University of Canterbury Vice-Chancellor Rod Carr has a challenging article in yesterday’s Press (not online, but UC sent us a copy, where he questions the continuation of New Zealand’s distinctive policy of open entry to universities for adult students.

I thought it might be worth taking a step back and having a look at the issue with a bit of an historical perspective.

A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of working with Norman Kingsbury on a strategic view of student “pathways and staircasing” for the Tertiary Education Commission. The report we produced (which represented our views and not necessarily the government’s or TEC’s) can still be found on their website.

Anyway, we covered the issue of open entry and included a bit of background on the issue, which I’ll excerpt here:

The tradition of open entry for adult students has a long history in New Zealand. It can be traced back to the end of the First World War, when ex-serviceman were allowed entrance to university without examination. This was later extended to all adults over 30, and the age was subsequently lowered to 21 and then 20.

This policy has not been without controversy, although it has proved to be “a difficult concept for either government or universities to cast away” [Butterworth & Tarling]. The Hughes Parry Committee of 1959 (which led to the break-up of the University of New Zealand) cautioned against over-generous use of provisional admission (as the practice was known) but concluded that, rather than recommend restrictions, “we prefer to seek ways of improving the performance of those who fail in order to convert their failure into success.”

Though moderated by increased use of selection for particular programmes, particularly in the professions, open entry has continued as a feature of New Zealand’s tertiary education system through the Learning for Life reforms (which gave it its present legislative expression) and into the present day.

The most recent [as at 2006] debate on open entry, at least insofar as it relates to degrees, was initiated by the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (TEAC) of 2000-01 (which led to the establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission). The Tertiary Education Advisory Commission advocated the introduction of relatively extensive rationing by merit of all under-graduate degree places… This proposal was not accepted by the government, however. The Cabinet paper setting out its response to TEAC’s recommendations on funding noted parenthetically, “The TEAC recommendation of a merit-entry test to under-graduate degrees was extremely unpopular amongst those who submitted comments on the fourth TEAC report, and is not suggested as part of the integrated funding framework.”

The report also went on to argue that open entry for adult students “is likely to be an important part of the explanation why New Zealand’s approach to other aspects of admission and selection is less regulated than in other countries.” (For those interested in reading further, it’s on pages 32-34 of the report.)

It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows Norman and his passionate belief in equity and access that the review came down strongly in favour of retaining open entry. Maybe the issues and circumstances have changed decisively in the last four years, but I’m not convinced of that.

More than that, though, I hope that any decisions about changing or ending New Zealand’s open entry tradition are not done in an “amnesiac” manner, without seeking to understand the role the provision has played and how it fits into our wider system. There have been a few too many haphazard changes made that way recently.