Submission for the Senate Inquiry into Higher Education
March 27, 2001

-Funding for the Arts and the Humanities-

There are two aspects of higher education addressed in the senate inquiry that I would like to comment on here: the production of sufficient numbers of qualified graduates to meet industry demand and the quality and diversity of higher education.  I will address these aspects of higher education specifically with regards to funding for the arts and the humanities.

It is commonly believed that students graduating with arts degrees have a difficult time finding well-paying jobs and that arts degrees do not teach marketable skills.  However, arts degrees teach the following abilities:
-	reasoning skills
-	how to argue a perspective effectively
-	how to handle symbolism
-	communication skills: clarity, relevance, and succinctness 
-	comprehension: mastery of difficult texts, listening skills
-	depth and breadth of viewpoint; seeing beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries; identifying first principles and practical applications; tracing connections; objectivity
-	awareness of one’s own thinking and use of language, ability to assess one’s own strengths and weaknesses and those of others
-	originality: independence of thought; flexibility of approach
-	adaptability to a changing environment; inventiveness in producing examples and counterexamples.
-	co-operativeness: the ability to work in teams in different capacities; constructive contribution to group discussion and joint products
-	awareness of ethical implications
(from the Enterprise in Higher Education project in Britain, 1991)
All these skills are highly valued by employers, particularly for fields such as management and management consultancy, but it’s obvious that these skills would be useful for nearly any type of job.  

In addition to providing skills which are indeed vocational, arts degrees also provide an understanding of our society and culture which is extremely valuable for graduates.  Our society is advancing very rapidly at present in terms of technological innovations and cultural changes, and many people cannot process these changes fast enough. For instance, the current debate concerning cloning and genetic engineering has centered around the fact that the technological advances have proceeded at a faster rate than the public debate about them.  Much of this debate would begin in an ethics or a philosophy class of a university where people have the time to fully analyze the issues involved.   Indeed, abstracts from an upcoming philosophy conference (The Seventh Australasian Postgraduate Philosophy Conference at Melbourne University, April 14-19, 2001) reveal that presentations will be given concerning things like corporate identity and genetically modified food.  This means that arts graduates, even from a discipline like philosophy which is often considered ‘useless’, have the thinking skills to approach difficult and complex issues like this one and come up with meaningful answers for themselves for the society at large.  This is clearly a necessary skill, not a luxury.  In the 21st century when we can recognize that excessive stress diminishes people’s ability to work effectively (not to mention their quality of life) the ability to deal with stressful and complex social issues is very valuable.  A solid foundation of studies in the arts and humanities is very useful not only for specialists in those fields, but also for people working in other disciplines.  Consequently, I would strongly urge the senate to consider increasing funding to the arts and humanities and establishing them as foundational studies for many areas of study.  The arts and humanities are relatively inexpensive to fund, considering that they do not take the massive amounts of equipment and resources that many sciences require, but they do produce skilled graduates with global thinking skills and the ability to deal with difficult and complex situations.  In sum, the quality of higher education is improved by studies in the arts and humanities because of the skills these studies impart, and studies in the arts and humanities produce skilled graduates.

However, producing skilled graduates for industry is not the only function of a university.  It is also a research institution.  If universities were only vocational, there would be no difference between a university and a technical college – but there is a difference.  University graduates need to understand the theory behind what they do, not only how to do something.  Producing good quality research is becoming harder, though, because of the current push towards short-term academic posts.  This leads to a situation where many lecturers only have a post for a year or two, which is not long enough to do any major research projects.  Research is an important function of the university because of its long-term benefits – and I am not only talking about finding a cure for cancer, but also things like deciphering the dead sea scrolls, understanding the reasons for crime in a society, etc.

In addition, I would like to point out that there is undue emphasis on the administration of universities at present.  Academic staff are required to justify their positions each year by detailing their publications and other work that they have done – but there is no such requirement for administrative staff.  In fact, it seems to be considerably easier to get a job at a university in administrative capacity than it is to get an academic post at a university.  Since it is the administrative staff who effectively run the university, it’s unlikely that they will decide that their own jobs are superfluous, they are far more likely to cut an academic position.  Academics should have as much say in how the budget of the university is spent as do the administrative staff, and should have veto-power over the decisions of the administrative staff.  

Sincerely,

Annik Foreman
20 Alexander Avenue,
Oakleigh East, Victoria 3166
Tel. (03) 9544-3345