Andrew Norton at Catallaxy makes an interesting addition to the debate (rendered scandal) of admitting students with lower entry cut-offs on the condition of paying full fees, as discussed in my previous post.
He believes that “…. it is not clear that admitting students on low marks is necessarily in their interests,” at the same time suggesting that arguments whipped up by the Opposition lack substance. He goes on to advocate the idea of “education brokers,” suggesting that universities carry an ethical duty to caution students of the demands of their course and prospective future.
It’s a persuasive argument, but I’m not fully convinced that that’s the issue. Should universities admit anyone as long as students show adequate performance in their tertiary studies? If there is an over-supply in places, should universities offer these to students who lack the marks as long as they can afford (no pun intended) to do so? One commentator came to this conclusion:
There are one of two strategies that can be followed. Take as many as you can, give everyone the opportunity and fail those who don’t make it. Or carefully select those who have a good, if not excellent, chance of succeeding, and have lower failure rates. I tend to support the first strategy. Most academics I’ve met prefer the second. Unfortunately, many uni’s now seem to follow the take everyone and fail no-one strategy.
I find both strategies gain foothold in the very heart of the debate as to whether education should be a right or a privilege. Yet it’s not about going one way or the other, but striking a reasonable balance between both. If we go back to an idealistic conception of education as a ‘human right’ we find an egalitarian prospect, which would however, undermine quality provisions, especially in an increasingly competitive, corporate and globalised education system.
Another issue that suddenly seems to have vanished is the idea that only wealthy students are able to gain access to places offered at lower cut-offs. As Sascha Fenton told The Australian (“Money talks as unis admit bad scholars”): “”Education should be about merit and earning your place through hard work. If you can’t get there on hard work you shouldn’t get there because you can afford to.” And that’s what renders the debate over egalitarianism so ridiculous.
