http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter00/polwin00-9.htmThe Struggle for Thought: Arts Degrees and University Micromanagement
By Andrew Norton
Click here for PDF version
Arts degrees are touchy subjects as Andrew Norton found upon the release of Degrees of Difficulty, a CIS paper examining the labour market problems of humanities and social science graduates. Yet the criticism has missed the real theory behind the paper.
In Australia, student places are allocated to universities according to a government quota. Fortunately for the universities, though not for the students who annually miss out on places, this quota is set well below actual demand. Getting into university in Australia is like a giant game of musical chairs, in which when the music stops there are always many more children than chairs. If you want a place, you are wise to grab one, even if it is not your first choice. A survey of first-year students showed that 32% of them did not get into their course of first choice, and of this group nearly a quarter received their fourth or fifth choice.
While not all students will get into their preferred course in a completely deregulated system either, this figure of a third missing their first preference, plus those who get into no course at all, suggests that a quota-based system, as opposed to a student choice based system, has trouble matching universities and students.
More mismatch is caused by the way student places are funded. Universities get a subsidy for each student within their quota, and no direct funding from students or other sources. The HECS charge goes to the government, not the universities.
A decade ago there was some relationship between the subsidy and the cost, but this has since broken down. New student places have generally been funded at an average rate, and universities have been able to adjust the proportions of their students they have in the various disciplines. Effectively, universities now get an average subsidy, rather than one weighted according to cost.
My theory in Degrees of Difficulty is that breaking the link between subsidy and cost affects the distribution of student places between courses. As universities have come under severe financial pressure they have had to cut costs, and one way to control expenditure is to concentrate growth in cheap-to-provide courses. In the last decade, growth in annual commencing places in cheap-to-provide courses has been more than 67,000, compared to less than 38,000 in relatively expensive-to-provide courses. Of the 67,000, around 24,000 were in Arts. The growth patterns may well have been different if top-up fees could be charged, making internal course decisions more cost neutral.
A genuine choice?
Some contributors to forums on this issue say that the growth in Arts simply reflects student demand. While nobody forces students to study Arts, I believe that that the distortions in supply are feeding back into student preferences, to the point that we cannot tell to what extent they represent studentsÕ real choices.
Take for example the effect growth in the number of student places in a particular course will have on the scores required for admission. Beyond a certain point, the scores do not reflect the difficulty of the course, but supply and demand. Holding demand constant, an increase in supply will depress the score required, and vice-versa. Therefore, a system like this will, all other things being equal, make Arts easier to get into, relative to the courses growing more slowly.
Prospective students, about 45% of them in one survey, adjust their study preferences according to their likely Year 12 results. For students who are going to do only moderately well, this means that the relatively easy entrance requirements of Arts are an attraction, and so they will rank Arts highly if they want a university education. In this way, the distortions of supply structure the stated preferences of students, creating a spurious appearance of universities being responsive to student demands.
The quality consequences of little competition
Arts faculties do not claim that their degrees are directly vocational, but they do say that they teach employable skills. For example, at the University of New South Wales they say that an Arts degree provides Ôskills of research, analysis, and the ability to write clearly and consistently.Õ It would be hard to disagree with the benefits of all those skills.
While these skills can be learned in humanities and social science degrees, they are generally not systematically taught. They tend to be learnt indirectly by observing others, by practice in researching and writing essays, and through feedback on assessed material. WithÊ resourceful students and teachers who have the ability and time to provide guidance, these skills will be learned and enhanced. But an employer would be unwise to assume that the graduate had high level thinking and writing skills. Indeed, a survey by ACNielsen found that employers thought their Arts graduates had below average literacy skills.
A private university like Bond ensures that all graduates have the generic skills employers would expect. All students complete units in communication, information technology, values and organisations. Employers cannot be so assured that a graduate from universities without similar systematic teaching and testing of general skills does in fact possess them.
At the moment, Bond has a huge price disadvantage, but with real competition other universities are likely to develop innovative schemes to improve their graduatesÕ employability.
The employment consequences
The cumulative effect of government regulation of the universities has, I believe, been to produce a lack of connection between the skills graduates have and the skills needed in the labour market.
Since the mid-1970s Arts graduates have in each decade been experiencing a more difficult transition from study to work, to the point where more than 30% are still looking for full-time work four months after graduating. While their labour market position improves substantially over time, they never come close to matching their peers in some other degrees. People with degrees in what the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls Ôsociety and cultureÕ have unemployment rates about 50% above those of graduates generally. Wages too remain well below average, probably partly because some graduates are working in jobs for which degrees are not required.
Given that many Arts graduates are people of above average intelligence, who have invested three years or more in studying, this is a waste of talent and ability.
Is a liberal arts degree worthless?
No, of course not. I spent six years studying liberal arts subjects, and found it a worthwhile experience. However, I also believe that those who want to enhance their employability and make themselves eligible for high skill jobs can legitimately expect to do so through a university education. I do not share the intellectual snobbery of some Arts academics who look down on the grubby business of making money.
A deregulated system would probably see a lower proportion of students studying just Arts, though with added growth in double degrees and access to the pool of prospective students excluded from higher education by the quota system, probably not a drop in absolute numbers. Added revenue from fees would ease the chronic financial problems of most Arts faculties.
The tragedy of the Arts faculties is that the principal victims of their stubborn opposition to change is their own students. No wonder so few Australians feel inclined to give money to their old university.
Author
Andrew Norton is a Research Fellow with The Centre for Independent Studies and Director of the Liberalising Learning programme. He works at the Vice ChancellorÕs office at The University of Melbourne. This is taken from a recent Issue Analysis paper entitled Degrees of Difficulty: The Labour Market Problems of Arts and Social Science Graduates.
Home
Help
Search
Login
