Search

As described in "Go8 Backgrounder 24: Answering the Global Challenge--Experiences from European Excellence Initiatives," Germany began a debate about how to strengthen its position as an excellent location for science and research in 2004. This debate focussed in particular on the competitiveness of the country's universities and research centres with respect to international standards. The German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), a self-governing organisation funding the bulk of research projects in Germany was the primary leader of this debate. The most important outcome of this debate was an agreement on the Excellence Initiative by the German federal and state governments. This took the form of a contract between the German federal government and the federal states, signed in 2005 with the specific aims of funding top-level research, enhancing the international visibility of research activities, and driving fundamental structural change. University research funded through the Excellence Initiative has to be conducted in large networks and in cooperation with non-university research institutions. The initiative also established a structured system of education and training for doctoral students, to make Germany more attractive to young international scholars. The German Research Foundation and the German Council of Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat) were given responsibility for implementing the Excellence Initiative, which had three streams of funding: for graduate schools, for clusters of excellence, and for institutional strategies to promote top-level research in the whole institution (so-called "future concepts"). The success of the initiative has led to a renewed discussion about how universities in Germany with their renewed focus on excellence can compete against outstanding institutions abroad in funding competitions; and on how they can play an enhanced role in Germany becoming a preferred location for science and innovation. (Contains 1 figure.)

The current main world university rankings broadly group the leading research universities of nations. Australia's Go8 universities are generally within the top 250 ranked universities, with several institutions in the top 50-100 on some measures. This recognition is commendable, however imperfect the individual rankings may be. Use is made of rankings by prospective students, governments and universities themselves. There is not always a good alignment between the purposes for which rankings are designed and the ways they are used. All of the rankings are deficient methodologically, and some are seriously flawed. Considerable work needs to be done to overcome the major deficiencies in ranker methods, especially those reliant on reputational surveys and proxy indicators, to give them greater statistical validity and reliability and better representation of disciplinary fields and cross-disciplinary work. Because of the complexity of universities their assignment to ranks will always give a false sense of precision. It would be more appropriate for universities to be banded on the basis of their performance in relation to sets of criteria rather than ranked one after another. Meanwhile, for Australia's leading universities, it is no time for complacency. Their positions are challenged by the rapid rise of universities in Asia and elsewhere. Additionally they face three main public policy threats: under-investment; dilution of investment; and narrow instrumentalism of support. A combination of these three threats in policy for higher education and university research is inimical to sustaining excellence for those universities whose mission is liberal and professional education of high quality in the context of internationally-referenced basic research and nationally-applicable applied research. If these three threats were to be realised in Australian public policy--and they are imminent--the country will not be celebrating for much longer the position of its leading universities in the world league. The construction of rankings is appended. (Contains 10 figures, 17 tables, and 1 box.)

In 2011, the Group of Eight (Go8) conducted a survey on the state of its buildings and infrastructure. The survey is the third Go8 Infrastructure survey, with previous surveys being conducted in 2007 and 2009. The current survey updated some of the information collected in the previous surveys. It also collated data related to aspects of the estate not previously explored, including leasing arrangements, space utilisation, parking and transportation modes. In addition to using Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA) definitions and methodology where appropriate, the survey has used Go8-specific definitions that were developed after the previous survey, to enhance the TEFMA definitions to classify space types and enable relevant benchmarking. The report and survey data show aspects of Go8 university facilities which need improvement. Much of the infrastructure is in excellent or good condition, but a proportion is rated as barely adequate or poor. With a continuing high proportion of the infrastructure and building works budget being allocated to new work, the commitment for renewal work on both building and nonbuilding infrastructure is important. The estimated backlog maintenance has been reduced since the earlier surveys, but remains substantial, in a very tight financial environment for Go8 universities. Appended are: (1) Glossary of Terminology and Definitions; (2) Survey Definitions; and (3) Go8 Survey Form 2011. (Contains 3 figures, 3 tables, and 2 footnotes.)

The objective of this "backgrounder" is to better understand the contributions of universities to innovation in Finland, as a means of widening the consideration of policy options in Australia. Finland is a small but advanced industrial economy with limited resources and markets, dependent on external trade and the internationalisation of research and innovation. A major policy shift in the 1990s saw the Finnish state become an active player in innovation, which changed the research-innovation nexus substantially. This shift was characterised by the introduction of differentiated tertiary education qualifications (polytechnics and universities), the consequences of which were remarkable achievements in Finland's higher education and innovation sectors. The innovation policy developed by the Finnish parliament aims at keeping a highly skilled workforce satisfied through an active role by the state as an investor in emerging technologies. The Finnish example of a functioning university-innovation nexus demonstrates that the framework conditions are set in an appropriate way, closely linking the policies and funding opportunities. This framework is supported by the European Union through its programs. The responsibility for improving a nation's level of innovation, with the consequent benefits it brings to global competitiveness, jobs and enhanced productivity, is a task that the Finnish government shares with the private sector and the higher education sector. Within such a framework and focus, nations can make choices about where to allocate resources in a way which most potently enhances their industrial capability, their economic prosperity and their social wellbeing. (Contains 33 footnotes.)

Singapore, like Australia, is one of the world's most prosperous countries. However, the basis for Singapore's prosperity is quite different from that of Australia's and for this reason it provides an interesting and complementary case study. While much of Australia's current affluence flows from its rich endowment of mineral resources, Singapore's success builds on its geographical position, strong trading links and the innovative and entrepreneurial outlook of its government. Singapore provides an example of a country responding in a coherent and strategic way to its natural advantages and its lack of natural resources. An important part of this response has been to develop whole of government approaches to national development that focus on the need to build competitive advantage through innovation. Investment in education has responded to the needs of national development. The outcome has been a high quality but diverse system with specialised institutions using the best pedagogical approaches from around the world, each working to achieve its own clearly defined educational objectives. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role that universities have played in promoting Singapore's economic development and in particular to examine the importance of university business interactions in promoting the flow of information, ideas and technology. (Contains 47 footnotes.)

Current Year 12 students form the largest single group of Australian university admissions, comprising approximately half of all admissions at Australian universities. For those Year 12 students who continue to tertiary study at Australian universities, the courses studied in Year 12 play an important role in preparing them for that further education. Information regarding Year 12 course participation is therefore of serious interest to Australian universities. Unfortunately, reliable, detailed and consistent data in this area are not readily available at the national level. This paper addresses this lack of information by compiling data on Year 12 course completions from all Australian States and Territories into a single, national level data source. This data source allows an examination of Year 12 completions over the time period 2005 to 2010. It found that mathematics and science completions experienced only very minor growth from 2005 to 2010. Given the growth in applications and offers of university courses requiring a solid background in these areas, an amplified policy focus on increasing Year 12 participation in Mathematics and Science would likely be beneficial. University admissions practices have a role to play. Universities could investigate how to modify the details of their entry requirements and procedures to influence participation and curriculum at the upper secondary level in a more systematic way. This could include more widespread use of bonus entry points, prerequisites, or matriculation-like arrangements to better align students' preparation at school with the demands of tertiary study. Universities could adopt practices that were consistent with their distinctive institutional missions. (Contains 5 figures, 5 tables, and 6 footnotes.)

Over the period 2001-2011, the number of applications for university places increased by 17.8%, or just over 37,000. At the same time, the number of offers increased faster in percentage terms (20.5%), while absolute growth was slightly smaller at just under 35,000. As demand for higher education has grown, there has been a trend towards Science, Engineering and especially Health disciplines. These are among the most expensive fields to teach. The shift towards more expensive fields, on top of bigger than expected growth across all fields, increases the potential cost of a demand-driven system. In a demand-driven funding system, universities have less scope to cross-subsidise more expensive (as well as less popular) courses. Current base funding rates are less than the cost of delivery in all disciplines, with the biggest shortfalls in more expensive fields. Without changes to funding, universities will have limited capacity and incentives to offer enough places in the fields that students want. The fundamental contradiction is that volume has been deregulated but price remains fixed. (Contains 2 figures, 3 tables, and 5 footnotes.)

University admissions, like many other aspects of the higher education sector, are going through a time of significant change. From 2012, universities will receive full funding under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) for as many places as they offer. Previously, the Government limited the number of funded places, with a tolerance band for "over-enrolments" above the allocated number. The Government has moved towards a demand-driven system in stages, raising the over-enrolment cap to 10% in 2010 (up from 5%) before removing caps in 2012. The demand-driven system is intended to bring demand and supply into closer alignment, and in doing this, to increase participation. Since the Government announced in March 2009 it would make this policy change, higher education participation has increased. This paper uses data on university applications and offers, collated by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) to examine trends in demand and supply. The paper examines entry standards for school leaver applicants (for whom a simple measure of academic preparation, namely the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR), is available) and discusses the broader implications of the demand-driven system for university admissions. (Contains 4 figures and 5 footnotes.)

This paper presents an analysis of trends in actual full-time equivalent (FTE) university staff over 2000-2010 for Go8 and non-Go8 universities. Staff are classified by function as "Academic" or "Other". Academic staff are classified as Research Only (RO) or Teaching and Research (T&R) or Teaching Only (TO). The evidence shows that the assertions of Professor Frank Larkins are wrong in fact and interpretation. Professor Larkins published a paper in October 2011 which, regrettably, has been reported without question in the Australian and international media. Larkins asserted that universities have been pursuing their own research interests above all else and students are being short-changed as a consequence. He alleged that universities have been reclassifying academic staff in order to game assessments of research quality. He claimed that "the coursework student to T&R + TO staff ratio was concerningly high at 34:1 in 2010". The available evidence does not support his claims. The key findings of the analysis include: (1) The coursework student to teaching staff (T&R + TO staff FTE) ratio in 2010 was 21.7 for Australia's universities in aggregate; (2) Academic staff with a Teaching Only (TO) function have increased as student enrolments have grown; (3) Academic staff with a Research Only (RO) function have increased as research funding has grown; (4) Academic staff with a Teaching and Research (T&R) function have increased but at a lower rate than TO and RO staff; (5) The proportion of casual staff rose only modestly over the decade 2000-2010; and (6) Non-academic staff have increased at a slightly higher rate than academic staff. (Contains 9 figures, 12 tables, and 2 footnotes.)

There is now a great deal of experience across different countries as they act in their own ways to improve the productivity and excellence of their higher education institutions. Each nation wants to create an international reputation for excellence that will attract students, academic staff and business. This involves change at the national level, in terms of programs, structures and policies, as well as action by individual institutions. It is important that Australia learn from and build on this experience and examine how it might benefit from the successes of other countries. This paper describes and explores the lessons of the German Excellence Initiative (and a similar program from France). The Excellence Initiative is a major, national program that has helped and is helping to revitalise the German higher education sector by focussing on excellence, supporting success and promoting innovation within the sector. In setting out to support excellence by concentrating resources in institutions able to demonstrate a strategic commitment to superior performance, the program has influenced institutions across the whole sector--and had the deliberate intention of doing so. One of its underlying objectives was to target the perceived inertia in the faculty structure of the universities and it has served to create a new, more competitive culture which promotes superior performance even beyond those institutions receiving funding. (Contains 4 footnotes.)

Current economic conditions and the increasing competition for government funding are leading to an increased focus on the impact of research. Measuring the impact of research is difficult because not all impacts are direct and some can be negative or result from the identification of problems that require a non-research response. The time between the performance of research and when its benefits become apparent can be significant, unpredictable and differ for different kinds of research. Attempts to measure impact, especially if these are ongoing, can distort behaviours such that they might diminish the probability of research reaching its maximum impact. A rigorous assessment of research impact has also to develop appropriate counterfactuals and consider opportunity costs. There is a wide range of methods that it is possible to use to evaluate research impact. They can operate at the level of individual projects or programs, institutions and nations. Each method has its own characteristics and advantages. While different methods can appeal to different target groups, none is complete in itself and none offers unambiguous or certain results. Measuring the impact of research is necessary and can be useful but it is important to use the results of such evaluations with care, recognising their fragility. In particular, it is important to assess impact in terms of the impacts the research aimed to achieve, not across all impacts which are possible. (Contains 10 footnotes.)

One of several important pieces of higher education legislation in Parliament in 2011 is the "Higher Education Support Act Amendment ("Demand-Driven System and Other Measures") Bill". As its title makes clear, this Bill is intended to bring into effect the Government's commitment (announced in March 2009) to uncap the supply of Commonwealth-supported places (CSPs) in universities, as recommended by the Bradley Review. The Bill qualifies the commitment, by setting up mechanisms to limit growth in places and Commonwealth spending, should this become necessary in the future. The Group of Eight (Go8)--like other higher education stakeholders--views this as sensible public policy. Proposed changes will contain the future fiscal impact of growth in the system and reduce incentives to badly planned growth. While the Government's decision not to proceed with a fully uncapped system is welcome, the approach set out in the Bill continues to rely completely on the public university sector to accommodate growth in demand at common funding rates. A more effective policy framework would adopt Bradley's further recommendations to open access to CSPs to a wider range of providers, and would reconfigure both Commonwealth and student contributions to provide for flexibility, choice and value for the student's and the Government's dollar. (Contains 1 table and 9 footnotes.)

The Review of Higher Education Base Funding gives Government an historic opportunity to set higher education funding on a sound footing for the future, and to commit the support needed to achieve its important quality and participation goals. There is a significant funding gap, which has led universities to neglect infrastructure and let class sizes grow. The quality of the student experience has suffered. The funding gap is likely to widen in an expanding, demand driven system, and universities will not be able to rely on increasing international fee revenue to cover rising costs. Government investment in higher education has been insufficient and should be increased, as the Bradley Review recommended in 2008. But Government will not be able to pay the whole cost of growing the system while maintaining quality. Student contributions should be partially deregulated to increase revenue, diversity and competition. Australia led the world in introducing income-contingent loans for university fees to allow students to co-invest in their education, without imposing up-front barriers to participation by the less affluent. In the coming decades, Australia will need to build on this world-leading system to ensure that higher education funding is adequate and fair, and that it effectively supports growing participation and world-class quality. Further background research and analysis are appended. (Contains 2 tables, 10 figures and 14 footnotes.)

The current and first independent review of Australia's student visa program by The Honorable Michael Knight AO is a welcome indication of the Government's recognition of the importance of international education to Australian society. It represents a crucial opportunity for reform to ensure Australian education institutions can compete for the most talented international students. International education provides significant economic benefits for Australia. It is both a major export industry and a source of domestic economic growth. However, international education is much more than a business. The relationships formed through international education underpin Australia's engagement with the world and help sustain goodwill, trade and investment. They are the basis of future research collaboration. They make Australia's creative and intellectual assets more visible to other countries. They improve our reputation internationally as a centre for learning, research and innovation. Furthermore, international students bring diverse experiences and perspectives and make it possible for universities to offer a much wider range of study programs, thus enriching the educational experience for all students and staff. For these reasons the Group of Eight (Go8) believes that unnecessary financial and other barriers should not be put in the way of genuine international students who wish to come to Australia and that reforming the student visa program is critical for Australia's future as an innovative nation. (Contains 2 tables, 3 figures and 14 footnotes.)

The Group of Eight (Go8) appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the consultation about the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA)--Draft Provider Standards. These are some overarching questions regarding the application of the Draft Provider Standards and their interaction with the broader regulatory framework in which universities operate: (1) How will the provider standards be applied to universities, established under State and Territory acts?; and (2) How do the various standards interact with a university's self-accrediting status? In this paper, specific issues have been raised with each of the areas contained within the "Provider Standards"--"Provider Registration Standards," "Provider Category Standards," and "Provider Course Accreditation Standards."

Over recent years governments have been placing more emphasis on innovation as a source of national competitiveness. Governments now assess their investments across many areas in terms of the contribution that such investments make to increasing innovation. This has been especially significant for education and in particular for the development of policies for universities because universities perform research as well as provide learning. The measures governments use to assess the performance of universities frequently include indicators of research-related engagement with business, or of the level of patenting, licensing and start ups. Assessing university performance by focusing on just some of the direct services or outputs that universities provide, or on narrow aspects of their individual services, seriously underestimates the contributions that universities make. Appended are: (1) The health innovation system; (2) Sources of ideas or information for business innovation; (3) Innovation-Active Businesses; and (4) Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education in the USA. (Contains 33 footnotes.)

In 2008 the Group of Eight (Go8) released a first report on the state of its buildings and infrastructure, based on a survey undertaken in 2007. A further survey was undertaken in 2009, updating some information about the assessed quality, value and condition of buildings and use of space. It also collated data related to aspects of the estate not previously explored, including student accommodation, energy and other environmental issues and initiatives. Some of these data are provisional: data sources are not yet well developed, and definitions and classifications are being reviewed for some of these topics. This is particularly so of the data related to space management and environmental issues including carbon measurement and reduction strategies, where further work is being done on both strategies and measurement/data issues. Where appropriate, the survey has used Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA) definitions and methodology. As for the previous survey, two reports from the survey data are being prepared. This summary presents aggregates across the Go8. The second report contains data about each member university. It is confidential, and has limited availability. Appended are: (1) Glossary of Terminology and Definitions; (2) Survey definitions; and (3) Go8 survey form 2009. (Contains 3 figures, 7 tables, and 2 footnotes.)

Universities have much to contribute to the improvement of health delivery, research, and teaching/learning. In progressing health reform, the Government should be mindful of the need to: (1) strengthen high quality medical research; (2) promote translation of research to teaching, population health and health services; and (3) address Health Workforce issues effectively. Go8 universities support and seek to play a lead role in integration of health research, education, and services. They are seeking a closer involvement with the Commonwealth Government in development and implementation of the policy detail. Hospital and Health Services reforms, including specific allocation of adequate funding arrangements, provide a potential avenue for improvement of integration of research, teaching, and services. However these important issues could be overlooked in the overall size and complexity of health care policy, major reform, and the multiple stakeholders involved. Appended are: (1) Graphs of NHMRC funding support of the Australian research workforce 2003-2010; and (2 Expenditure of NHMRC annual funding commitments.

Projections of future population and tertiary education participation indicate that Australia needs soon to start planning for another surge in school leavers entering tertiary education from 2015, together with increased demand for greater skills deepening by adult workers. Hence it is necessary to find cost-effective supply solutions that respond to the increasing and increasingly diverse demand from both students and employers in a way that ensures that Australia has sufficient scale capacity in fields of education and research which are most exposed to international competition. If the structure of tertiary education in Australia is depicted in the shape of a pyramid, the challenge for public policy is to broaden the base while strengthening the top, and to accept the trade-offs involved, given the scarcity of available resources. A strategy for regional investment in higher education should build on work which identifies the future outlook for selected regions, including their demographic, economic, cultural and environmental factors. Ideally, such indications of future capacities and requirements would generate a set of criteria for assessing which tertiary education supply options would best fit a region's circumstances. That is a matter for regional policy advisors and other stakeholders. This brief focuses on the supply options. Outlines of National Systems of Tertiary Education are appended.

The Government has placed a strong emphasis on social inclusion across all social policy settings. In higher education the focus has been on the participation of low SES students at the undergraduate level. This has been done within the context of a push for growth in the attainment of Bachelor level qualifications to improve overall productivity and social outcomes. The narrow focus of the equity policy has been successful in concentrating the efforts of universities on the low socio-economic status (SES) undergraduate cohort; however it poses some challenges for research intensive universities, particularly those that are seeking to shift their load profile to a greater proportion of postgraduate enrolments. The national equity agenda will be stronger when different universities can contribute according to their varying strengths rather than all having to contribute in the same way. The focus needs to be broadened to include other groups such as students with a disability, students who are first in their family to attend university, those with family responsibilities, and Indigenous students. The Go8 will work actively towards the low SES undergraduate student equity participation target outlined by the "Government in Transforming Australia's Higher Education System," however universities should be able to respond in ways which align with their stated missions. The broad national low SES target outlines a positive goal for the country but this is best achieved by universities determining how they can contribute to successful outcomes. Go8 approach to social inclusion is attached. (Contains 1 figure.)

The demand for workers (employers, self-employed people and employees) having research training extends beyond the researcher workforce itself and is increasing. The research workforce is not uniform but segmented according to disciplines and the economic and sectoral contexts in which researchers work. The growth of cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research places additional demands upon the size and skills of the research workforce. To maintain the supply of students capable of and wishing to undertake research training, the strategy must improve the attractiveness of career options and pathways, especially at the early and mid-career stages. The importance of tapping into the potential supply of high quality international research students and academics cannot be underestimated. Australia must be seen as a welcoming and high performing research destination if it is to be able to build research capacity quickly and effectively in a highly competitive global environment. A world class research training environment requires excellence, scale and diversity. Australia's incremental approach to policy development is no longer adequate to the task of creating such an environment; a radical overhaul of the policy and financing framework for research and research training is essential. What is needed is a framework that provides for: full cost funding of research and research training; the allocation of research block grants based on Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) and other research quality assessments; the full funding of indirect costs using a unique rate for each university; incentives for "hub and spoke" approaches to research collaboration; and the development of coherent international research collaboration strategies. (Contains 2 figures.)

Governments in many countries exert pressures on universities to be more accountable for the results they manage to achieve with the resources available to them. A recently added twist, ironically within the context of falling government investment and rising student demand, is that governments are intruding into areas which have long been regarded as prerogatives of autonomous universities. The accompanying paper has been prepared as a draft to focus discussion between Australian and British policy analysts in the first instance, and later with US counterparts. The main reason for a bilateral discussion initially is that there are three significant factors in common between the Australian and British higher education contexts. First, there are commonalities in the structure and culture of universities in the UK and Australia. Second, in both countries there has been a longstanding convention of parity of esteem of higher education awards. Third, in both countries there has been an increasing interest on the part of government in matters of higher education quality assurance and research quality verification. Indeed there are some shared policy and program features, reflecting regular interactions among policy makers and academic and professional staff between the two countries. This paper is intended to help make sense of what is happening and inform public debate to promote balanced outcomes. Attached are: (1) Australian Higher Education Graduate Statement (Sample); (2) US College Portrait (Example); and (3) University of South Australia Teaching and Learning Academic Standards Framework 2009. (Contains 2 figures, 5 tables, 47 boxes, and 15 footnotes.)

The increasing international mobility of students and graduates, and the proliferation of providers of higher education services and qualifications, challenge governments to find new ways and means of assuring that effective learning is taking place, and safeguarding the integrity of educational qualifications. The expansion and diversification of higher education requires new forms of information and channels of communication about the orientation and quality of different higher education institutions and programs, so that potential participants can make sense of what is available and make informed decisions, and employers can have a reasonable basis on which to compare graduate applicants for jobs. Thus there is a compelling case for governments to be concerned to ensure that the community can have confidence in its higher education institutions and the programs and qualifications they provide. However, the government's proposed approach to higher education involves a degree of central regulation and intrusion which is beyond that found in other OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and which is unprecedented in Australia. There are concerns within the higher education community that this approach will be counterproductive because it will stifle diversity, erode quality and reduce the flexibility necessary to respond to unexpected needs and challenges. By adopting a more comprehensive, gradual and inclusive approach to policy development relating to standards and quality in higher education, the government will be able to achieve greater institutional and professional support and make more effective use of the national and international studies already underway in this area.

In recent years there has been an overall lack of a clear and cohesive research funding policy for higher education which poses real risks in Australia's ability to sustain research excellence and is likely to lead to a decline in Australia's research performance at the international level. This could well lead to a decline in the reputation of Australian universities and a consequential decline in Australia's ability to attract the best researchers and research students and be detrimental to Australia's economic competitiveness. This lack of policy direction has led to the implementation of policies and programs which have the effect of spreading the limited resources available to higher education research funding thinly across the higher education system rather than on following the principles of selectivity and concentration that are the key to building an internationally competitive research system. The Go8 considers that it is time for a major overhaul of Australia's higher education research arrangements. Suggested solutions include: (1) Binary model of research funding; (2) Establishment of a research block grant program; (3) Continued development of Excellence Research Australia (ERA) so that outcomes can be used to drive future research funding to drive selectivity and concentration of Australia's higher education research system; (4) Full funding of the indirect costs of research funded by the research councils using a unique indirect rate for each university; (5) Development of a "hub and spokes" model as a way of managing the needs of universities that are unable to develop research excellence in a particular field; and (6) Strengthening of the government's engagement in international research collaboration through the establishment and funding of a successor program to the International Science Linkages program and related measures. Attached are: (1) "The Chronicle of Higher Education" article on "Germany Pursues Excellence over Egalitarianism"; and (2) Go8 response to the Report of House of Representative's Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation Inquiry into Australia's International Research Collaboration.

The Group of Eight (Go8) welcomes the Government's commitment to developing a comprehensive research workforce strategy. Australia's research capacity and the continuing translation of research into policy, products and services is directly linked to the future productivity of the economy, social wellbeing, environmental outcomes and the nation's long-term prosperity. The "Meeting Australia's research workforce needs" consultation paper provides a useful starting point for discussions on Australia's research workforce needs but the Go8 believes that some issues will need to receive more attention in the final strategy to ensure it is comprehensive and well targeted. In particular, the paper gives insufficient attention to: (1) the quality of both the research workforce and of the research training experience--increasing the size of the research work force will not be sufficient in itself to keep Australia competitive; (2) interdependencies between the research workforce and other parts of the innovation system, including schools and research users; (3) the roles and importance of research-trained people in the broader workforce including in industry and government; (4) the need for a whole of government approach and the removal of inconsistencies between the proposed strategy and other policies and programs (for example in relation to visas) that could impede its implementation; and (5) the dependence of the strategy on increased and better targeted funding and a concentration of capability (talent and infrastructure). A number of important actions have been identified which if adopted would be positive steps in helping to build Australia's research capacity and would help Go8 universities in managing their research training programs. (Contains 2 figures, 1 table, and 10 footnotes.)

The Framework for Evaluation of Equity Initiatives has been prepared to support the Go8 Equity Strategy. Its purpose is to assist Group of Eight (Go8) universities to evaluate the effectiveness of their equity initiatives and interventions in the context of federal policies and the distinctive missions and responsibilities of the individual Go8 institutions. The framework provides an exploration of potential methods for evaluating a range of equity programs, noting some of the methodological complexities involved. There is an emphasis on looking beyond access and participation to ensuring academic achievement and outcomes. The Framework for Evaluation of Equity Initiatives is necessarily an evolving document that will be enhanced over time based on experience across the Go8 universities. The present document is a starting point for creating evidence-based approaches to practice. (Contains 2 tables and 1 footnote.)

In 2009 the Group of Eight (Go8) commissioned market research to examine the attitudes, perceptions and experiences of Australia as a destination for study at the Higher Research Degree level. This backgrounder highlights some of the positive aspects of the Australian experience. The top five aggregated strengths of Australia as a research destination were: Australia's multicultural society, the friendly and welcoming nature of Australian society, the quality of Australia's universities, the safe environment and the research culture. In addition there are very high levels of satisfaction with the quality of academic supervision amongst current and former research students and students are attracted to the shorter duration of the Australian PhD. The results of this study confirm that Australia is regarded as a progressive, dynamic and innovative country in which to study at the Higher Degree by Research (HDR) level. (Contains 1 footnote.)

The Group of Eight (Go8) is a coalition of leading Australian universities, intensive in research and comprehensive in general and professional education. The Go8 member universities recognise that the issue of energy usage and transformation is one of vital importance not only to Australia but to the world as a whole. The universities aim to make substantial contributions to the technologies and policies that will enable the delivery and use of energy in a sustainable manner. Energy is a multi-dimensional subject, so the term "energy-related" in this report includes: (1) Identification, extraction and delivery of primary energy sources; (2) Conversion of these primary energy sources to secondary energy forms and their delivery; (3) Use of primary and secondary energy in an efficient manner; (4) Environmental impacts of energy supply and use; and (5) Economic/social impacts and regulatory/policy issues related to energy supply and use. This report aims to identify areas of energy research undertaken by the Go8 member universities that have both quality and critical mass.

It is widely stated that a purpose of patent law is to encourage inventors to innovate and to disclose their inventions for the benefit of society. In return for this disclosure they receive a limited exploitation monopoly defined essentially by commercial pursuits. A necessary implication of the requirement of disclosure is that knowledge embodied in an invention is available to society to drive the process of innovation, even during the life of the patent. Notwithstanding the lack of Australian judicial consideration of the issue, research organisations typically hold that research use of patented subject matter is not within the monopoly granted by the Patents Act. This current status quo is relied on by the research community, to ensure an unrestricted environment for research and to facilitate innovation. If research is not to be adversely affected, any clarification of the law must deliver an outcome which does not diminish this current freedom. The comments in this paper respond to the second round of consultations invited by IP Australia. They also follow from discussions with IP Australia representatives at a meeting held on 3 February 2010 at the offices of the Go8. In order to assist consideration of reframing the current proposal this paper provide a number of annexures: (1) A preferred drafting model which crystallises the matters raised in this paper; (2) Examples of how the provision has been cast in other jurisdictions; (3) Examples definitions of research and experiment; and (4) Examples of successful ARC research applications. (Contains 22 footnotes.)

The Reference Committee firmly shares the view that the state of the mathematical sciences and related quantitative disciplines in Australia has deteriorated to a dangerous level, and continues to deteriorate. Accordingly the author decided to structure this Report around a small number of recommendations, some long term and others to address immediate problems. In the last five years there have been many reviews analysing the mathematical sciences in Australia and elsewhere. Australia has gone backwards over the last 20 years in terms of the quality and quantity of students completing Year 12 mathematics. This is despite considerable effort put into improving the situation, including Government funding. This deterioration hasn't been the case in every country. This report does not attempt a comprehensive overview of the mathematical sciences, but rather, on the basis of these sources, stakeholder consultations and material provided by individual universities, attempts a concise justification for the author's view expressed in the opening sentence. Appended are: (1) Reviews of last five years; and (2) Go8 Review of Education in Mathematics, Data Science and Quantitative Disciplines.

The "Group of Eight Infrastructure Condition Survey 2007" represents the Go8's first effort to enhance the quality of information available about the condition of building and support infrastructure of member universities, their capital investment trends and challenges. The survey aims to support the systematic benchmarking of facilities across the Go8, by complementing data shared annually by Australian universities through the Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association of Australia (TEFMA). The survey demonstrates starkly that Go8 universities face significant challenges in accessing capital to replace or refurbish ageing teaching and research infrastructure built predominantly between 1940 and 1980. This stock alone accounts for some 56% of total Go8 building infrastructure, 61% of total support infrastructure and backlog maintenance liabilities of $1.19 billion or 68% of total. Given the rapid period of expansion the Australian tertiary education sector underwent during the post World War II period, it is likely that the findings of the Go8 survey are indicative of the challenges all Australian universities face in refurbishing or replacing this ageing stock. It is also likely, however, that the infrastructure challenges Go8 universities face are more acute than other Australian universities due to their relatively large share of heritage listed buildings, their relative research intensiveness, their success in winning nationally competitive research grants, and the resulting disproportionate impact on them of the failure of programs in support of research and research training to cover full economic costs. The survey's key findings are presented. Appended are: (1) Survey Responses & Data; and (2) TEFMA Definitions. (Contains 37 figures, 1 table, and 17 footnotes.)

This Go8 Backgrounder explores the possible uses of compacts in government financing of university activities, examines their potential costs and benefits, and outlines principles for their design and implementation. The Government has committed to compacts as an element of its future funding arrangements with public universities but has not yet determined their scope, role and shape. This Go8 Backgrounder raises issues and options to assist policy considerations. This paper is designed to aid the consultation process by providing a set of references for universities in their forthcoming discussions with Commonwealth officials. Appended are: (1) University College London: Knowledge Transfer Strategy; (2) King's College London: Access Agreement Submission To The Office For Fair Access (Offa) 2008-09; and (3) Elements of a Postsecondary Education Compact. (Contains 2 figures, 1 table, and 69 endnotes.)

The release of the "Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2007" by the Australian Government in 2007 was welcomed by Go8 (Group of Eight) institutions, particularly in relation to the improvements and broader scope of the matters covered by Part A of that Code. However, as foreshadowed by the Go8 during the consultation phase of the preparation of the Code, significant risks to researchers and institutions arise from Part B of the Code, especially as a result of the unavoidable confluence of considerations relating to allegations of research misconduct and the terms of employment of university staff. The Go8 has engaged in a very constructive dialogue with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) about these issues. This consultation paper has been prepared in response to the NHMRC's written confirmation of January 2008 that Part B of the Code is intended as: (1) "a guide to good practice" only; and (2) "a principles-based approach, rather than being prescriptive." The purpose of this consultation paper is to set out the principles upon which Go8 responses to the Code will be based. Once these principles have been agreed by Go8 institutions this paper will be provided to the NHMRC. It is hoped that the NHMRC's endorsement of the proposed approach will be forthcoming--allowing institutions to move to implementation of the Code and participation in enterprise bargaining processes with certainty. Through adoption of such guiding principles, the expectation is that Go8 universities will eventually have in place arrangements for handling allegations of research misconduct, which while responsive to particular requirements of each institution and State, will be broadly consistent and readily understood by university staff, students, government agencies and the wider community. Appended are: (1) Background discussion about issues arising from Part B of the Code; (2) Go8 & NHMRC correspondence over the Code. (Contains 1 footnote.)

Concerns are held across the Group of Eight (Go8) that the standard terms sought by the Commonwealth when entering into research agreements with universities misunderstand the role and nature of universities; are unnecessarily onerous and impractical; often cause delay and uncertainty due to their complexity; and serve to stifle knowledge transfer and innovation by restricting the capacity of universities to disseminate the results of the sponsored research for public benefit. This submission to the Review of the National Innovation System has been prepared by the legal counsel of all Go8 universities to propose options for addressing these issues. The Go8 believes that the Review presents an opportunity for the Commonwealth and the university sector to seek to reach agreement over a new set of principles to underpin research agreements--principles designed to ensure that Commonwealth/university research agreements serve to maximise efficiency, certainty and the potential for public benefit to flow from publicly funded research. This paper offers eight principles to stimulate discussion about the desirability and feasibility of Australia developing standard research contract "agreements" or "templates" which clarify and simplify the research contract negotiation process between the Commonwealth and universities. (Contains 3 footnotes.)

An independent review of the Australian student visa program was completed in 2011. Several of the recommendations from the review have been implemented by the Australian government, including the introduction of streamlined visa processing for applicants enrolled at an Australian university and increased flexibility in working conditions for student visa holders. The Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship assigns assessment levels to reflect the risk posed by applicants from a particular country studying in a particular education sector, with Assessment Level 5 being the highest risk and Assessment Level 1 the lowest. The assessment level will determine the level of proof required by the applicant to qualify for a student visa. The purpose of this Note is to provide a summary of the student visa process including the recent changes.

International education, particularly study in Australia, provides significant economic benefits for Australia. It is both a major export industry and a source of domestic economic growth. If Australia can attract talented international students through scholarships and a reputation for quality, they will return to their home countries to become leaders in government, industry and the arts and ultimately help open doors for Australia. These relationships provide access to new ideas and technologies that underpin national innovation. The Go8 wants to work with Government to ensure that international education in Australia is attractive for its quality rather than as merely a path to migration. Australia cannot afford to be isolated or by-passed in a more knowledge-connected world. The nation's future will rely on strong international connections and openness. Recommended solutions include: (1) A major statement by the Prime Minister on the importance of Australia's engagement in international education and research; (2) High-level meetings in major source countries by relevant senior ministers and education leaders; (3) Removal of student visa entrants from the Government's net immigration goals; (4) Review policy settings for student visas, with regulation proportional to risk; and (5) A joined-approach by the Government across its policy departments and administrative agencies.

The principal priorities for the Group of Eight (Go8) with regard to higher education policy are coherence and sustainability. Good public policy is based on principle and backed by evidence. This paper offers an interlinked set of principles for the development of higher education policy in Australia.