Restructuring education - 1

It is said that the debate on funding higher education in Malta seems to have taken off on the wrong foot. The statements made by the politicians of both sides, and by the student representatives in particular, are disappointing, while the experienced academic sector has been, by and large, silent.

I am apprehensive that by focusing on funding, we have lost sight of the structural trouble, and highlighted the complexity of the costs over the worth of the benefits.

The argument needs to be put in the context of national social and economic development, i.e. that higher education, and the tightly linked matters regarding research, innovation, and new business development, is as much part of the education sector as it is part of the economy.

Nonetheless, progress in schooling, higher education and research depends more on the quality of strong intellectual leadership at all levels, from pupils and teachers right up to education professionals, professors, and ministers, rather than strictly on money. Although fitting funding and possibly endowments are essential, they are not enough.

We are a nation of 400,000 people, with nearly as many of us residing elsewhere, but with few, if any, material resources and physical surroundings at risk of degradation. It is thus critical for all of us to understand that our prosperity now and in the future depends on adding value to our intellectual enterprises.

Some years ago I had called it "research for health and wealth." Since then, the University of Malta has done a marvellous job of which we should all be proud. Strictly from a quantitative point of view, the mainly undergraduate student population has increased by a whole order of magnitude (i.e. by 10) in just over a decade. Now around 2,000 new graduates with a first degree join the workforce each year. To these, we should now add another few hundreds from the sister institution at the Malta College for Arts Science and Technology (MCAST).

One hopes that it will continue to grow. Consequently, we could shortly think in terms of a competitive system for higher education or a university system rather than of a single university. There should not be any reservations by anyone in seeing these numbers of undergraduate students at the University, MCAST and other institutions increase as fast as possible. They amount to some of the most valuable "jobs" that have been created lately; an essential investment in the new "knowledge economy."

These are not semantics; they are one of the indispensable resources with which to restructure the Maltese economy towards higher value added, lower costs and higher incomes that depend on higher education and research, the resulting efficiencies and productivities.

The Finance Minister is surely aware that graduate workers pay nearly twice as much in taxes as other workers. Without them, neither St Luke's nor the new Mater Dei Hospital nor many other services that we take for granted could function. There would not be financial services, nor the electronics or the advanced information and communications technology (ICT) sector that we boast about; certainly not the six new pharmaceutical houses opening shortly, as the Prime Minister announced at Floriana on Independence Day, nor the five new ICT companies as announced by Minister Gatt a few days after.

All this is achieved despite an academic body that remains grossly underpaid, facing impoverishment on retirement, and with miserable working resources for the University and MCAST. The two are far below comparative benchmarks across the EU. If one believed national statistics, the monies are there. They do not seem to be allocated accordingly.

Admittedly, it does not come for free. In undergraduate education, thus far, there has been agreement that a "public system for higher education and research is a public obligation of the state". A national university system has to be funded according to costs incurred for students in each discipline.

At undergraduate level, there are not too many other models with which to compare. Either the state invests in it, or the students pay for all or some of it, then, get reimbursed in one way or another. The decision is essentially a political one.

Surely, costs could be decreased by bringing efficiencies into the system, such as harmonisation into three year bachelor's level programmes preceding professional or graduate education, consolidation of overlapping courses, exploiting ICT in teaching methods without losing the value of collegiality on campus, and the sharing of our relatively large overhead costs with others.

Although the mainstay of a university level education has been the connection between teaching and research, there are now many who argue that as modern universities have developed into large inclusive institutions, closely connected to economic or employment opportunities, the intimate research connection holds mostly for the graduate or postgraduate level of studies rather than for undergraduates. It just cannot be afforded any more for undergraduates. Nor is it as valuable or productive at undergraduate level as it is at the graduate and post-graduate level.

As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, very few of our undergraduate research projects have resulted in publications or patents. They are the yardsticks by which to judge the value of any academic research. The other is the progression to graduate level, research-based studies, leading to Master's or doctoral degrees. Indeed, we now must seek a large collective effort to expand the area of graduate education and research, as I said, "research for health and wealth."

Note: This is the first of three commentaries by Professor Felice. Part 2 is about"Supporting the Students and Research" and Part 3 concerns "Progress by Structural Reform."