~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

南華早報網上版 2004-05-15 , EDU , EDU4 , Kerry Kennedy

Private university funding threatens the public good

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Higher education remains a hot topic as universities review the student numbers they have recently been allocated by the University Grants Committee for the next triennium from 2005, plan how to cope with funding cuts already announced and in some cases discuss mergers and "deep collaboration" to save resources.

In this context of restrained resources, it is worth raising the question of responsibility for university funding: Who should pay for higher education?

In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia the answer is very simple. In 1981, government in Australia met 90 per cent of the total operating cost for universities. By 2002, this figure was reduced to 44 per cent. One mechanism introduced to preserve funding levels was the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), a student fee mechanism allowing students to defer payment until they begin work. Last year, Australian student fees accounted for some 20 per cent of funding. The Australian government now has allowed universities to "top up" HECS payments in courses where they think that the market will bear higher fees.

There is a similar reliance on student fees in the UK, where a government white paper, The Future of Higher Education, argued for an increase in student fees as a means of meeting increased university costs. Top-up fees of up to HK$41,500 are now on their way.

In both Australia and the UK, increasing student fees have been one way of substituting public funds with private funds.

In these countries, the "international student market" has also highlighted the importance of student fee income. In 2002-03, this trade in educational services provided A$4.9 billion (HK$26.5 billion) to Australian universities. Yet the way the universities have managed large numbers of international students, both onshore and offshore, has often raised serious questions of quality.

Privatised higher education, with its commercial rather than academic roots, has the potential to skew the mission of universities. Hong Kong's UGC seems to be well aware of the problems, yet there are signs that as government funding decreases, universities will seek more and more flexibility. The student market on the mainland beckons. But fees are not the only sources of private income available. The commercialisation of research and development is another.

Research worldwide is now valued for the extent to which its outcomes can produce income. The "start-up" company is a more prized research outcome rather than the book. This can mean certain research does not get funded - "blue skies" research with no immediate potential and social science research become less valued.

Another facet of the decline of public resources for higher education is the emergence a more entrepreneurial culture. This has been documented in Australian, European and North American contexts. It often means that universities seek links with business and industry where partnerships can be developed for mutual gain. They may be research links, new course developments based on the needs of industry, increased consultancy opportunities for staff and more and more fee-paying courses.

Universities often get involved as partners in start-up companies in the hopes of developing new income streams. In all of this, the objective is to replace government funding with private sources of funding.

The UGC has already introduced a faint variant of this entrepreneurialism with its Matching Grants Scheme. This is not the kind of entrepreneurialism described above. Nevertheless, the principle is the same - an injection of private sources of income to universities.

Hong Kong stands at a crossroads. With decreased funding, the medium-term future is that universities may well become more like academic businesses constantly seeking alternative sources of income rather than academic institutions serving public purposes.

The Australian higher education sector knows this scenario only too well. Yet in Australia, there was no public debate about this change in direction for universities. It happened because of the Commonwealth government's single-mindedness about reducing government costs.

Such a scenario can be avoided in Hong Kong. The public needs greater input into higher education policy, including more consultation that should extend beyond universities to the community.

Professor Kerry Kennedy is head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Hong Kong Institute of Education