option allowed students of lesser academic ranking (and by presumption, ability) to "bribe" their way into university. Pryor states and I quote:
"The problem with full-fee paying students is they are engaged in institutionalised bribery...
The real threat to values is the triumph of money over fairness, which full-fee payers represent. What is the point of drumming into kids an ethos of egalitarianism and the fair go at school, if we are going to teach them as soon as they leave that it is okay to bend the rules so long as you can afford it?"
On this point I agree fully with Pryor. If there is such as thing as "Australian" values, then egalitarianism and meritocracy are a key part. There is an intrinsic unfairness to the fact that for those students who cannot enter a program on academic merit alone, a large sum of cash will guarantee placement.
Nevertheless, I can see the reasoning of the universities in this regard. Unless there is a significant shift in public policy with increased funding to tertiary education, external sources of funding are required. An ideological position of "pure" meritocracy would either require a contraction in positions, and/or higher tuition fees for all students.
In the example of full-fee paying international students, we do not consider that these students are "taking local places". Not only do their tuition fees fully fund their course, but they also help subsidise the remainder of the university. This "export" of tertiary education has become an important sector in Australian trade with a 123% increase in the international student population between 1997 and 2002 (compared to an 20% increase of local students) (2).
A discussion of full-fee paying university positions
Let us assume that:
Now, given that there is no intrinsic objection to non-publicly funded education, the second question is whether private positions are acceptable within a public institution. Given the paucity of "private" tertiary educational institutions in Australia, this would seem to be a necessity. Furthermore, the fact that the highest quality and most prestigious universities in Australia are public rather than private institutions (in comparison to the United States) should be a source of national pride.
There are no obvious examples in primary or secondary education that we can draw upon, but perhaps, an analogous situation can be taken from the health system. On the whole, most people do not find it objectionable that there are patients with private health insurance in public hospitals. Indeed, there are clear benefits to the system as privately funded patients (i.e., their insurer) not only fully pays for their stay, but the small profit that the public system makes reduces the public funding load for everyone else.
Extrapolating this into the tertiary education system, I believe that there are indeed benefits in having full-fee paying students in public universities.
What are the objections to full-fee paying students?
I can see a number of specific issues problems with public universities accepting full-fee paying students:
Entry by lesser academic merit / advantageous financial merit
The first is discussed in the aforementioned opinion piece by Pryor. The current system allows economically advantaged students a "bypass" into what is essentially the same position if they do not meet the entry criteria by academic standards alone. This is perhaps particularly odious when full-fee paying students change into a HECS-HELP (3) funded position after "getting their foot in the door". Clearly this is inequitable.
The stance of the universities, however, is represented by the following University of Melbourne 2003 Senate Inquiry Submission who reject this notion (4):
With regards full-fee paying students doing well in their tertiary studies, the conclusion made by the University is spurious. I could equally claim it supports the notion that the University demonstrates academic favouritism to full-fee paying students.
The submission states further:
However, the "second best solution" as detailed above is diametrically opposed to the "best solution". Moving down that pathway is a validation of the existing system. The University is trying to walk down both sides of the street; trotting out the best (but politically unpopular) solution and killing it in the same breath with a flawed but politically acquiescent position.
Government funding into privatised positions
This issue goes to the heart of social equality. It is not only an issue in tertiary education, but also primary and secondary education as well as health. When someone has the socioeconomic advantage to be able to choose the "non-standard" option, should public money be used to support that choice?
I believe that public money should not be used in this fashion. For example, we may give social benefits to someone who is unemployed but it would be ludicrous to give that same benefit to someone who is not only employed but wealthy. Nevertheless, the incumbent conservative Federal Government seems to not agree with a progressive increase in funding of non-government schools at the expense of government schools since the mid-1990s (5).
In the context of tertiary education, we have the FEE-HELP scheme (3). States the Government policy:
What is unstated in their "support for students" section of the policy paper is that this so called "inequity" is of the government's making, by setting rigid HECS-HELP quotas and encouraging universities in offering more "full-fee" funded positions. It seems to me that a clearly better solution is that any funding that would have been given through the "FEE-HELP" scheme to be applied to the HECS-HELP, i.e., by either reducing the cost of publicly funded university positions or by increasing the number of publicly funded positions.
I believe that students accepting a full-fee paying university position should do exactly that; be full-fee paying and to do so up front.
Nevertheless, I can see the reasoning of the universities in this regard. Unless there is a significant shift in public policy with increased funding to tertiary education, external sources of funding are required. An ideological position of "pure" meritocracy would either require a contraction in positions, and/or higher tuition fees for all students.
In the example of full-fee paying international students, we do not consider that these students are "taking local places". Not only do their tuition fees fully fund their course, but they also help subsidise the remainder of the university. This "export" of tertiary education has become an important sector in Australian trade with a 123% increase in the international student population between 1997 and 2002 (compared to an 20% increase of local students) (2).
A discussion of full-fee paying university positions
Let us assume that:
- There will not be any substantial change in government funding for tertiary education;
- and that some form of "privatised" tertiary education in public universities is a necessity for the economic viability of the universities (insofar as maintaining current standards).
Now, given that there is no intrinsic objection to non-publicly funded education, the second question is whether private positions are acceptable within a public institution. Given the paucity of "private" tertiary educational institutions in Australia, this would seem to be a necessity. Furthermore, the fact that the highest quality and most prestigious universities in Australia are public rather than private institutions (in comparison to the United States) should be a source of national pride.
There are no obvious examples in primary or secondary education that we can draw upon, but perhaps, an analogous situation can be taken from the health system. On the whole, most people do not find it objectionable that there are patients with private health insurance in public hospitals. Indeed, there are clear benefits to the system as privately funded patients (i.e., their insurer) not only fully pays for their stay, but the small profit that the public system makes reduces the public funding load for everyone else.
Extrapolating this into the tertiary education system, I believe that there are indeed benefits in having full-fee paying students in public universities.
What are the objections to full-fee paying students?
I can see a number of specific issues problems with public universities accepting full-fee paying students:
Entry by lesser academic merit / advantageous financial merit
The first is discussed in the aforementioned opinion piece by Pryor. The current system allows economically advantaged students a "bypass" into what is essentially the same position if they do not meet the entry criteria by academic standards alone. This is perhaps particularly odious when full-fee paying students change into a HECS-HELP (3) funded position after "getting their foot in the door". Clearly this is inequitable.
The stance of the universities, however, is represented by the following University of Melbourne 2003 Senate Inquiry Submission who reject this notion (4):
"The University rejects the idea that enrolling full-fee paying students undermines the merit principle. The ‘clearly in’ score required of HECS students reflects supply and demand for a limited number of places, not merit, or any minimum ability to required to complete a course. All full-fee paying students meet minimum entry requirements, as do other students admitted on lower than the ‘clearly in’ score, such as those in equity programs. Many students admitted under the full-fee program would be eligible for a HECS place at another course within the University, and all of them would be eligible for a wide range of courses at other universities. In 2002, the academic performance of the commencing students in domestic undergraduate full-fee places exceeded that of students in HECS-liable places. Australian full-fee students were more likely to pass all their subjects, and to receive a first class honours grade. The strong academic performance of full-fee students demonstrates that the selection process in no way compromises academic standards."Here, I reject the University of Melbourne's "rejection". Specifically, they have avoided the point. It is clearly acknowledged that entrance into an Australian university is based on supply and demand. Arguable, this is the case for most human endeavours. However, the ranking of the potential university entrants is based on academic principles while the acceptance of full-fee paying positions is not the case. I would propose that it is a matter of common sense that there would be a clear positive correlation of socioeconomic advantage for those students who accept a full-fee paying position compared to those that don't.
With regards full-fee paying students doing well in their tertiary studies, the conclusion made by the University is spurious. I could equally claim it supports the notion that the University demonstrates academic favouritism to full-fee paying students.
The submission states further:
"The best solution is not to abolish the full-fee paying places, but to end the quota system that creates the original mismatch between supply and demand. This is what the University proposed in its submission to the 2002 Nelson review. A second best solution is to extend income-contingent loans to full-fee paying undergraduates, and we support the government’s proposal to do this. The Minister has suggested that the $50,000 limit on loans under the FEES-HELP program be increased, and we strongly support an upward revision."I agree with the "best solution" in principle. The rigid quota system and inadequate tertiary education funding is what drives universities to seeking full-fee paying students in the first place.
However, the "second best solution" as detailed above is diametrically opposed to the "best solution". Moving down that pathway is a validation of the existing system. The University is trying to walk down both sides of the street; trotting out the best (but politically unpopular) solution and killing it in the same breath with a flawed but politically acquiescent position.
Government funding into privatised positions
This issue goes to the heart of social equality. It is not only an issue in tertiary education, but also primary and secondary education as well as health. When someone has the socioeconomic advantage to be able to choose the "non-standard" option, should public money be used to support that choice?
I believe that public money should not be used in this fashion. For example, we may give social benefits to someone who is unemployed but it would be ludicrous to give that same benefit to someone who is not only employed but wealthy. Nevertheless, the incumbent conservative Federal Government seems to not agree with a progressive increase in funding of non-government schools at the expense of government schools since the mid-1990s (5).
In the context of tertiary education, we have the FEE-HELP scheme (3). States the Government policy:
"Students paying full fees for an undergraduate course do not currently have access to an income contingent loan scheme. This means that a qualified student who is offered a full fee paying place but who does not have the means to pay up front or can not take out a commercial loan can not access a place. This is inequitable."I reject this assessment that it is (i) inequitable, and that (ii) government assistance through a deferred "income contingent loan scheme" is the correct solution. The Federal Government is moving the goal posts and forcing the public and the universities into a new status quo.
What is unstated in their "support for students" section of the policy paper is that this so called "inequity" is of the government's making, by setting rigid HECS-HELP quotas and encouraging universities in offering more "full-fee" funded positions. It seems to me that a clearly better solution is that any funding that would have been given through the "FEE-HELP" scheme to be applied to the HECS-HELP, i.e., by either reducing the cost of publicly funded university positions or by increasing the number of publicly funded positions.
I believe that students accepting a full-fee paying university position should do exactly that; be full-fee paying and to do so up front.
A proposed "fair" model that includes full-fee paying students
I believe that I have demonstrated that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a partial privatised system but that there are many inequities to the current system. The following are a list of suggestions that I believe will make the system more fair:
1. Separate the admissions pool for private vs. public students
You can apply for any one course either through the publicly-funded system (where you are ranked and compete with other students on the "public" list) or you you can apply through the full-fee paying system (where you are ranked and compete with other students on the "private" list). That is, if you apply and are not offered a publicly funded position, you cannot "weasel" into the course by giving the university a large sum of money.
2. Relax the strict quota system that the universities are placed under
Universities may offer "x" number of places to prospective students under the quota. Naturally, there will always be a shortfall. The current system is such that the universities cannot then offer further publicly-funded positions in subsequent rounds (this is the basis the universities use to claim that their full-fee funded positions are "fair"). Clearly, it would be much fairer if the system allowed the universities to fill their publicly-funded positions with publicly-funded students!
3. Full-fee paying students must not be able to "convert" partway into publicly-funded position
I believe that when you start a university course as a full-fee paying student, you are entering into a social contract with the nation. Arguably, if someone wants to change courses, they should have access into either a publicly-funded or a full-fee paying position. However, I think that it is clearly unfair for a full-fee paying student to then subsequent enter a publicly-funded position in the same degree.
4. Full-fee paying students must be just that
It seems illogical for a full-fee paying student to receive public funding for their studies. Surely, any such funding would be better spent on more publicly-funded positions.
References
- Pryor L. First lesson at university: have the cash, can jump the queue [opinion]. The Sydney Morning Herald. 3 March 2007. [Link]
- Lukic T., Broadbent A., Maclachlan M. International higher education students. Strategic Analysis and Evaluation Group, Research Note No. 2, May 2004. Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training. [Link]
- "Support for students", Our Universities: Backing Australia's Future, Policy Paper. Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training. Last updated: 16 November 2006. [Link]
- Submission to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee. Inquiry into Higher Education Funding and Regulatory Legislation 2003. The University of Melbourne. Submitted: 14 August 2003. [Link]
- Australian Government funding to public and private schools. Australian Education Union. April 2004. [Link]
