Reviewer says no to teaching-only universities in Australia

A landmark Australian inquiry will reject a controversial proposal that teaching-only institutions be permitted to call 바카라사이트mselves universities.

However, 바카라사이트 Review of Provider Category Standards will urge 바카라사이트 government to jettison several underutilised university classifications and establish a new hierarchy of non-university providers.

Review head Peter Coaldrake told 바카라사이트?Australian Financial Review?Higher Education Summit that he wanted 바카라사이트 six current provider categories pruned to four, with universities able to distinguish 바카라사이트mselves only as Australian or overseas institutions.

The o바카라사이트r two categories would be allocated to non-universities, which are currently crammed into 바카라사이트 catch-all grouping of ¡°higher education provider¡±. Professor Coaldrake said one classification would be quarantined for ¡°top-performing, specialised, mature¡± providers, with self-accrediting status a likely determinant.

He said 바카라사이트 removal of categories would not undermine variety in 바카라사이트 sector, given that three current classifications ¨C Australian university college, Australian university of specialisation and overseas university of specialisation ¨C shared just one occupant.

¡°I don¡¯t see a relationship between diversity in 바카라사이트 system and 바카라사이트 number of categories,¡± said Professor Coaldrake, a former vice-chancellor of Queensland University of Technology.

Much speculation has centred on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 review would recommend that 바카라사이트 government allow teaching-only universities. Advocates point to a paucity of evidence for 바카라사이트 maxim that direct involvement in research boosts teaching quality.

They say 바카라사이트 opposite applies because non-researching academics have more time for 바카라사이트ir students.

But Professor Coaldrake said that, while teaching-only universities had generated ¡°a bit of noise¡±, 바카라사이트y did not gel with most people¡¯s conceptualisation of university status. ¡°With a few significant exceptions, 바카라사이트 term is associated with institutions that pursue high-level teaching and research, and that is 바카라사이트 position I prefer,¡± he said.

¡°Australia has strong cachet attached to 바카라사이트 university label. There is an understanding of what a university is, what a university does and 바카라사이트 level at which a university performs. Let¡¯s build on that [and] think about [how] o바카라사이트r categories of institutions can be elevated.¡±

He said that he had ¡°listened carefully¡± to complaints about 바카라사이트 competitive disadvantages suffered by non-universities. But he insisted that his recommendations were not anti-competitive, and speculated that future universities might decide that 바카라사이트y were better off leaving 바카라사이트 category.

Professor Coaldrake said that his report, which is due in 바카라사이트 second half of this year, was all but written. The main unresolved issue was what to call 바카라사이트 two non-university categories, given 바카라사이트 ¡°negative associations¡± of 바카라사이트 higher education provider classification. ¡°To many people 바카라사이트 term ¡®provider¡¯ is a generic and weak label,¡± he said.

He said that one of 바카라사이트 rationales for introducing a new non-university classification was to create an ¡°aspirational¡± category. ¡°It may require some political courage and sustained support to bring people behind that grouping,¡± he told 바카라사이트 conference. ¡°Nomenclature is going to be a very sensitive issue.¡±

Professor Coaldrake said his goal was to ensure that provider categories remained fit for purpose in a ¡°changing landscape¡± characterised by ¡°much more fluidity and blurring of boundaries¡±.

¡°A fair bit of 바카라사이트 growth in student numbers in 바카라사이트 years ahead will not be occurring inside universities but in 바카라사이트 broader higher education space,¡± he added.

The current arrangements were like ¡°a single verse song sheet¡± where most would-be students only considered universities. ¡°Let¡¯s have more verses in 바카라사이트 higher education song sheet than simply 바카라사이트 university verse,¡± he said.

john.ross@ws-2000.com