Deans Discussion Group Meeting 6-2003
Meeting 6/2003 of the Deans Discussion Group was held at 4.00 pm on
Tuesday, 5 August 2003 in the Monash City Office, Level 11, 30 Collins
Street, Melbourne.
NOTES
1. Attendance and apologies
There were present:
Professor P LeP Darvall, Vice-Chancellor
Professor A Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning)
Ms A Crook, AO, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)
Professor G Bouma, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and
Development)
Professor S Parker, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Dean, Faculty of Law
Professor B Mackenzie, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Gippsland Campus
Professor J K Redmond, Dean, Faculty of Art and Design
Professor H Le Grand, Dean, Faculty of Arts
Professor G Palmer, Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics
Professor S Willis, Dean, Faculty of Education
Professor T Sridhar Dean, Faculty of Engineering
Professor G Gupta, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Information Technology
Professor N Saunders, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health
Sciences
Professor C Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy
Professor R Norris, Dean, Faculty of Science
Professor M King, Director, Research Graduate School
Mr T Pollock, Vice-President, International
Ms M Jackson, Executive Director, Marketing and Public Affairs
Professor S Joy, Associate Dean, Graduate Teaching, Faculty of
Business and Economics
Apologies:
Professor J Rosenberg, Dean, Faculty of Information Technology
Secretary:
Mr T Calder, Director, Secretariat and Executive Services
2. Notes
Notes of meeting 5/2003 held on 29 July 2003 were received and noted.
3. Matters arising from the Notes of meeting 5/2003
4. Strategy discussions
4.1 Graduate / Postgraduate - Professor Gill Palmer
Professor Palmer introduced the item noting that strategic
discussions in relation to Graduate/Postgraduate (GPG) programs would
need to include market demand including demographic movements and
possible shifts in demand by overseas students from undergraduate to
postgraduate programs, broad educational strategy such as the types of
GPG programs offered, the role of GPG programs at each campus and the
method of delivery offshore via partner supported programs, branding and
technology issues and pricing and efficiency of delivery.
Providing a context for the discussion, Professor Palmer referred
members to the statistical reports (Attachment 3) and highlighted the
following aspects:
- while all faculties had GPG EFTSU, The University of New South
Wales was the top provider in Australia with Monash the major provider
in Victoria closely followed by Deakin University;
- Chart 1.3 highlighted that while there was continued growth in GPG,
higher degree by research enrolments were relatively static.
Further, a consideration that needed to be borne in mind when
discussing projected growth in GPG was that most growth in
undergraduate EFTSU was via increased international student
enrolments;
- Chart 1.4 - GPG coursework enrolments funded by DEST were now
stable with both domestic and international fee-paying increasing at
similar rates;
- Chart 1.5 - comparing 1999 to 2003 by EFTSU/faculty/fund source
highlighted that while domestic fee-paying, international and DEST
load had all increased, shifts had occurred across the University such
as the decline in DEST load in the Faculty of Arts, significant growth
in international GPG and domestic fee-paying EFTSU had increased
across the board;
- Chart 1.6 - comparing 1999 to 2003 by EFTSU by campus emphasised
that while enrolments at Clayton campus had increased steadily,
numbers at Caulfield campus had increased out of proportion compared
to other campuses;
- Chart 2.1 - noting that the bottom axis should be read as
commencing in 1999 with annual increments to 2003, members queried the
basis for the plot "no qualification". Commenting that it most
likely referred to recognition of prior learning, the Vice-Chancellor
requested that a more appropriately labelled chart, with explanatory
notes, be made available to members;
- Chart 2.2 - members noted the considerable decrease in DEST funded
load for postgraduate places;
- Chart 2.3 - outlining some of the distinctive changes for selected
GPG coursework programs in the Faculty of Business and Economics at
Caulfield, Professor Palmer informed members that the MBA was static
while other programs such as the Master of Practising Accounting had
grown rapidly. Further, members were advised that there was
demand for shorter professional programs however it should be noted
that the market, over time, was quite volatile;
- Chart 2.6 - a feature of the chart was that the Faculty of
Information Technology was the major faculty to also teach students
enrolled in other faculties;
- Chart 4.1 - members noted the information relating to GPG load by
funding source;
- Chart 4.2 - members noted that enrolments of international
students in Australia accounted for the significant increase in actual
against planned fee income;
- Chart 4.3 - international students accounted for 38% of 2003 EFTSU
but brought in 47% of the 2003 revenue;
- Chart 4.4 - noting the figures used were "rough" and the Strategic
Cost Management (SCM) totals needed further refinement, members noted
that first year undergraduate enrolment numbers subsidised nearly all
other years; and
- Chart 4.5 - noting that universities always had areas/functions
that cross subsidised other activities, members were advised that it
was important to have transparent processes that identified activities
where cross subsidies occurred.
Concluding her presentation, Professor Palmer informed members that
while the rapid growth in GPG enrolments had created stresses,
particularly at Caulfield campus, the market was volatile with a
possible shrinkage in the number of undergraduate international student
numbers offset possibly by an increase in international GPG enrolments.
Other features included the importance of developing/refining a strategy
for China, Monash's largest market, the increasing pressure for short
programs and cross-over programs, technology and delivery platforms and
the need to have a well informed pricing mechanism, possibly
University-wide for GPG programs.
During discussion, members commented on a range of issues raised
during the presentation including:
Pricing
Noting that the pricing of GPG programs was an important issue, that
a paper on pricing strategies had been requested by Resources and
Finance Committee and that the Nelson Review raised a number of issues
in this area, a member noted that the costing methodology was sensitive
to how overall costs were divided in relation to the range and time of
activities undertaken by academic and general staff. Further, it
was noted that the ability to offer GPG fee-based programs was dependent
on market demand and therefore, some faculties, such as the Faculty of
Science, were not in a position to offer GPG programs due to the lack of
demand.
Noting the importance of leveraging Monash's size, it was suggested
that while cross-faculty teaching was still in its infancy, this was an
area that could be further explored.
Range of GPG programs
Members were informed that if Monash was to rationalise its range of
programs, competitors would most likely still offer similar programs and
that a reduction in programs might result in decreased linkages with
industry and the wider community. Further, members were advised
that GPG programs contributed to higher staff morale and generated
interest amongst a wide-range of staff however an issue to be considered
was whether GPG programs should be delivered on all campuses.
Concentration of GPG programs
Members were informed that the current concentration of GPG
enrolments in two faculties exposed Monash to a potential risk that
required careful monitoring particularly as the current government
policy of granting bonus points for residency to students enrolled in
Masters programs could conceivably be changed at some point in the
future. Further, a member advised that at times government policy
was adversely impacting on the educational objectives of GPG programs in
his faculty.
Oversight of GPG programs
A member suggested that improved outcomes might be achieved if an
overarching body of Graduate Program Coordinators was established to
further develop the GPG framework within Monash. In response,
members were advised that some associate deans on Education Committee
had previously rejected a similar suggestion, however, the proposal had
merit and should be considered again, particularly across the faculties
with higher GPG enrolments.
A further suggestion was that a position such as "Director - Graduate
Studies" be established to address University-wide issues including
issues relating to the "student experience".
Concluding the discussion, Professor Darvall thanked Professor Palmer
for her presentation, members for their contributions to the discussion
and suggested that a set of propositions be developed for further
consideration of the GPG issue.
4.2 Consolidation of outcomes from Strategy Discussions -
Professor Stephen Parker
Flexibility, Responsiveness and Self-Reliance
1. We need mechanisms to promote early responsiveness to changes in
the environment, market and our own strategic priorities.
Outcome - a member suggested that new courses have a probationary
period of approximately 3 to 5 years.
Issue not resolved and would need to be addressed again.
2. These mechanisms should include procedures for transferring load
in an orderly way, without provoking internal disputation or significant
early damage to any part of the university.
Outcome - as mechanisms for transferring load (see 1 above) were not
developed a member reinforced the importance of the matter noting that
the nexus between load and dollar amount, evidenced in the difficulty in
shifting load between faculties and campuses, needed to be broken in
order to facilitate future planning and responsiveness to demand.
3. We need to focus on cost containment and reduction, which will
often require the re-engineering of processes, because we cannot go on
increasing our costs at a faster rate than we increase our revenue.
This is an imperative for both faculties and service divisions.
Outcome - in response to the statement that all areas of Monash
needed to think strategically about future "investments" and the
identified need for a framework for considering/monitoring strategic
investments and initiatives, members agreed to share SCM information in
order to have comparative data.
4. A financial reserve should be created, specifically for the
purpose of assisting transitions and other strategic priorities.
Outcome - opinions varied from affirmative statements in support for
a reserve for assisting transitions and strategic priorities to a view
by others that strategic initiatives were best considered at the end of
the annual budgeting process.
Other suggestions included the need to strengthen the University's
planning functions, possibly by including a research unit to assess
future opportunities and that a business plan was required which would
then assist with prioritising areas where surpluses could be invested.
5. One possible source for this reserve is fee income, in conjunction
with cost reduction, which might be levied further for specific purposes
(eg for transitions (as above) or to support HDR students or research).
Outcome - consensus was not reached with views ranging from a
percentage being set aside giving a degree of certainty with planning to
the view that there was no need to decouple specific
activities/functions as the most important aspect was the University's
capacity to invest.
6. A working party should be established to generate specific
proposals relating to 3 to 5 above.
Outcome - proposal was not adopted.
7. We need to reduce further our dependence on the income from DEST
load.
Outcome - members agreed on the continuing strategic importance of
continuing to decrease Monash's reliance on income via DEST load.
8. We should aim to increase our tuition fees with a view to
maximising yield per student and, in conjunction with cost containment
or reduction, the "bottom line".
Outcome - members agreed with the proposal.
Pricing, Positioning and Equity
1. The working assumption is that HECS courses at the metropolitan
campuses should command a substantial premium (assuming implementation
of Backing Australia's Future).
2. The exact premium for each course should be determined according
to a set of factors to be enumerated, including market considerations,
desired positioning and national and international reaction.
3. Scholarships to reduce the premium, or even to reduce the
student's basic HECS contribution, will be necessary for equity reasons
and to maintain certain courses at certain campuses.
4. We should not make any early announcement in a blanket way about
charging any set premium.
5. We should make a credible commitment to welcoming the most
talented students, measured in ways that we determine, irrespective of
ability to pay.
6. A working party should be established to generate specific
proposals relating to 1 to 5 above.
Outcome - while a consensus view did not emerge, a number of members
suggested that Monash should set a 30% premium on all units and then
discount the premium given certain criteria such as funding for
additional scholarships.
Noting the need to address the issue of a pricing policy, it was
suggested that a subset of deans be established to work through the
range of issues raised during the discussion.
Teaching and Learning
1. We need a formal, regular teaching evaluation process which yields
reliable data for assuring quality in a timely way.
Outcome - members agreed that given the design of MonQuest, a purpose
designed teaching evaluation tool was required.
2. We should retain internationalisation of the curriculum as a high
priority.
Outcome - a consensus view was not reached.
3. Given our current circumstances, revision, rationalisation and
reduction of existing course and unit offerings ranks equally in
importance with the introduction of new courses for the contemporary
world.
Outcome - members agreed that this was an important issue however a
consensus on how to respond to the issue was not reached.
What kind of institution do we aspire to be?
1. We have tended to become a university that is all things to all
people. We need now to become more deliberate and selective.
Outcome - views tended to focus on the need for a more defined vision
statement. Members noted issues such as the need to define the
type of institution Monash aspired to be, the need to identify shifts in
disciplines etc and was it appropriate for all faculties/disciplines to
be research active and could Monash learn more from its past experiences
by studying its "peaks and troughs".
2. The Marketing Plan describes our desired positioning. We
need now to develop a series of actions which will help take us there
and record them in our strategic planning.
Outcome - members noted the need for the planning process to be
informed by the market view of Monash.
3. We need to identify all significant instances where one part of
Monash competes against another and make decisions about continuation or
change.
Outcome - noting that Monash might compete both across faculties and
internally within a faculty, Professor Parker and Professor Lindsay
agreed to consider appropriate mechanisms for identifying and resolving
issues relating to areas of internal competition.
Size
1. We should not take steps to remain Australia's largest university
simply because we are in that position at present. Rather, we
should consciously decide the balance between the right balance between
largeness and elitism for each course and business activity.
Outcome - members suggested that Monash be both large and the best in
some identified areas.
2. We should consider not expanding to the same extent as demand
expands (ie a relative contraction)
Outcome - the general view was that there was not support for a
relative contraction, however, members did support the notion that a
floor on quality must be put in place.
Balance
1. We should aim for an agreed approximate distribution between
undergraduates, coursework graduate/postgraduates and HDR students,
whether expressed in percentage terms, nominal terms or a mixture.
Outcome - a member suggested that the distribution should be tailored
"program by program" and/or "faculty by faculty".
2. We should aim to maintain a balance in the 40-60 or 60-40 range
between science and non-science disciplines (ie neither area should go
below 40%), but we need to define science and non-science for these
purposes.
Outcome - members agreed that this matter required further
consideration.
3. Desired balance between international and domestic students should be
decided on a campus-by-campus basis and faculty-by-faculty basis,
drawing on an agreed position about the student experience for each
campus and faculty.
Outcome - members agreed that this matter required further
consideration.
Off-shore delivery
1. We should not engage in this merely to "wash our face".
2. Threshold requirements for engaging in it include (a) financial
return; and (b) no damage to existing positioning and reputation.
Outcome - noting the range of the views of members, Professor Parker
suggested that this matter be reconsidered when the Deans Discussion
Group discussed the Global Development Framework.
Campuses
1. We have a significant problem.
2. Maintaining the status quo and allowing evolution and organic
development to solve it is not an option within a timeframe acceptable
to us.
3. We should not sustain all three of Berwick, Peninsula and
Gippsland as teaching campuses of Monash University, in the same
structural relationship within the University as at present.
4. We cannot over the long term maintain programs or modes of
delivery at a particular campus against the settled wishes of a faculty
when a dominant purpose is sustenance of the campus, unless there is
special government or other external support.
Outcome - these matters were not discussed at the meeting.
Student Experience
1. The desired experience for particular categories of students is an
important factor in our long term planning.
2. We should be able to describe the desired experience by reference
to criteria which include (a) the University's defining themes; (b)
graduate attributes; (c) projected recollection of the experience when
the student becomes an alumnus (including willingness to enrol in
further study); (d) a sense of belonging to a Faculty; and (e)
discipline or course-specific criteria.
Outcome - these matters were not discussed at the meeting.
5. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Deans Discussion Group will be held at 4 pm
on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 in the City Office.
The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15 pm on
Tuesday, 2 September 2003 in the Sir George Lush Room.
Distribution
Vice-Chancellor
Deputy Vice-Chancellors
Pro Vice-Chancellors
Deans
Director, Research Graduate School
Vice-President (International)
Deputy Dean, Faculty of Information Technology
Executive Director, Marketing and Public Affairs
Associate Dean, Graduate Teaching, Faculty of Business and Economics |
