There is much debate in Australia at the moment about concentrating government research funding on a small group of 'elite' universities. The rationale is that better results can be achieved by focussing the funding in this way. Universities who do not receive research funding would be classified as 'teaching' universities.
The plan has been criticised by some as favouring the elite and possibly damaging the recruitment of students, particulalry international students, of those univerisities who don't get the research funding.
I think this is a positive step for those institutions who may not get government research funding. Sure, research does add to the status of a university but so does history and tradition and newer colleges and universities have always had to battle against this when recruiting students. There is an opportunity now to really differentiate the product and attract students on this basis.
Students will choose a place of study that can deliver a good quality education and improve their career prospects. Many students also understand that it is highly unlikely that the person who is doing the esteemed research is ever likely to come close to teaching them and institutions run the risk of disappointing those that don't understand this. Institutions like the University of Chicago for instance struggled to attract good quality applicants because they had a reputation for research rather than teaching.
What do you think?
Comments