New Zealand’s Productivity Commission recently completed its report into the future of tertiary education in the country. Released rather quietly in March, the report then came back into the headlines when it was discussed last week in select committee.
A Stuff.co.nz article covering the committee’s discussion began by asking:
Just because someone wants to go to university, does that mean they’re entitled to a massive taxpayer subsidy?
The Productivity Commission doesn’t think so and neither does National MP Maurice Williamson.
Art history, ever the victim of public debate, was chosen by MP Maurice Williamson as his example to explain the report’s recommendation:
Put simply, the government would decide, for example, how many lawyers, vets, accountants or teachers it needed each year and subsidise accordingly.
Anyone falling outside of the “need” category would still have access to courses but would need to cough up the cash themselves.
Williamson broke down his argument by taking a look at art history.
His data suggests about 10,000 students took the subject at Auckland University, which he says he has no issue with but the question was whether taxpayers should fund it.
“Maybe we want 500 art historian graduates that we fund well, the next cohort moderately maybe and the last cohort is anyone who wants to can but they fund it themselves.”
The report deserves a longer response, but suffice it to say for now I think it shortsighted and disappointing. Worse—it thinks us a two-dimensional country, where students are just future workers, and professors merely employees. That higher education might have something to do with educating citizens, or determining what we in fact should value as a society, was wholly forgotten.