This week’s event, “The Higher Good | What if we built higher education for students?” was a pleasure. Those in attendance contributed to meaningful and provocative discussion, and I left the event questioning…
“Okay, what are the next steps!?”
What resonated with me were the multiple calls to diversify Australia’s offering of higher education institutions—focusing on establishing top-tier teaching-first or teaching-only institutions. This is not a new idea. However the need for Australian higher ed to become more responsive to student needs has become more urgent, as public faith in universities has continued to be challenged and as the Accord priorities come into greater focus. Notably, these were also big themes at the Universities Australia conference in Canberra last week.
Sitting in the audience for “Higher Good”, I started having flashbacks to 2019, when I was composing the final chapter of my dissertation (check it out if you’re in the mood for a slow burn)!
Just as I was putting on the final touches, the Coaldrake Review was released, focused on Australia’s higher education Provider Category Standards (PCS). To my supervisors’ dismay, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to incorporate some of the key insights of the Review before putting down my pen.
Whether or not you agree with the report’s specific recommendations around PCS, it signifies and acknowledges that the status quo is not fit for purpose. Perhaps more importantly, the need for greater institutional diversity is now a widely shared belief across Government, including Australia’s most powerful public servant, Professor Glyn Davis.
But what would this actually look like in practice?
This is the million-dollar question, and many very smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about it. I want to try and provide another perspective by sharing a recent personal experience.
A couple of years ago I spent a good chunk of time at the University of Tasmania. Walking around Hobart and Launceston was an immense pleasure, and in an indirect way, it reminded me of a summer I spent at Centre College in the rural town of Danville, Kentucky.
At the time, Centre College had a student body—all living on campus—of only 2,000 students. Yet, it led the state of Kentucky in pumping out Fulbright and Rhodes Scholars. It was, and still is, a 4-year, teaching-only higher education institution.
I couldn’t help but imagine some alternate reality where UTas narrowed its focus, put all its resources into teaching, built some no-frills dormitory-style student housing, and rented rooms out at 60-75% the market rate.
What student on earth wouldn’t love an affordable 3-4 year stay in Hobart during their formative years, in a tightly knit student community?
UTas is a big and complex institution, and this may not be the right answer for Prof Rufus Black and his team. And no doubt there would be implications and hurdles to surmount for any university seeking to realise this vision. But somehow, I can’t get that image out of my head and continue to imagine what an opportunity it represents.
How many other locations and institutions in Australia have a similar opportunity?
What if we truly reimagined higher education for students and their needs in 2025?
There are also other big, potentially radical ideas that could better meet modern student needs, from more compact student timetables, to industry-partnered degree delivery, at scale. How can we overcome the barriers of resources and mindset that are stopping us from thinking big in this way?
With the number of passionate advocates at “Higher Good” this week and across the sector, I’m confident that we can. Let’s start mapping out those next steps.
Comments