Is open entry to New Zealand universities a human right or a

utopian ideal past its use-by date?

Professor Nigel Healey

Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Canterbury

Recent newspaper headlines

Open University Entry for Over-20s Ending An End to Open Entry at Universities? Massey Shuts Door! SIT Shuts Gate! We Need an Open Debate about Open Entry Another Nail in the Coffin for Open Entry

“More than half of New Zealand’s university campuses have effectively closed off second semester entry and are moving towards limited entry next year. By turning away from open entry, a system that gave all suitably qualified New Zealanders a fair go, this year marks a sad turning point away from this cornerstone of our tertiary education system” (NZUSA Co-President David Do)

Overview

Why publicly subsidise higher education? Why allow open entry to university? A brief history of university entry in New Zealand The performance of New Zealand universities The financial challenges post-GFC The future of open entry

While publicly subsidise higher education?

Investment in (higher) education increases productivity and promotes economic growth – especially in a knowledge economy

Higher education transforms the life chances of those educated – promotes social harmony

The gains to society of an educated population exceed those to the educated individuals (through higher productivity and earnings) – there are positive ‘spillover effects’

…and the orthodox policy prescriptions which follow

Countries should aim to increase overall participation rates in higher education

Policy should focus on raising the participation rates of socially disadvantaged or under-represented groups – ‘social inclusion’, ‘widening access’

Governments should provide (at below cost) or subsidise higher education to ensure optimal take-up Such support may be targeted at subjects where the positive

spillovers are highest (eg, teacher training)… …or at lower income groups who are less able/willing to fund

an investment in higher education

Why allow open-entry to university? (1)

“Open entry” means the automatic right to enter by virtue of qualifications (UE) or age

Competitive selection “rigs” entry in favour of higher socio-economic groups “Rite of passage” for middle-class children; entrenches social

inequalities Regressive redistribution of income from poor to rich “Open access is a cornerstone of our tertiary education system.

Any moves away from this will threaten participation by most of the population into tertiary education” (David Do, NZUSA Co-President)

Why allow open-entry to university? (2)

High school performance is a poor predictor of university performance

Take level 3 NCEA scores and award 4 for Excellent 3 for Merit 2 for Achieved Use only best 80 credits (max score 320)

Compare with Grade Point Average (GPA) at end of first year A+ = 9, C- = 1, D = 0, E = -1

NCEA scores vs first year GPA (2009) (source: Sampson & Broght, 2010)

Type II error

Type I error

Age is a better predictor of future academic performance

Full time Number Pass rate GPA

18-19 (with UE) 1,922 82% 4.2

20-24 344 52% 2.0

25-29 133 70% 3.3

30+ 175 79% 4.1

UC First Year Students in 2009

A history of university entry in New Zealand (1)

UC accepted “unmatriculated” students since it began in 1873

University of New Zealand: “the Entrance or Matriculation Examination has been a 'standard' examination given by the University to make certain that its entrants are ready, in its opinion, to pass into the University“ (NZCER, 1935) 

Government required NZ universities to admit returning servicemen after WWI without entrance examination

A history of university entry in New Zealand (2)

Progressive education movement 1930s-1950s C E Beeby

“the architect of our modern education system” Director of NZ Council for Education Research 1935-39 Director of Education , 1940-60

Peter Fraser Minister of Education 1935-40 Prime Minister 1940-49 “every person, whatever his level of academic ability, whether he be

rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right, as a citizen, to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted and to the fullest extent of his powers” (speech in 1939)

A history of university entry in New Zealand (3)

Unmatriculated students could be admitted at the University’s discretion (“provisional admission” ) first at 30+, then 21+, finally 20+

1989 Education Act Paved the way for introduction of domestic tuition fees ($1,250 in

1991), previously nominal $300 Domestic tuition fees set at 25% of total cost of tuition Increased by average 13% pa throughout 1990s Made entry at 20+ a right (no univ. discretion) New “driver’s test” principle:

“come and have a go, if you think you’re smart enough”

1989 Education Act

Para. 224 2. a) a person is eligible to be enrolled as a student at any institution…if

the person is a domestic student [and] 2. b) the person holds the minimum entry qualifications for the course

determined by the council (as defined by the NZ Qualifications Authority (under para. 257)

3. Sub-para. 2. b) does not apply to a person…[who] has attained the age of 20 years

5. Where the council of an institution is satisfied that it is necessary to do so [it…] may determine the maximum number of students who may be enrolled in a particular course

9. No foreign student…shall be enrolled at an institution if the student's enrolment at the institution would have the effect that a domestic student…would not be able to be enrolled

The story so far

The case for publicly subsidised higher education turns on the positive spillovers for society of having educated, productive and engaged citizens

The case for open entry is that it gives everyone, regardless of social background, a chance to succeed?

So: How is New Zealand’s university system performing? And what is the problem with maintaining open entry?

Proportion of 25-64 year olds who have studied at tertiary level

Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2010

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 -

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

New ZealandOECD

New Zealand university participation rates by age group and ethnicity, 2009

Source: Ministry of Education

Pakeha 18-19 Pakeha 20-24 Maori 18-19 Maori 20-24 Pasifika 18-19 Pasifika 20-24 Asian 18-19 Asian 20-240.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

New Zealand university participation rates by ethnicity (% population 15 years+ enrolled)

Source: Ministry of Education

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

PakehaMaoriPasifikaAsian

So how is the university sector performing and what is the problem?

New Zealand has 4th highest tertiary participation rate in OECD (after Canada, Japan and US)

Although there are differences in participation rates between ethnic groups, rates are trending up

But growing participation and social inclusion increases the cost to the taxpayer of higher education Giving everyone a “fair go” wastes resources Post-GFC, the government’s ability to fund higher

education is significantly constrained

The cost of the NZ tertiary system ($m)

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Student loansTuition subsidiesStudent allowances

Source: Ministry of Education

Direct government funding to universities

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Total Government FundingEFTS Vote

Source: Ministry of Education

Increased funding has price and quantity dimensions

Source: Ministry of Education

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008100,000

102,000

104,000

106,000

108,000

110,000

112,000

114,000

Funded EFTS

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

Government Funding/EFTS

Giving everyone a “fair go” necessarily wastes resources

Although it is hard to predict in advance how an individual student will perform, with open entry a significant proportion will fail

Open entry is a “fair go” to succeed or fail Resources are genuinely wasted if:

Failing students do not learn anything They could otherwise have been working or learning a

vocational trade Their self-esteem and confidence is damaged by failing

“Ghost students” – unintended product of open entry, liberal progression standards and student loans

Illustrative academic progression policies

The University of Auckland Satisfactory progress: a student is required to attain a Grade

Point Average of at least 0.8 in the last two semesters in which they were enrolled.

http://www.calendar.auckland.ac.nz/regulations/academic/enrolment-and-programme.html

Victoria University of Wellington Satisfactory progress: passing at least half the number of

points attempted in the last two consecutive trimesters of study, or passing at least 36 points in the most recent trimester.

http://policy.vuw.ac.nz/Amphora!~~policy.vuw.ac.nz~POLICY~000000000900.pdf

Eight year qualification completion rates for domestic students

Source: Ministry of Education

Bachelors Graduate cert./ dip.

Honours/PG cert./dip.

Masters Doctorates Total0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2000-20072001-20082002-2009

Eight year qualification completion rates for all students (bachelors and above)

Source: Ministry of Education

2000-2007 2001-2008 2002-20090%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Male DomesticFemale DomesticTotal DomesticInternational

Comparative bachelor’s degree completion rates (five years)

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Japa

n

New Z

eala

nd

Norway

Unite

d Kin

gdom

OECD a

vera

ge0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Completion Rates (at least 5A/5B Programme)Left Without Tertiary Qualification

Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2009

Proportion of students who leave without at least a first tertiary degree

Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2009

Italy

1

United St

ates 2

New Ze

aland

Hungary

Mex

ico

Esto

nia

United Kingd

omPolan

d

Slove

nia

Norway

Czech

Republic

1

Portuga

l

Swed

en

Icelan

d

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Switz

erlan

d 1

Austria

1

Netherl

ands

Australi

a 1

Finlan

d

Canad

a (Queb

ec)

German

y

Russian

Federa

tion

France

Belgium (F

l.)

Denmark

2Jap

an0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

OECDaverage

Constrained capacity to fund higher education: government debt projections post-GFC

Source: The Treasury's Long-term Fiscal Statement

How can the Government spend less on higher education?

Plan A: Investment Plans 2008 Set EFTS funding cap per institution Drawbacks:

With open entry, universities can’t prevent becoming over-enrolled

Public expenditure on student allowances and loans demand-driven and goes over-budget

Worst of all worlds – public spending still uncontrolled and universities underfunded

How else can the Government spend less on higher education?

Plan B: have you cake and eat it (2010) Retain open entry to give everyone a fair go, but drive

underperforming students out of the system more quickly by: Penalising institutions for exceeding their enrolment caps Penalising institutions for low course / qualification / progression

rates Denying underperforming students loans

Keep open entry, have fewer all-years EFTS in universities and (in principle) graduate the same number of students

The UC response (1)

Retain open access Tighter progression standards to:

Weed out weak students Encourage underperforming students to work harder, seek

support

New rules (approved November 2009): Can take a course only twice (three times with Dean’s

approval) Risk of exclusion after two successive semesters of a GPA

below 1.5

The UC response (2)

Retain open access but… Remember relatively poor performance of 20-24 year

olds (52% vs 82% for school leavers and 70% for 25-29 year olds)?

Case for reintroducing some form of entrance examination to ensure that 20-24 year olds are ready for university study

Challenges for universities

If open entry is to be retained, universities need to fundamentally reshape infrastructure and organisational culture to ensure: Students understand the consequences of failing Weak students are identified and monitored Pro-active support is in place for those willing and able to

succeed

Such changes are a challenge to the business model Large, unsupported entry-level classes cross-subsidise small

advanced classes and research Staff may resist reallocation of resources towards level 100

and retention services

A final complication…

Although it appears to violate the 1989 Education Act, a simpler response by universities is to limit open entry by selecting on basis of NCEA results

Action by several universities to adopt selective entry creates strong prisoner’s dilemma issues…

...open entry universities may find standard of entrants falling, forcing them into a vicious circle (lower entrants, higher retention costs) or (more likely) to adopt selection

Conclusions

Open entry has been a feature of New Zealand universities since the 1920s

It has contributed to amongst the highest participation rates in the world…

…coupled with relatively low completion rates Faced with funding pressures, the Government is seeking to

reduce “waste” in higher education, by excluding poor performing students while maintaining open entry

While UC remains committed to open entry, there is a risk that the Government's strategy may be derailed by growing use of selectivity at entry level