This might kick off a series of posts on university entrance (although David Choat’s February post on open entry might be the first) as there are a lot of interesting aspects to it.

Many readers will think that NZQA sets university entrance standards (in consultation with universities of course) and they will be both right and wrong. S257 of the Education Act 1989 gives NZQA the power to set university entrance standards for those aged under 20. Universities set entrance standards for other students and the NZVCC has a good overview of the issues.

Of course, with capped funding and high demand, NZQA”s threshold is becoming increasingly meaningless. Universities are having to ration places even for those who meet NZQA”s standard – Auckland, Otago, VUW and Massey have all put in place measures to limit access to university.

So where is the government in all this? Education Act requirements were put in place on the basis that access to university was a national decision, but this is being undermined with little formal response from Ministers. Now I recognise that the government has decided to limit funding (and I’m not unhappy with that choice), but they have been largely absent from discussion on the implications of that funding restriction. It’s easy to understand why Steven Joyce hasn’t wanted to front service restrictions, but when a prominent national myth like open access to universities is involved, it does leave an opening for the Opposition (Grant Robertson is likely to exploit that for Labour).

To be fair, the government has initiated a review of university entrance via NZQA, but the horse has bolted in the interim with universities setting their own entry standards in response to excess demand. More recently, TEC has also gotten in on the act by publishing the following investment guidance for universities two weeks ago.

In a low-growth funding system, the needs of groups targeted in the TES must be prioritised. The expectation is that universities will prioritise younger learners where decisions are made in relation to managing enrolments but not at the expense of older learners from less represented groups (Māori and Pacific peoples in particular).

The text is really quite important, because it gives universities a clear signal about who should be prioritised (and that it should be on age and ethnicity) but it does it through a back-door quasi-regulatory method. Universities are not formally bound by it (yet) but will be expected to factor it into their plans. I think, given the importance of the issue, it would be better to front-foot such an initiative. Another wrinkle to all this is whether universities would be acting legally by preferencing younger over older students – they could give preference to under-represented groups legally, but young people are not under-represented in tertiary education.

I want to emphasise that I’m not necessarily against the TEC approach. It expands upon a TES theme for having more younger graduates and it is also evidence-backed – younger people tend to study full-time and complete their quals at a better rate than older students, and have an income premium over less qualified people for longer. My view is simply that the whole issue of university entrance deserves a larger, and co-ordinated, debate, even though events are forcing immediate responses on agencies and TEOs. Some of the questions worth investigating are listed below.

1. Should access be restricted?
2. If access is restricted, should it be done on age, academic performance, whether a person comes from an under-represented group or some other factor?
3. If access is effectively regulated by individual universities, what scrutiny should they face over their choices?