Category: Higher education

The 2003 Cabinet papers and Brendan Nelson’s higher education reforms

Andrew Norton3 Comments

In the history of Australian higher education policy Brendan Nelson, the Liberal minister for education from 2001 to 2006, is perhaps under-rated. Several student funding structural changes he legislated 20 years ago are still in place. These include:

  • Student contributions set by universities up to a legislated maximum and going to universities (previously HECS was a fixed government charge);
  • A per full-time equivalent student Commonwealth contribution based on subject field of education (previously universities received an overall operating grant, which although informed by an early 1990s costing exercise did not directly tie money paid to discipline-level enrolments);
  • Commonwealth-university funding agreements as a method of allocating student funding to institutions, which made funding arrangements more transparent (but also turned into a backdoor instrument of policy and regulation that bypasses Parliament);
  • Through FEE-HELP, extension of student loans to full-fee undergraduates and students in private higher education institutions (the more limited Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme, PELS, was already supporting university full-fee postgraduates).

The 2003 Cabinet papers

The annual National Archives release of 20-year-old Cabinet papers, with the 2003 papers released earlier this week, gives us a look behind the scenes as Nelson’s reform package was developed and debated. Three digitised Cabinet documents record proposals and decisions, but not the Cabinet discussion. Sometimes, however, Cabinet thinking can be inferred from requests for further work and contextual material in the submissions.

This post focuses on changes to income contingent student loans.

The loan scheme that did not make it through Cabinet

Read More »

What’s going on with domestic undergraduate numbers? Part 1, Demographic differences

Andrew Norton3 Comments

Higher education enrolment data for 2022 was released on Monday. Overall enrolments fell 3.2% in 2022 compared to 2021. A 1.9% increase in international student numbers partly offset a 5.1% decline in domestic numbers. In 2021 overall enrolments also fell, with the opposite dynamic – an increase in domestic students partly offset a decline in international student numbers. The 2021 and 2022 enrolment decreases were the first total enrolment reversals since the early 1950s.

Domestic undergraduates

This post focuses on domestic undergraduates, the subject of many media inquiries and much speculation. The chart below shows that enrolments started growing in the late 2000s, at a fast rate during the demand driven funding era, before entering a more subdued phase in the late 2010s and then the decline discussed in this post. Sub-bachelor courses are a larger share of the total more recently than in the 2000s.

Overall domestic bachelor enrolments decreased 4.9% in 2022 compared to 2021. Despite a 2 percentage point increase in attrition rates for commencing 2021 students into 2022, the continuing cohorts offset a larger fall in commencing bachelor-degree students of 8.6%. That’s more than double the previous largest commencing student decline this century, in 2003, when the then-minister cracked down on over-enrolments. Sub-bachelor numbers are down around 4% for both commencing and total.

Read More »

The complex rules around admitting, funding and supporting higher education students

Andrew Norton1 Comment

[Update 18/12/2023: Some parts of this post have been revised as the enacted student support guidelines replaced the draft guidelines. The revisions are noted in the text.]

The support for students policy discussed in a previous post adds to an already complex system for admitting, funding and supporting higher education students. Universities have strongly argued against additional bureaucratic processes in areas covered by existing regulation. This is a positive sign – a much better strategy than taking under-funded nuclear submarine student places – and I hear that the final support for students guidelines will be at least somewhat better than the draft guidelines.

The content below is my attempt to understand how all the different rules in this space overlap, interact and potentially contradict each other. While the support for students parts may change soon (the legislation operates from 1 January 2024 [Update 18/12/2023: Now delayed until 1 April 2024]), some existing rules look redundant to me. A warning: this post contains mind-numbing details and distinctions.

Initial admission to a course

The most general rules apply on admission to a course, with TEQSA responsible for enforcement. These protect high-risk students and appear in the higher education threshold standards. They require that:

“Admissions policies, requirements and procedures are … designed to ensure that admitted students have the academic preparation and proficiency in English needed to participate in their intended study, and no known limitations that would be expected to impede their progression and completion”: Part A, section 1.1.

Order of funding priority

For Commonwealth supported students selection decisions must, in the “provider’s reasonable view” be made on “merit”: section 19-35(2) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The provider can, however, take into account “educational disadvantages that a particular student has experienced”: section 19-35(3).

As I noted last year, this requirement is in tension with university practices and government policies on admitting members of equity groups in preference to other applicants. The equity group categories are only proxies for educational disadvantage; membership does not say anything certain about a “particular student”.

Read More »

The 16 universities signing up to subsidise the nuclear submarine program

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Sixteen universities have, according to a media release today, been allocated places in 38 STEM-related courses intended to support the AUKUS nuclear submarine program. The government says it is investing $128 million over four years. In reality, however, universities will need to divert resources from other activities to support nuclear submarine training.

The 75% costing methodology

Universities will need to self-finance some AUKUS places due to what the program guidelines call ‘the standard 75 per cent costing methodology’. In the program’s second year its funding for the first year’s continuing students will be 75 per cent of their commencing year allocation, and so on in subsequent years until no money is left.

Some reduced funding to take account of student attrition is reasonable, but 25 per cent is not. Over the 2005 to 2020 period the proportion of domestic commencing bachelor students leaving their university after first year peaked at 18.4 per cent. Nearly half the nuclear submarine places went to Group of Eight universities, which have lower attrition rates than the national average.

Read More »

The dangers of single point of failure higher education systems

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

When the entire Optus network went down last week – knocking out mobiles, landlines and internet connections – my new paper Job-ready Graduates 2.0: The Universities Accord and centralised control of universities and courses was in the late stages of production. If the Optus incident had happened earlier I might have included more on the risks of the Accord interim report’s proposed Tertiary Education Commission as a single point of failure.

A Tertiary Education Commission’s role in allocating student places

My new report builds on my earlier explainer of the Accord interim report’s proposals for distributing student places, focusing on how this would affect the relationship between higher education and skills needs.

Read More »

Mapping Australian higher education 2023 – official release

Andrew Norton2 Comments

Update 20/12/2025: More recent data here.

Mapping Australian higher education 2023 is now available from the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods website.

Update 30/10/2024: There is a later version of Mapping 2023’s data here.

Update 26/10/23: A reader has pointed out that list of FEE-HELP NUHEPs is incomplete. A column of names from the original Excel file was omitted during production. The full list is available here. This list also includes three non-FEE-HELP providers registered by TEQSA since the pdf version was finalised. A corrected version of Mapping with the full list of NUHEPs, as of mid-2023, is here.

If anyone has noticed other errors please let me know.

The Accord equity target that cannot, and perhaps should not, be achieved

Andrew Norton2 Comments

The Universities Accord terms of reference asked the review panel to recommend higher education equity and attainment targets, and in their interim report they offer suggestions.

The general goal is equity group parity in higher education participation by 2035 (pp. 18, 20). There is some ambiguity about whether this applies for all equity groups. A few times only three of the main four – low SES, regional, and disability – are specifically mentioned for the 2035 target (pp. 9, 42, 43). For Indigenous students a target is referred to but not specified on p.43. The Indigenous contribution to the 2035 target is however, mentioned at pp. 40-41.*

Other potential equity groups such as first in family, care leavers, people from single parent families and children of asylum seekers may be added (p. 42)

The equity targets interact with an overall target of 55 per cent attainment by 2050. It is unclear whether this target is for people aged 25 to 34 years (pp. 9 & 36), employed persons (p. 33, distinguished from the 25 to 34 cohort), or all people/unspecified base (p. 22).

Whatever the exact 2050 target, it is well above current levels. Equity group parity is not just achieving the overall population participation and attainment rate now. It is chasing a rate that will, if other Accord policies work, be moving up.

This post discusses the practical obstacles to equity group targets that apply regardless of the precise targets set. It also questions whether a large increase in higher education participation would reliably be in the best interests of the additional students.

Read More »

Should funding be partly based on student characteristics?

Andrew Norton3 Comments

Australia’s higher education teaching funding system is primarily based on subjects rather than students. Subjects taken are converted into ‘equivalent full-time student load’ (EFTSL), the amount of study a full-time student does in an academic year. The funding rate per EFTSL varies by field of education, assuming that subject characteristics drive costs.

Various supplementary programs calculate funding on headcount equity students, but with trivial resources compared to the subject-driven funding programs, the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and HELP.

Funding on headcount?

One interesting idea in submissions to the Universities Accord review, especially suggested by regional universities, was to base more funding on the student. For part-time study one EFTSL could be two or more individual students. While their combined classroom time matches one full-time student, a student with 50 per cent of an EFTSL could put similar or even greater demands on other university services as a student at 100 per cent of an EFTSL.

In RUN’s submission they report a member university’s finding that, on average, their part-time students utilised eleven services compared to five for full-time students.

Older students are more likely to enrol part-time (chart below). Given the high rates of upper ATAR students going to university soon after school older first-time students must disproportionately be people with weaker school results. They plausibly have above-average needs for academic support to complete their courses successfully.

Read More »

How would student places be allocated under the Universities Accord?

Andrew Norton1 Comment

The task of interpreting the Universities Accord interim report is like that of a biblical scholar trying to extract meaning from fragmentary and sometimes contradictory texts. But building on my post on a universal learning entitlement, in this post I try to understand what kind of student places allocative system the report proposes.

Existing and possible Accord allocative systems

All funding systems need methods for determining total resources and then allocating them between institutions, courses and students. The chart below has the three allocative models currently in use – what I call technocratic, block grant, and demand driven – and the Accord model, which on my reading has elements of the technocratic and demand driven models. However these models are in tension with each other – technocracy puts experts in charge while demand driven funding is based on decentralised decision making.

DecisionTechnocratic (current system for medical students)Block grant (current system for most students)Demand driven (current system for bachelor degree regional Indigenous students with likely extension to all Indigenous students)Accord model?
Total number of places/dollars for each year (system level)Government decisionGovernment decisionUniversity and student decision. Aggregate outcome of student decisions (especially if universities have less control over who they admit).
Or aggregate of Tertiary Education Commission university allocations.
Total number of places /dollars for each universityGovernment decisionGovernment decisionUniversity and student decision.Aggregate of student decisions with full learning entitlement model, possible voucher system.
Or as negotiated/allocated by the Tertiary Education Commission.
Total number of places/dollars for each course or disciplineGovernment decisionUniversity and student decision.University and student decision.Target allocations for courses determined by Tertiary Education Commission.
Possible caps via aggregate voucher allocations/university-level enrolment caps on low priority courses.
Student-level allocative criteria, such as academic results or equity group status.Can be a government decision, but for medical students a university and student decision.University and student decision.University and student decision.Possibly a government decision through Tertiary Education Commission/national admission centre. Or keep current system but use targets to push unis to enrol more students, in general and from priority groups.
Read More »

Will demand driven funding for all Indigenous students make much of a difference?

Andrew Norton2 Comments

Yesterday the government introduced legislation to extend demand driven funding from regional and remote to all Indigenous students. Currently Indigenous students from major cities are funded from within each university’s capped maximum basic grant amount for higher education courses. If the legislation passes universities will get the full Commonwealth contribution value of all enrolled Indigenous students in demand driven funding eligible courses, with no funding cap.

What are current Indigenous enrolments by geographic category?

Demand driven funding only applies to bachelor degree students – of which more later – which makes it a funding category that is not also a publicly-reported statistics category. However a table in the annual equity statistics lets us calculate the number of undergraduate (ie bachelor + diploma + associate degree) Indigenous students by home geographic location. It shows that Indigenous students from the major cities outnumber regional and remote students. Enrolments from both groups have increased in recent years.

Read More »