KEY POINTS:
We report today a move at the University of Auckland that could change the character of tertiary education in this country. The university council will shortly consider restricting the numbers admitted to all undergraduate courses from the year after next.
The restriction would be a consequence of decisions
made by the present Government when it came to power. It changed the way tertiary education is financed so that institutions would not simply be paid by numbers enrolled; their funds are now calculated on criteria reflecting the Government's social and economic priorities.
The policy has had no perceptible effect on entry to universities as yet, but it will have one from 2009 if Auckland decides to cap its undergraduate courses. The prospect is already alarming those opposed to "elitist" education and could reduce the places available to social groups under-represented in higher learning.
The Government is saying little as yet, and little wonder; it knows it has brought this possibility on itself.
For many years a university education in this country was available on the basis of the entrance examination in secondary school. Then, without much public debate or even awareness, the authorities adopted a policy of "open entry".
The change coincided happily with the general opening of the economy so that people's desires, rather the public administrators, would allocate national resources. The University Entrance exam was abolished and anybody could enrol provided they paid the fees, which were gradually increased to 25 per cent of course costs to ensure they took the costs into consideration. Loans were instituted on easy terms so that nobody might be barred by poverty.
The result has been a rising number of students, including "mature" students who did not get the opportunity when entry was restricted, and a vast expansion and duplication of courses.
Some say the policy also resulted in a lowering of academic standards as institutions competed to attract the public finance that came with increasing numbers and gave more students results that encouraged them to go on.
But that trend too, coincides with today's school examination philosophy embodied in the NCEA.
Auckland, already the country's highest-ranking university on international measures, wants to reduce its undergraduate component, from 82 per cent to 78 per cent by 2012, so that it can accommodate more students pursuing higher degrees. The 4 per cent undergraduate reduction looks slight but the ripples could be far-reaching.
The fewer places available, the higher the entry standards that have to be set. And the more difficult entry becomes, the more Auckland's reputation is likely to attract the brightest school leavers throughout the country. This would not be welcomed by state educationists or the Government, which dislikes competition in the sector, but it would be to the country's good.
A world-class university helps draw respected academics here and with them we might retain more of our talented youth.
Comparisons with such a university would present others with a worthwhile challenge, and more specialisation in tertiary education at a range of academic levels. The days of "open entry" are plainly numbered. University education is too expensive to treat as every citizen's entitlement. Standards matter too. Auckland should press ahead to cap all undergraduate courses and accept the elitist tag unashamedly. It is what great universities do.
