Re-organisation

I find very little in that to disagree with. Am I an exception if I am prepared to criticise? I am prepared to advocate if necessary re-organising the universities, to press them to be more useful, more economical in the use of funds, and more valuable to their students. The alternative in my view is what is happening in Britain at present.

In my Massey address I first quoted some statistics of arrivals and departures of graduates, showing that in the 1966-67 year the arrivals exceeded the graduates, with a bias towards those disciplines closest to the needs of the New Zealand economy. Criticism of these statistics was that I had deliberately selected a year which proved my point.

As it happened, I had simply asked for the latest figures, and this is what they showed. Earlier figures showed a similar pattern, although it is fair to say that the next year, 1967/68, when it became available, showed a different picture, with an inflow of people in such fields as Biology and similar sciences, and an outflow of physicists and the like.

It has been said that this outflow in more recent times arises from the disparity in salaries. I believe — although this is not capable of being proved — that it correlates better with the outflow of total population which was occurring at the same time. During he coming year we will test this, as I feel sure that our net outflow will turn into a new inflow again, as is normal. Be that as it may, there is very little in it in terms of numbers, and those who advocate a massive increase in salaries across the board would find that the total cost involved represents a very rich price to pay for the relatively small change in numbers which would fill all the vacant positions. This may nevertheless be the solution.

Before accepting it however, one must assess the difficulties that are raised through comparability of salaries with graduates in the other state services and in private industry, and this in turn raises the question of comparability between professionally qualified people and administrators.

I cannot believe that university salaries is the only field in which New Zealand should compete internationally. The kind of question that I want to have answered is:

Given this disparity in salaries, why have so many overseas people come to New Zealand universities? How is it that we have nearly doubled the number of scientific staff in government departments in a period of only ten year? Do overseas graduates come to New Zealand because they can get better promotion relative to their own quality than they can at home? Does that in turn mean that our universities are staffed by the low quality rejects from other countries, together with those New Zealand graduates who are unable to compete on the international market? I doubt whether the answer is as simple as that.

Strangely enough, the Robbins report on stalling refers to the evidence of what it calls "Persistent emigration of first-class talent overseas, not only of scientists but of arts graduates." The report refers to some of the factors involved, and observes that probably the most important single factor which leads a man of ability to seek a career abroad is the existence of good facilities and enough money for research, the availability of technical and secretarial help, and generous allowances of sabbatical leave at regular periods.

Is this then, what we should do, rather than simply increasing salaries. If this is the British view, and salaries there surely are reasonable, how does the New Zealand position compare in that respect?

I come back continually to the view that is supported by all of the available statistics, and that is that the more effort we put into producing graduates in fields closely associated with the New Zealand economy, the more likely we are to keep them. In terms of economic return, this is in my view our best investment, and none of those who have contributed to this topic have been able to deny this fact.

The real cost of our universities is too high for us to make general educational and vocational sense facilities available to students who will fail all units. The return is in no way commensurate with the cost to the economy. In the vocational sense particularly, I am convinced that many student failures at university would be successful technical institute students in some other fields, and I am quite certain that from every point of view, and particularly the point of view of the student himself, it would be better if he had been directed there in the first place.

I have also discussed the university scholarship scheme which, because a student who aims to succeed should preferably concentrate on the more mechanical subjects where he can get 100% for all correct answers, inevitably leads our top brains into the field of the physical sciences where, if they are to really get to the top, it is essential for them to proceed overseas. I believe that there is a need for a thorough review of senior secondary school courses, and that they should be either much more general or alternatively concentrate much more on the biological sciences, which are much closer to the New Zealand economy. Specialisation in these fields will give students every bit as much satisfaction as they will get from other subjects, and at the same time enable them to stay in New Zealand.

Among the many helpful comments that I have had from one end of the country to the other, one is worth quoting as typical, and I will simply quote the summary without any detail of the supporting arguments:

"While the 1967 National Research Advisory Council report on technical manpower presents figures on graduate production in various disciplines and makes projections of likely graduate production, the factors influencing the choice of subject by students are less well documented. The effect of the university scholarship examination on the choice of subjects and the lack of guidance of students is discussed, especially at university level."

This is the same point that I had made earlier.

Efforts to influence students towards areas of interest vital to New Zealand are outlined with attention directed to determining at what average age level polarisation into science or arts or within science itself occurs in New Zealand students.

"The need for forecasting the country's needs for specialists in given disciplines is mentioned, with a caution that providing students are encouraged to have a wide training, errors in forecasting need not have disastrous effects in the future. The need for prospective employers of graduates to encourage students to take degrees of benefit to the country is stressed, and as an example, short courses offered by a D.S.I.R. division are described. Such efforts help both the country and the prospective employers. The necessity for more effective student guidance is emphasised as a means of reducing the student failure rate, and the influence of the present examination system on the failure rate is examined in relation to a university elsewhere.

"It is shown that the proportion of Stage 3 students proceeding to Honours varies greatly from discipline to discipline, those subjects of greatest current relevance to New Zealand tending to advance a lower proportion of their students than subjects such as physics or mathematics. The University Grants Committee should consider ways of altering this trend by, for example, careful channelling of research funds into subject areas of likely immediate relevance to New Zealand. The universities can make some economies in the cost of graduate training, and in effect obtain an enlarged faculty by making greater use of competent professional skills outside the university for graduate training. This has the useful side effect of encouraging students towards fields of value to New Zealand. A reduction in the number of graduate schools in a subject could also affect economies, and at the same time raise standards."

I believe that attention must be given both to the movement of graduates into and out of teaching positions in the universities from industry and the public service, and also the reduction in numbers of schools. This is more easily reconciled if the concept of the residential university is accepted.

I have quoted the topics raised by this particular person as a example of the kind of thought that has been stimulated. It is no part of my thinking that I should find answers to these questions, but I do expect the University Grants Committee or some other competent authority to do it.

During the ten years from 1956-57 to 1966-67 university expenditure increased six-fold from $4.4 million to $26.8 million per annum. During the same decade primary expenditure doubled, secondary education expenditure rose by between two and three times. Student numbers increased from 8900 to 21,000 over that period, an increase of 138% but not six times.

Over a period of several years I have discussed the problem of competitive entry, whether to the university or to specific disciplines, with the Vice-Chancellor of every one of our universities. In some cases the position has changed hands since I obtained these views, but not one of those that I consulted opposed competitive entry. I cannot think that a Government in this country would act on this matter without a firm recommendation from the universities themselves, preferably expressed through the University Grants Committee, but it seems that the weight of informed opinion favours competitive entry rather than the watering-down of standards through a lack of resources.

The position that we have reached, then, is that there has been a good deal of public and private discussion of these matters, with some movement likely in the immediate future.

The committee on education, training and research of the National Development Conference has produced a confidential draft report which deals with some of these matters. The report is still to go before the final plenary session of the conference, where the demands for resources from the various sectors will be considered, and I hope co-ordinated.

After that it is for the Government to examine the recommendations to see whether they are acceptable. At the same time the committee of the Vice-Chancellors has been meeting, and proposes to hold a conference during March, 1969, at which the following topics will be discussed:

• If the failure rate is too high, how can it be reduced?

• How the average time for graduation can be shortened.

• Whether procedures beyond those already in existence are necessary to regulate the development of specific fields of study in the universities.

• Whether the particular needs of New Zealand, both as to number of type of graduates are being filled, and if not, what steps should be taken to improve the situation.

• The role of the universities in research.

• The relationship of the universities to the technical institutes.

• Teaching standards at the universities.

• Greater efficiencies in the employment of university plant and resources.

• The role of universities in continuing education.

• The university in the community.

• Consideration of the report of the Royal Commission on salary and wage-fixing procedures in the state services.

• Consideration of the future arrangements regarding the representations made on behalf of the universities concerning salary matters.

It is not often that a Minister of Finance can say that he is happy.

At this moment I am reasonably happy that the subjects which I have raised provocatively during the past two years have engaged the attention of responsible people to the extent that they are likely to take steps to see that some at least of these problems are solved.