This was published 7 years ago
What students want from universities
We risk losing sight of higher education's most important stakeholders.
By Tony Featherstone
If students could swing a giant wrecking ball through Australia's university sector and rebuild it from the ground up, what would tertiary education look like?
I thought about this question after reading 220 comments from last week's blog that considered why students enrol in heavily oversupplied courses.
Sadly, we only seem to hear about students when it involves fee debates.Credit: Rob Young
The Federal Government, rightly, wants universities to worker closer with industry. Universities seek greater industry funding. Industry wants universities to be nimble, responsive and commercial. Employers want a steady stream of graduates.
Where are the needs of students in this debate?
Could universities find better ways to retain students for longer?Credit: Erin Jonasson
One university after another is spending millions on shiny innovation precincts that encourage multi-disciplinary discoveries, research translation and commercialisation. Their zeal for industry collaboration is commendable.
Where is the same passion to transform the student experience? The radical innovation that gives students a learning experience they will never forget, a deep love of lifelong learning, and transportable knowledge and skills that prepare them for the new machine age.
Where is the thinking that reinvents campuses from a collection of buildings into a living laboratory for students to invent their job, change the world, or at least try? A place where students, not only those who study entrepreneurship, are encouraged to create their job rather than only apply for it.
Where is the risk taking that reimagines the relationship between students and the university? A relationship where universities are more like a coach and there for students throughout their career, not only for three or four years when they collect their fees.
Different thinking, I know.
My concern is that students seem to be an afterthought in this broader debate about university research, funding, innovation and collaboration.
In fact, there's so much focus on universities and industry that we risk losing sight of the most important stakeholders: students.
Sadly, we only seem to hear about students when it involves fee debates.
Too many universities still use teaching models that have hardly changed in decades
And what of the lecturers who are gifted educators but barely register in university hierarchy because they are less inclined towards academic research?
Too much of the kudos goes to researchers. Universities recruit researchers who bring funding with them and bump up the institution's global research rankings – a bit like a football club recruiting star players to lift their ladder position.
When was the last time a university headhunted a great teacher (who doesn't research), paid top dollars for them and rewarded or promoted them based on teaching results?
I'm sure universities will point out the many initiatives underway to enhance the student experience: lectures available electronically, more situational learning through industry placements, and capacity to develop ideas on campus, for example.
Initiatives to develop science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) precincts on campus are another excellent development.
So is the focus on start-up ventures. The University of Melbourne and University of Sydney, for example, are doing a terrific job of creating stronger entrepreneurship ecosystems across campus. They see the potential of universities becoming innovation clusters for students and industry.
But too many universities still use teaching models that have hardly changed in decades. They operate on 12-week semesters, base courses around lectures and tutorials, have end-of-semester exams and often lose contact with students after they leave.
Yes, they have made it easier for students to study off campus, whenever and wherever. But that is a small change in the scope of technology advances. I doubt many universities have adequately adjusted their teaching methods to reflect the digital economy.
Imagine if universities fundamentally reorganised themselves around student needs and wants – not just those of big business, government and academic journals.
Here are five potential changes. Add your ideas by replying to this blog:
1. Course duration
Would we still have three and four-year degrees, or allow students to learn at their own pace? If they complete course material in two years instead of four, and get into the workforce sooner, more power to them.
2. Course costs
Business-model innovation could change course pricing structures. Instead of paying per subject, students rent time at university. Those who finish their degree in two years, pay less than those who take three years. This model would, for the right courses, incentivise students to work harder on campus and encourage unis to add extra value, so students extend their stay.
3. Course delivery
Would lectures and tutorials still exist if students designed their course? Would students opt for "bootcamp" or intensive learning over a few days at the start of the course and a few at the end for personalised feedback?
Would lecturers become more like coaches and facilitators for students rather than educators who stand at the front of classrooms? That model would work in a number of courses.
3. Course transportability
Instead of being forced to do 24 subjects in one degree from one university, students could cherry-pick the best courses from across Australia and still get their qualification. An undergraduate business student might do 24 subjects across six universities, choosing those rated highest by other students.
Over time, this would drive course competition and build brands around subjects and lecturers – not just universities. Weak subjects would die. Highly rated lecturers who attract students would get much-needed recognition.
4. Education only part of the ecosystem
University innovation could change the value equation for students. For example, rather than pay $40,000 for a degree, students pay $40,000 to access the university's resources, networks and potential funding if they develop an idea.
The course is just one part that investment. The real value comes from the university's innovation ecosystem and networks to help develop student ideas and skills, during and after their course.
5. A different, longer relationship
It's frustrating that the relationship between universities and students often ends abruptly when a degree is awarded. Apart from alumni programs, universities do not do enough to turn students into lifelong customers and advocates.
How about a three-year business degree providing learning over six or nine years, through refresher courses or other initiatives to update students?
Yes, it costs money and time, but turning students into lifelong customers of one university and upselling them into other courses is a lot smarter than losing connection.
More risk-taking needed
I'm sure those in academia will scoff at these ideas. They'll argue the ideas cost too much (or lose too much revenue) or that universities are not set up to deliver them. Or that universities provide the wrong incentives for staff to take teaching to new heights.
Students should demand better. Businesses that fail to change, because of legacy ways of doing things or organisation resistance, eventually die.
Too many lacklustre universities are surviving (when they should merge) because of a crazy notion that students must have a degree to succeed. That provides a ready-made customer base with little market power, for poorly ranked unis.
It's time that students – those who partly fund academic research through their fees and often get no benefit from it – started thinking and acting like real customers.
Some academics detest referring to students as customers, but that's also an excuse for universities to expect students to adapt to their needs. It should be the other way around.