By JULIE HARE. AUSTRALIA is on the way to having a world-class university system after five years of increased investment, says Glyn Davis, vice-chancellor of the country's top-ranked university.
Melbourne is the highest-ranked Australian university in the latest Academic Ranking of World Universities, released today, which for the first time put five Australian institutions in the top 100. With 19 of its 39 universities in the top 500, Australia has the fourth most successful higher education system globally.

By Ho Chi Ping (HK Edition). The term "education hub" is often used in Hong Kong, either as a selling-point for its universities, or as a goal for the city. The government has adopted the term in its agenda: former undersecretary for education Kenneth Chen led a delegation to the Going Global Conference in London earlier this year, with the purpose of promoting the city as a regional educational hub.
People usually understand an "education hub" to be a city with internationally-renowned universities, a large international population of students and selective academic programs for all levels of higher-education (undergraduate and post-graduate). London and Boston immediately come to mind as examples.
Higher education boosts a city's economy through economic spillovers. A large population of college students directly increases GDP, and not just from tuition fees. College students support many sectors of the economy, such as the entertainment sector. Some students inevitably choose to stay in the city where they undertake their studies, giving local companies a more varied talent pool from which to recruit. Finally, college students are young, educated and upwardly-mobile, which helps put cities "on the map".
Perhaps the most important aspect of an education hub is that every one, be it London, Boston, Oxford or Berkeley, is a net "exporter" of educational services. Students travel to hubs to consume education services, rather than staying in their own cities or countries. In other words, these cities have an excess of high-quality university places, filled by external or global demand.
No matter what the politicians and marketers may say, Hong Kong is not an exporter of educational services. Instead it "imports" education by sending countless students abroad. This is not to criticize the quality of local universities, which are of an international standard. Nor is this to lament that Hong Kong is suffering from a "brain drain"; after all, most of these students return home after they have finished their higher education. The issue is instead excess demand: more people want high-quality university places than there are actual places to give them here. This problem extends across the entire education system, as the long waiting list for international schools shows.
This means that it is unlikely that Hong Kong's education center will become a "profit center" in the near future. Higher education in Hong Kong is already subsidized heavily by the government. Unless foreign students pay the entire cost of their education, i.e. aren't subsidized at all, and then some, there is no net gain.
In addition, every place given to an international student is in effect one less place available for a local student. The primary purpose of Hong Kong universities, after all, is to educate the local population. I am not suggesting that we close our doors to foreigners; on the contrary, Hong Kong really stands to gain from having a larger body of international students. However, we need to recognize that this comes with trade-offs, at least in the short-term.
Hong Kong probably has the credibility to become an education hub but, as of now, expecting the education sector to provide a new source of service export revenues is unreasonable.
Instead, we need to use international students to improve the quality of Hong Kong education. Universities need diverse student populations to provide diverse opinions, stimuli and perspectives. A more international student body, even if its absolute numbers are small, allows for a greater sharing of ideas and cultures.
Seeking a more diverse student body, and making Hong Kong an "education hub" seems like the same thing. The objective is different, however: for creating diversity in its student body, the goal is to improve the quality of Hong Kong's education, while to create Hong Kong as an education hub, the goal is to provide Hong Kong with a direct contribution to GDP. Striving for greater diversity is an achievable goal, given that Hong Kong will be a net importer of education for some time.
Hong Kong should strive to make its education sector globally competitive, but we should not fool ourselves into appealing for foreign students for the sake of the income that comes with it. Before it can truly become an education hub, and allow its universities to thrive, Hong Kong needs to solve the problem of excess demand. When large numbers of Hong Kong students are no longer required to look outside of Hong Kong to study, then our education sector can truly appeal to global demand.
The author is former secretary for home affairs of the HKSAR government.

'Invest in Australia’s Future, Invest in Our Universities' is a long term campaign started to call on the Federal Government to increase public investment in our universities by 10% immediately, and to commit towards matching the OECD average of investment in higher education to 1% of Gross Domestic Product in the medium term.
Universities are facing a crisis. Decades of underfunding have left them with declining infrastructure, overcrowded classrooms, overworked staff, higher levels of casualisation, and an unhealthy dependence on international fee income to fund all aspects of their work.
Universities help to develop our young people, our workforce, our communities and our aspirations. They do essential practical and theoretical research and they help build lives and skills that make a valuable contribution to our communities.
With one of the world’s most prosperous economies, there is no excuse not to invest more in our universities and Australia’s future.
About the Campaign
The Invest in Australia’s Future campaign is arguing for an initial 10% increase in public funding per government supported student and a measured increase of public investment in universities to bring it to an equivalent of 1% of Gross Domestic Product. This would put Australia on an even footing with the university systems of other industrialised economies, and would provide the best chance for Australia to generate a more secure economic future beyond the mining boom.
These papers provide an overview of the reasons why this increase in investment is necessary and must largely come from public sources.
Australian universities are finding it increasing difficult to maintain the quality of the educational experience that they are able to offer students, as well the quality of research and community service. NTEU argues that there are signs of a sector rapidly approaching breaking point.
Further Information
Overview.
NTEU supports an initial 10% increase in public funding per government-supported university student and a measured increase of public investment in universities to an equivalent of 1% Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This would put Australia on an even footing with the university systems of other industrialised economies. It would also provide the best opportunity to generate a more secure economic future beyond the mining boom.
This briefing paper provides an overview of the reasons why this increase in investment is necessary. It also outlines why this investment must largely come from public sources.
The evidence presented in the paper shows that sustained and substantial cuts in real government base funding per student, from the mid 1990s until recently, have been associated with a rise in Student Staff Ratios (SSR). SSR at universities have increased from about 13 students for each class in 1990 to over 22 students in 2011.  This means that there are twice as many students per staff member and that Australian universities now have amongst the highest university SSR in the industrialised world. Recent surveys of students indicate concerns with the quality of facilities and lack of access to staff, especially casual staff who are not simply not around when students wish to consult with them.
Australian universities are finding it increasing difficult to maintain the quality of the educational experience that they are able to offer students, as well the quality of research and community service.
Economy.
Australia’s Future Skills and Educational Needs
The most recent and comprehensive analysis of Australia’s future workforce needs was undertaken by Skills Australia. In addition to identifying a need to lift Australia’s relatively low workforce participation rate and improve adult literacy and numeracy, Australian Workforce Futures: A National Workforce Development Strategy, also concludes that Australia needs to increase the productivity of its workforce. The report concludes that:
We need a workforce in which more people have skills, but also multiple and higher level skills and qualifications.
According to the highest (Open Doors) growth scenario of economic modelling undertaken by Access Economics, the proportion of the workforce requiring qualifications (at Certificate III level or above) will increase from 52% in 2007 to 62% in 2015 and almost 70% by 2025.
When these projections are broken down by level of qualification for the periods 2010 to 2025, as shown in Figure 1, several interesting trends are apparent.
Firstly, the demand for workers without any post-school qualifications is expected to fall on average by 0.6% per annum over the next 15 years. Secondly, the projected increase of demand for qualifications predominantly offered by universities (Bachelor degree and above) is estimated to be considerably higher at 4% per annum, compared to qualifications predominantly offered by the VET / TAFE sector at 2.9% per annum. Growth in demand rises as the qualification level increases, indicating that the Australian economy not only needs more qualified persons but people with higherlevel qualifications as well.
Opportunity.
Education provides enormous social benefits through better health, employment, housing, justice and community engagement. While most Australians understand that there is a direct link between education and productivity, it is more than just an investment in human capital and meeting the needs of an ever changing labour market. As such, if we are to secure our economic future and support our social development, there must be greater investment in physical, social and human infrastructure, a critical component of which is through our universities.
People.
Who should pay for university?
There is no doubt that students gain a personal benefit over their lifetime from their education. However, their access to that education can be limited or restricted by the initial perception and/or reality of the costs. In addition to Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) charges, cost of living expenses are high for many.
Australia’s universities are fast approaching breaking point and are in urgent need of a substantial increase in funding. Free market economists and conservative social commentators argue that if universities need additional funding then university students or graduates should pay more. NTEU believes that there are compelling economic, social and equity reasons as to why any increases in investment in Australia’s public universities should come from government. They should not be imposed on students in the form of higher fees or HECS charges.
Regions & Communities.
Social and Community Benefits
As a consequence of their research and teaching activities, regional universities are important drivers of their region’s economic and social development. A recent study by Charles Sturt University estimated the total economic impact of the University to the communities where it was located to be almost $1billion. This is largely due to the University’s status as a major regional employer and the economic activity generated by students living in the region. The University also provides a number of important social and community services in areas of identified need. These include dental and oral health clinics, the Functional Rehabilitation Clinic, the Allied Health Clinic, a veterinary clinic, the Kajulu Advertising Agency and 2MCE Community Radio.
Regional universities typically place a high priority on regionally focused and collaborative research, and provide local businesses, government and community groups with access to professional, technical and consulting services. Knowledge exchange also occurs through mechanisms such as business incubators, science and technology parks, staff and student secondments and placements, and exchanges between the university and business or community groups. Through their learning and teaching programs, regional universities are able to contribute to local economic and social development by tailoring courses to meet community needs and aspirations.
International.
Higher Education and Export Earnings
The education sector is Australia’s thirdlargest export industry, generating around $19.1billion in export revenues in 2009-10. [2] Universities account for more than half of this income at around $10billion. The income received from this effort is used to subsidise domestic teaching and research, however, a range of issues have impacted on projections for future international income.
While improvements have been made to visa arrangements, the relative strength of the Australian dollar and increasing competition from other countries will mean that there is no longer the ability to rely upon this income to prop up the sector. Worse than this, as budgetary pressures squeeze institutional behavior, the need to cut corners will threaten the reputation of our universities, and thereby further damage our ability to attract this income.
If we are to remain internationally competitive, it is important that public funding levels at least match the average contribution of other OECD countries.
It is vital that increased levels of public investment translate to improved quality of education for students and better job security for researchers, academics and support staff. Lifting the level of public funding should also be tied to improved student-staff ratios and a reduction in the reliance on casual and short term teaching and research employment in universities. In this way, NTEU believes that the international standing of our universities can not only be assured, but enhanced.

By Carmel Shute (NTEU National Office). The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) is holding a joint protest on Monday at 4.30pm with the La Trobe University Student Union to put ressure on the University Council to reduce staff cuts to the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. A representative will present a petition from faculty staff to the La Trobe University Council.
A document issued by La Trobe University today outlined cuts of up to 37 equivalent full-time positions plus a further four to go by 2015.
NTEU La Trobe Branch President, Virginia Mansel Lees, said that the faculty was being held to ransom by a partly manufactured budget crisis.
“Currently, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences contributes 54 cents in the dollar to central administration, which is more than other comparable faculties at other universities. A reduction of 3 cents (or 3%) would go a long way toward saving jobs. The University Council is in a position to alter the budget parameters which it has set, as it has done for another area of the University,” she said.
“Staff members are distressed by the high level of the proposed cuts and believe that it threatens the viability of the faculty. The effect on regional campuses will be acute with courses in Politics, and Religion and Spirituality, to be abolished at the Bendigo campus.
“The proposal will radically curtail the options for students on smaller regional campuses, including for higher degree studies.”
Ms Mansel Lees said that while Gender, Sexuality and Diversity Studies, and Art History will be maintained, they will be merged into other departments so the future of the current teaching staff remains uncertain.
Dr Jack Reynolds, NTEU La Trobe Branch secretary, condemned the high level of the cuts.
“The revised proposal is marginally better than what was initially proposed, but is far short of anything with which we could be satisfied. The faculty has around a $4 million surplus and it seems clear that this restructure is designed to free up funds in order to cross-subsidise research elsewhere in the university,” he said.
“The most important improvement has been the decision to retain Indonesian studies which will experience no job losses. Undergraduate Linguistics will be retained, though as a minor area of studies, with one less position.”
 Staff members at today’s forum expressed a lack of confidence that their views have been properly taken into consideration.
“The NTEU continues to have serious concerns about continued inaccuracies, including how subjects currently on the books are counted,” Dr Reynolds said.
For further information and comment:
Virginia Mansel Lees: President, NTEU La Trobe University Branch: 0438 282 146.
Dr Jack Reynolds: Secretary, NTEU La Trobe University Branch (03) 9479 3605.

By Philip G. Altbach. The OECD reports that four out of ten university graduates in the world will come from China or India by 2020—and a major part of global enrolment is taking place in these two countries. This trend is an inevitable and entirely natural result of the global expansion of higher education—massification, population trends, and the growth of the economies of both countries.
Trends elsewhere also contribute to this new reality. The slowing of population growth in most OECD countries and the actual significant decline in the number of university-age people in such countries as Japan and Russia as well as more modest declines in some others contribute to changes in the percentages of graduates globally. The failure of a few countries, such as the United States, to translate increases in access to higher education to degree completion is another contributor. Additionally, the economic slowdowns in North America and Europe will no doubt negatively affect degree completion rates as students drop out for financial reasons, postsecondary institutions raise tuition to levels that will be unmanageable for many students, and academic offerings are cut back. These trends are already evident in the United States, with California leading the way in the decline of public higher education.
A key element in this discussion is quality. An inevitable result of massification is the overall decline in the quality of many academic systems—teaching staff are likely to have lower qualifications, and students are admitted with sub-par academic preparation. This inevitably means that many graduates will lack appropriate skills. This problem has already received considerable attention in both China and India. For example, the large Indian infotech companies find that a large majority of engineering graduates do not have the knowledge needed to work in industry and are obliged to retrain them.
Since China and India have participation rates well under OCED averages—just 11 percent for India and a bit more than 20 percent for China—it is inevitable that their share of global degrees will increase in the coming period as the percentage of the age cohort enrolling increases and catches up with more developed economies.  But we need to examine the implications of this trend and not jump to conclusions.
Another trend that may not affect the total number of degrees obtained in any specific country but has consequences for the economy and labor market is the degree program that students choose to study. In many countries, engineering and some STEM fields are losing popularity and fields such as communications, business, and languages are gaining favor. In North America and much of Europe including Russia engineering enrolments are trending down.
Thus, while the new OECD survey provides useful information and has considerations for policy, the important lessons may not be quite what most commentators are focusing on.

NEW DELHI: The human resource development ministry has decided not to push the legislation allowing foreign education institutions to set up base in India in the Monsoon Session of Parliament. Instead, the ministry is focusing on the troika of higher education reform bills--prevention of malpractices, setting up education tribunals and mandatory accreditation for institutions—which form the core of Kapil Sibal's higher education reform agenda.
The human resource development minister Kapil Sibal's decision to put the Foreign Educational Institutions Bill on the back burner is in line with the strategy adopted in the Budget session—move ahead with the less contentious bills to create a momentum. In the past, Sibal has pushed the Foreign Educational Institutions Bill as central to increasing opportunities and improving quality of the higher education sector. However, the minister is well aware that a bill as contentious as one, which allows foreign education institutions to set up campuses in India, could well derail his entire legislative agenda. There are seven Bills that are pending in Parliament. The ministry proposes to introduce two more-- the Indian Institutes of Information Technology Bill and the Central Board of Secondary Education—in the Monsoon Session.
After nearly two years of legislative setbacks, Sibal managed to break the logjam in the Budget session of parliament and ensured passage of six Bills. While most of these Bills were non-controversial amendments, it did include the contentious Copyright Amendment Bill. Sibal is keen not to upset the hard won equilibrium.
The Foreign Educational Institutions Bill predates Sibal's tenure in Shastri Bhavan. It was first cleared by Cabinet in 2008 during the late Arjun Singh's tenure in the UPA I government. The proposed legislation could not be introduced given the opposition by the Left, which was then supporting the UPA I government. Following his appointment as human resource development minister, Sibal went ahead with the legislation reaching out to stakeholders, and meeting with top administrators of top ranking universities in the US and UK.
But it is not just the Left or the BJP that has issues with the Bill. Even political parties that are supporting the UPA, such as the Samajwadi Party and RJD, are uncomfortable with the idea of allowing foreign education institutions to set up campuses in India. Given that the legislation is viewed as permitting foreign direct investment in higher education, it is unlikely that allies like Trinamool and DMK will lend their support to such legislation. Clearly aware that the legislative route was difficult, the government gave the University Grants Commission the go ahead through the executive route. The University Grants Commission has already issued guidelines to regulate collaborations between Indian and foreign institutions.
The focus is on the three legislations that form the bedrock of Sibal's higher education reforms-- Higher Educational Institutions Bill (earlier known as the Prohibition of Unfair Practices Bill), Educational Tribunal Bill and the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill.

By Julie Hare and Andrew Trounson. FIVE years ago when arts-economics student Alex McLaren was wondering what to study at university, the last thing on his mind was how much his HECS debt would be. "It just wasn't a consideration. I chose my course out of interest," he said. More...

By Elizabeth Roche & Prashant K. Nanda. To get highly skilled Indian workers, Australia is planning to encourage postgraduate and doctoral students. The focus is on what it needs to do to boost labour gaps, especially in medicine, engineering and accountancy, and cut down its focus on vocation education, a favourite with the majority of Indians.
Australian High Commissioner Peter Varghese said in an interview that his nation has no problem in giving residency to highly skilled workers. Edited excerpts: Australia has emerged as one of the top education destinations for Indian students. How has this happened?
Of the top 100 universities in the world, we have four in Australia. And of the top 500 universities in the world, we have 19. Across the board our university sector is a high-quality sector. The internationalization of education in Australia is also very strong. We have on an average 25% of our university students international students. Is there a particular category of students that you are looking to attract to Australia?
We would like to focus the education relationship to Indians coming to Australia much more on the university and higher education sector. If you look at the profile of the Indian students in Australia at the moment, it’s dominated by vocational education. I am not in any way suggesting that is inappropriate. But what we would like to see is broadly a strategy, Indian students coming to Australia to focus on the university sector and that the vocational skills’ training is done more and more in India. And I think that makes sense for both countries. We want to see more collaborative research work done between Australian and Indian universities; we would like to see more Indian students come to Australia for postgraduate work. We want to get away from the language of numbers and more talk about an education partnership. On the vocational side, I think it’s really finding the right model that works for India. In Australia we have a high-expense, low-volume model. India needs the opposite—high-volume, low-cost model.
Why are you not focusing on numbers when your country gets sizeable revenue from education?
What I am talking about is finding a model that better meets India’s requirements. India wants to upscale 500 million people. You are not going to upscale 500 million people by sending them off to Australia. The best way of doing that is to do more vocational training in India. I am not saying that education as a services export is not important to Australia. Clearly, it is. It is the third-largest source of export revenue. But my view is you cannot treat education simply as a commodity. It is more than a trade in services. You need to design a strategy that meets the needs of the country that you are focusing on. And that is why the vocational training focus in India and the higher education focus in Australia make better sense.
Is the change in strategy in the vocational training sector due to the attacks on Indian students in 2009-10?
I wouldn’t see the changes as being driven by the unfortunate events in 2009-10. What’s happening here is a much bigger story. We are shifting the migration programme from a supply driven model to a demand-driven model and that means what we are going to do is we are going to identify what our skills gap in Australia are and then go after people who have those skills rather than people self nominating on the basis of list that maybe out of date very soon. So there is a bigger shift in our policy settings here, which is then reflected in the way in it translated to how an education pathway and a labour market pathway come together. Partly what we saw in 2009 and in 2010 was a complete fusion of an education and labour market pathway. What we want to do is to separate the two more clearly not to hermetically seal them. We want to make it clear that you choose to come to Australia to study then that is your primary objective and that your primary objective isn’t a backdoor means to the labour market.
Which are the areas where you would like to see Indian students come to study?
The areas where we will need are healthcare, age care, accountancy, information technology, medical sciences, engineering. Bear in mind, we are going through an infrastructure mining project boom so all of the skills that you need to bring that half trillion dollars of pipeline investment in the resources and mining sector to fruition are the skills that we are going to have a shortfall.
Do you think Australian institutes are capable of providing the skills to Indians knowing that the focus of both the countries is different?
I don’t think it will be problem in terms of the skills that are required because the skills you would require are the skills of the modern economy. The issue is how you scale up… the issue is how do you deliver the skills in such a large scale. And it’s going to require a very different model than what we do in Australia. Just to take the Australian model and transplant, in my view is unrealistic. I don’t think we are going to set up bricks and mortar, 100% Australian-owned and operated vocational education system in India. What we will probably do is to have joint venture between Australia and India with the Indian vocational training institutions would draw on Australian course, quality control, train the trainer programs…there are many permutation and combinations.
Indian has started opening up its higher education space. If not in skill education, can we see some Australian university setting up a campus here?
Some of our universities have campuses in other countries—in Southeast Asia and Africa. They have a mixed experience. They have to make a judgment on whether they want to come to India. I don’t get a sense from talking to our university chancellors that they are going to rush into anything. My feeling is that they are watching the development of the Indian policy carefully. When you came to India, it was a difficult time following attack on Indian students.
Do you think Australia has been able to leave behind that image of unsafe student destination for India?
It was a very intense period of negative publicity. That’s going to leave a certain legacy. I don’t see it as an insurmountable legacy. I see it as a diminishing legacy. That’s going to be reflected what I see as a rebuild in applications from India. On the tourist side there is very strong growth. In 2012—two years or so after the peak of this very bad publicity for us—India has been the No. 1 in terms of permanent migrants, No. 2 in temporary skill market, India coming in No. 2 in terms of international students.
I think what we went through is a very unfortunate phase in relationship. What I am keen to do is to convey a better sense of contemporary Australia… particularly on issues of race and multiculturalism.