By Malcolm King.
First Posted at On Line Opinion , Friday, 2 November 2007

Do you want to study at a university or TAFE next year?  To paraphrase former American President John F. Kennedy, then ask not what you can do for your university, but what your university can do for you.

In this article I have listed 10 'must ask' questions, which will help prospective tertiary students decide which university, or TAFE is right for them.

Universities are big businesses these days, but it's a miracle that any of them have survived. One would think that after 20 years of the Hawke, Keating and Howard Government's foot on their necks imploring them to diversify, diversify, and diversify, that they would have received the message by now. Apart from Melbourne University, they haven't.

Whether you were for or against the Dawkins reforms and the amalgamation of many CAE’s and TAFE’s into the university sector in the 1980s, one has to admit that they could no longer all keep teaching the same stuff. They had to stop coming to Canberra pleading poverty and start generating their own income streams.

Unfortunately Canberra didn't take into account that the sandstone universities would so completely dominate the top end of the market. This left the second tier universities (that is, all those who were not prestige universities such as Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide) desperately scrambling for both international and local students.

While there are some major problems with the corporatisation of universities (such as threats to academic independence and collegiality), neither the ALP or the Coalition will change their funding policies. So for the foreseeable future, the second tier universities will continue to battle it out in the market place for the student dollar and for survival.

Unfortunately the universities hyper-marketing drive has led to allegations of criminal malfeasance. I know of two major educational providers who are being taken to court by students because they allege the universities failed to deliver the appropriate content and level of service as advertised on their websites and brochures.

There will not be 36 Australian universities in ten years time. There will be 26 Australian universities and four or five foreign universities with global reputations and high research rankings, such as Carnegie Mellon in South Australia. They will offer specialist programs in engineering, business or digital media and they will cut, like an axe head into soft wood, into our local student markets.

Is this a good thing? I will leave that up to you to decide. The continued failure of universities (and TAFE’s) to diversify their program offerings will be a major contributing factor to their demise. Some have established specialist research centres and this initiative is to be applauded. Yet their physics or maths schools are being carried by enrolments in business.

Not only have universities failed to diversify but their marketing departments keep producing glossy brochures and whiz-bang websites which, from institution to institution, all look the same. This reinforces the problem.

Their copywriting is appalling with words such as "facilitate", "articulate", "learning outcomes", peppered throughout the brochures or websites. It's ironic that institutions that are dedicated to creating knowledge use language that destroys it.

University marketing departments try to project the image of happy, smiling students and teachers sitting under a tree (or in a state-of-the-art classroom) deep in Platonic dialogue. Alas, the reality "on the shop floor" is very different. It's hard to genuinely smile when you've wracked up a $50,000 HECS debt.

I further suggest, and without exaggeration, that 25 percent of university schools or departments are dysfunctional. Their personnel consumed with internecine political battles over access to scarce resources.

As a former programs leader I used to sit with my colleagues at Open Days and enrolments and answer hundreds of questions from prospective students about facilities, timetables, contact hours and what sort of jobs could they expect to apply for after graduation. They were all good questions.

I thought though that because these prospective undergraduate or postgraduate students were committing themselves to three of fours years with us (and paying big money), that they should ask further tough, pointed questions. And they are:

• What is the staff attrition rate for this program? Meaning - are the staff happy?
• What is the student attrition rate? Meaning - are the students happy?
• Exactly how many students from last year’s graduation have obtained fulltime jobs in this discipline? Meaning - is there industry demand for graduates?
• Can I speak to a currently enrolled student? Meaning - I want the inside gossip.
• When was the last time the curriculum was updated? Meaning - am I learning new information?
• How efficient is your student management system? Meaning - will I get my results on time?
• Are there any hidden costs? Meaning - I didn't know I had to pay $800 in textbooks.
• Can I see some of the teachers’ publications? Meaning - are they doing research as well?
• Can I see some examples of previous students work? Meaning - I want to gauge the standard.
• How many students are there in a tutorial? Meaning - are you packing students in like sardines?

These questions get to the 'nitty gritty' of an educational organisation’s ability to deliver quality research, teaching and services. I am not suggesting that all universities or TAFE's lie about their ability to delivery good education, but as stated, some 'gild the lily'.

Vice Chancellor of Macquarie University, Professor Steven Schwartz agrees. In his recent address to the national convention of the Public Relations Institute of Australia he said:

"We all claim to have distinguished lecturers who adore teaching; we all offer a wide selection of interesting courses; we all provide the best in sporting and recreational facilities. Needless to say, all of our graduates go on to successful careers.

"Not long ago, I was in Singapore reading the local paper, The Straits Times. There, on page four, were advertisements for three different Australian universities. Each claimed to have, and I quote, 'Australia's No.1 business school'. I guess the editorial staff found it amusing to juxtapose these advertisements, but it must certainly have been embarrassing for those universities - embarrassing, but not really serious."

TAFE or university PR specialists are not going to flag that their institution is in a financial free fall, matched only by its teaching and learning or research ranking. So they commit the sin of omission.

This a major mistake because journalists are investigating universities that are fudging poor graduate employment figures and who hide their high staff turnover rates.

Journalists are reporting on poor teaching (outdated notes and the ubiquitous use of Powerpoint). They're hunting down courses in technical areas such as multimedia, radio and TV that use outdated equipment.

Truth used to be called the first casualty in war. Now I fear it’s also a casualty in some university promotions.

No wonder some students get angry half way through the first semester of their program when they find out that their initial conception of the program or course is far from the truth.

After 20 years of funding cuts and organisational restructure after restructure, some universities feel more like the muddy battlefields of The Somme where the staff are "cowering in their trenches", afraid to develop new subjects or programs.

That's not a good environment for staff or students. It almost guarantees that the program (and possibly the university) will get a poor reputation and eventually crash and burn.

The answers to these questions will help prospective students make the choice that is right for them - and maybe save themselves a lot of money and hassle.

Once you've made your choice, ask yourself what you can do to contribute to university life. Believe me, they need you more than you need them. 

Malcolm King is director of Republic Media, an educational and public advocacy business. He was a senior media adviser to the ALP and Australian Democrats and was the writing programs leader at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.