The Coaldrake review of higher education category standards asks whether “university” should continue to exclusively refer to institutions that teach and research (CMM December 10 2018).

Too-right it should, is the essence of responses from the Innovative Research Universities and Regional Universities Network to the review’s discussion paper.

“The title of university should remain targeted at providers that have significant education and research outcomes. The argument to alter the scope of what it means to be a university would conflate different styles of education rather than highlighting them to assist effective student choice,” the IRU asserts.

RUN agrees; “Provider Category Standards describe a ‘university’ in terms of the teaching and research it delivers and its self-accrediting status. … “RUN considers that the Australian University category should be protected. It is fit for purpose and does not require change.”

Not that this is institutional-interest, heavens no, as RUN explains: The introduction of ‘teaching-only universities’ would, in effect, be a return to the binary system of higher education which Australia rejected decades ago. A two-tier system would fuel the perception of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior higher education providers and run the risk that the regions would be dominated by teaching-only education provision.”

The IRU provides its usual policy-dense analysis of the issues (if the UN ever wants an independent governance review, IRU could do it) focusing on how the existing provider standards can be refined. And it warns the review against addressing the wrong issue;

“There is a constant concern from some that the “university” category somehow disadvantages unfairly other providers. The argument is in reality about access to Australian Government funding. Funding follows government policy and political need. The review is not tasked to consider funding issues. It should not allow funding issues to shadow its outcomes.”

And it urges other HE providers to build their own products; “The non-university higher education providers should not be a pale version of a university. They do not need to hide under a familiar term, they need to establish their own offering.”

If they do, IRU suggests they could get an exclusive provider-title of their own; “to prevent others using the same term,” and even self-accrediting powers, “a signifier of the providers’ standing and capabilities.”