Scrap university tuition fees, urges Melbourne vice-chancellor

Eliminating fees would pay for itself through tax while boosting equity of access, Duncan Maskell insists

六月 20, 2023
Duncan Maskell

The chief of Australia’s top-ranked university has called for tuition fees to be discarded, describing the idea as “one of the most important radical changes” to make higher education equitable.

In his annual address to staff, University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Duncan Maskell decried fees as a “recent” fashion that has fostered a “gravely mistaken” perception of university education as a primarily private rather than public good.

“Numerous innovative countries even today make the policy choice that higher education should be largely free for their citizens,” Professor Maskell said in a prepared copy of the 20 June speech. “Since the introduction of student fees we have not solved the problem of disadvantaged people having access to higher education.

“It is unequivocally true, coming from my background, that if I had been required to take out a loan I would not have gone to university, and I suspect that the prospective burden of significant debt is still a big factor in people choosing not to go to university.”

Fee-free education is an article of faith for Australian groups including the National Tertiary Education Union, the National Union of Students and the Greens. It would entail a revamp of university financing, with domestic student loans, fees and charges generating 15 per cent of Melbourne’s A$3 billion (£1.6 billion) revenue last year.

Policy analysts tend to consider such a change unfeasible, saying the removal of fees would leave the sector impoverished while disproportionately benefiting wealthy people who attend university in high numbers.

Instead, analysts back income-contingent loan schemes – an Australian invention – which defer fee payment until graduates attract reasonably high earnings.

Recent experience in other anglophone countries has not demonstrated great support for free university education. US and UK leadership aspirants failed to convince their electorates to support policy platforms that included the jettisoning of tuition fees, while New Zealand’s government abandoned a plan to expand its fees-free scheme beyond first-year students.

But Professor Maskell contended that the extra taxation receipts from a high-earning, university-educated populace “easily outweigh” the costs of fee-free education. “This is in fact a point made by successive ministers for education, usually in defending student debts against criticism that they are too burdensome to students,” he said.

“The year-on-year public revenue at stake in funding student learning is not the main issue. This is fundamentally about the kind of population that we want to shape for the future in this country.”

Professor Maskell said he was proposing a return to fee-free education “in the spirit of thinking radically”, after education minister Jason Clare asked for “ideas that can help reshape and reimagine higher education”. Mary O’Kane, who chairs the Universities Accord panel, invited people to “think outside of the box” and “be bold and lateral in your suggestions”.

Professor Maskell also criticised the conceptual separation of direct and indirect research costs as a “misleading” distraction that has contributed to the cumulative underfunding of research.

“It should not be beyond the capacity of governments and universities to agree to a methodology to arrive at a transparent estimated full cost of research that can be used as a benchmark for research funding policy,” his speech said. “We should have clarity about the full cost, so that government can decide to what extent they will fund the nation’s research effort.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (3)

Damn good idea!! However, don't expect removing fees, of itself, to increase the proportion of disadvantaged students attending university. Of itself, getting rid of tuition fees will not lead to more disadvantaged people taking up university studies as was amply demonstrated back in the 1970s when Gough Whitlam of blessed memory made higher ed free, with no measurable impact on the demographic profile of those attending universities.
Its certainly feasible for this to be done for domestic students from socio-economic backgrounds. It just requires removing all of the extensive unnecessary administration and meddling that an inordinate amount of resources get spent on within the sector. If these processes and meddling were simply deleted, then the University could reduce the amount of administrators accordingly, notably including the high paid ones. Each role deleted would allow the University to fund 3-4 new scholarships for the life of the degree in question. And academics who don't have to waste their time on the processes would have more time to do research. Its a win win all around. The question is why he doesn't do it - he's in charge at Uni Melbourne, right?
This presents a provocative and radical proposal for higher education reform in Australia. It certainly has the potential to make higher education more equitable and accessible, especially for disadvantaged people. It would, however, be crucial to consider the advantages and disadvantages of fee-free education versus income-contingent loans, before implementing them. Some of the factors to consider are their effects on student motivation, performance, and labour market outcomes; overcrowding, underfunding, or inefficiency of higher education institutions; unorganised redistribution of public resources; and reduced incentives for students to complete their studies or pursue high-value careers, among others.
ADVERTISEMENT