Flip to Text Version

Relative funding model (1991-93)

The Commonwealth Government did not start contributing directly to funding teachers and technical colleges – colleges of advance education – until its acceptance of the recommendations of the Martin Committee in 1965. When it did, it took over and then adopted funding arrangements quite different from those used for universities. So, for example, quite apart from the extra funding the Commonwealth gave universities for research, it funded the teaching of accounting by a university by a different method and at a higher level than a program leading to the same vocational outcome taught by a college of advanced education.

In 1989 under the then Minister Dawkins the Commonwealth decided to remove the institutionalised distinctions between colleges of advanced education and the 19 pre-existing universities, a policy that was symbolised by establishing the ‘unified national system’ of higher education. One of the biggest distinctions between institutions was their funding levels. The Commonwealth dealt with this in three stages.

First the Commonwealth commissioned three studies of the then current pattern of the allocation of funds within institutions. That is, the studies were not of cost drivers let alone of what should be disciplines’ funding levels, but of historical patterns of funding levels which in turn were the product of earlier government funding decisions.

The historical expenditure patterns were then analyzed and adjusted for a combination of pragmatic and principled reasons to give a relative teaching cost matrix (DEET, 1990b:13). This matrix calculates funding levels by two main factors: discipline groups and program levels. So for example, engineering is funded at a higher rate than accounting and research higher degrees is funded at a higher rate than other postgraduate and undergraduate courses.

Relative teaching cost matrix
Cluster Undergraduate weight Other postgraduate weight Research degree weight
1 1.0
Accounting
Admin/economics
Law
Other humanities
1.4
Accounting
Admin/economics
Law
Other humanities
Education
Maths/stats
Other social studies
2.0
Accounting
Admin/economics
Computing
Education
Law
Maths/stats
Nursing
Other built environment
Other health
Other humanities
Other languages
Other social studies
Visual/performing arts
2 1.3
Behavioral science
Education
Maths/stats
Other social studies
3 1.6
Computing
Nursing
Other built environment
Other health
Other languages
Visual/performing arts
1.8
Computing
Nursing
Other built environment
Other health
Other languages
Visual/performing arts
4 2.2
Engineering
Science
Surveying
3.0
Agriculture
Behavioral science
Dentistry
Engineering
Medicine
Science
Surveying
Vet. Science
4.7
Agriculture
Behavioral science
Dentistry
Engineering
Medicine
Science
Surveying
Vet. Science
5 2.7
Agriculture
Dentistry
Medicine
Vet. Science

Source: Assessment of the relative funding position of Australia’s higher education institutions, tables 3.1 and 3.2 (DEET, 1990b: 13).

So if the funding for undergraduate accounting were set at $10,000 per eftsu, undergraduate Behavioral science would be funded at $13,000 per eftsu, research accounting degrees would be funded at $20,000 and other postgraduate engineering courses would be funded at $30,000 per eftsu.