Despair over university "managerialism"
Has nothing been learned? Upon reading the Vice-Chancellor's article (ANU Reporter, June 3) I despair at the lack of understanding and awareness of the real issue confronting universities and "managerialism". And I also despair at their suggested "solutions". What Professor Terrell regurgitates are the tired cliches, buzzwords and aphorisms too often trotted out by the "bean counters" and economic rationalists (the ultimate oxymoron). Yes, we are all aware of the external forces acting upon all publicly funded educational institutions in Australia, forces which took on a new dimension in the 1990s under Dawkins' stewardship, and carried on with growing zeal by successive Education Ministers. It is a truism to me that these forces have developed from a mixture of contemporary political, social, and economic philosophies. I concur that much of the DEETYA-driven, statistically based funding formulas are the cause of much of the angst. These take little cognisance of the qualitative aspects of universities. But hey? That's too hard - strewth, how do you measure quality? (Sorry I know this is another can of worms folks...) The real issue for most people (not FTEs) is how universities cope with and respond to these forces. Some readers may recall Professor Roger Scott's article in the Campus Review (June 22­28, 1995) titled: "Bureaucracy and academe: bridging the great divide". It is worth revisiting this article if only to see how little has been learned by academic administrators in the last few years about universities being called upon "to behave as businesses, subject to resource pressures and market demand". In a similar theme Professor Hiram Caton of Griffith University also warned of the inappropriateness of the new managerialism in his letter to the Higher Education Supplement of The Australian newspaper on June 14 1995. But let me return to Professor Terrell's comments, which read like a pep-talk from a management consultant, hired by a university to convince a university's staff (both academic and support) that: · they must respond to market forces · they should expect to do more for less · they all need to take on a new outward looking vision · "more business-like behaviour need not be a threat - it can be liberating". And to end it all, "we will meet the new challenges and realise new opportunities..." No, Professor. I reject your summary that universities need to adopt a more business-like approach. What they need to do is practise what they preach, including: · treating staff like people, not "full time equivalents" or FTEs (isn't it easy to practise cognitive dissonance when looking at raw figures, rather than real people?) · involving all staff in the decision-making processes when "restructuring" - not token involvement, but real involvement. (This is not achieved by administrators sitting in front of the staff in a lecture theatre, giving an address, asking for questions, then going away and doing precisely what you wanted to do, anyway.) · rejecting populism and the quick fix. Let's see some real leadership from our academic administrators. Right now the response to the Neanderthal education policies of the major parties is underwhelming. Roy Stall ANU Alumni 1975 (BA Asian Studies)