ANU risks becoming exclusionary with entry changes
Let’s explode one myth right to begin with. Nobody I’ve spoken to really thinks the Australian National University's revamp of entry procedures is about providing new opportunities for students: they think it’s all about positioning for the future.
That’s fine. It doesn’t, however, reflect the accompanying rhetoric.
Take possibly the most innocuous change, insisting that any prospective student must have studied maths in year 12. Ignore the verbiage: this has nothing to do with academic excellence.
If the university was really worried about ensuring candidates had the skills required for brilliant tertiary study it would assess each candidate individually, weighing up their ability to profit from particular courses of study and determining their own personal capacity to make a positive contribution to society. That’s hard.
Instead the university introduced a simple, blunt, tool. No maths; no place. It’s easy. It’s also simple and stupid.
What about my schoolmate, for example, today a world-renown Cambridge history professor. He couldn’t manage to fit in studying math alongside mastering ancient Greek, Latin and history. Not good enough for the ANU? Apparently?
This is an arbitrary rule, designed to reduce numbers entering (although not too much, of course!) while providing a glossy patina of academic rigour (without the university having to do anything).
If the university really is serious about attempting to recruit the best, why not include other entry
requirements? Why not insist, for example, that every potential student speaks a foreign language?
It’s a national need; it would demonstrate academic rigour; and readily measurable. It’s also a vital skill for the modern world. Explore further, however, and you rapidly understand why the university quickly backed away from this change. Very few second or third generation children speak foreign languages. Those that do often speak Asian languages, but these are exactly the sort of people who are likely to be kept out by the sort of ‘soft’ barriers the ANU’s introducing.
These are exactly the kids who lack the sort of typical supports ‘ordinary’ Aussies might take for granted. Sport, for example. Kicking a ball around the backyard with some cousins. Being sent off to Scouts like dad. Participating in broader networks that allow individuals to embrace opportunities and shine. Can’t do that if your parents are themselves struggling to integrate.
Introducing these challenging new entry requirements sounds positive. After all, who wouldn’t admire students who’ve volunteered, excelled in sport (rowing, perhaps, or rugby) and “participated in student leadership”. They risk, however, becoming exclusionary. It’s almost as if they’ve sprung, fully formed, direct from the pages of a glossy private school brochure. Will there be room for anyone else? How about a commitment to diversity, as well?
The university’s plan offers no prospect it might use these new selection methods to begin, even
marginally, attempting to represent the broader Australian community. What guarantee is there that these new selection methods will reach out to those who otherwise might never get a chance to attend university, or is this simply not part of the whole idea? It would be terrible if the university, still a publicly funded institution, became even more of a bastion of privilege than it (already) is.
Is its new reputation to become one of not simply academic elitism, but rather its place as a finishing school for the children of wealthy parents?
I’d feel far more reassured, for example, if there were measurable objectives to recruit a certain number of children from first-generation immigrant families; disadvantaged background students; and kids from families who have never had the opportunity to attend university. These are the people for whom admission to Australia's national university might genuinely offer a really transformative opportunity; a leg-up rather than a put down.
Unfortunately, taking a chance on them also means taking a risk. Nothing the university’s said indicates any preparedness to do this. It’s just banking the profits from the safe, comfortable and predictable option.
Many years ago the medical school at Sydney university introduced a similar barrier: an interview process for prospective students. It needed, so it said, to ensure graduates would be able to ‘communicate with patients’. The immediate effect was to significantly reduce the number of (higher-scoring) children of Asian Australians. The aim wasn’t racist; the effect was. What guarantee is there that these changes will be different?
The university says it’s aiming for better results. Aren’t good school results a strong predictor of success at uni, perhaps even better than success at, say, ‘leadership’ or debating?
Sadly, these new rules seem to demonstrate little other than the boring predictability of an institution desperately attempting to halt a slide down the academic rankings.
There’s a simple way for the university to prove me wrong. Instead of accepting HSC scores and the final arbiter, it’s promised to probe the background of applicants. For the first time the ANU can ensure it properly reflects the diversity of Australia.
Will it promise to open the doors and guarantee a set proportion from non-selective public schools; of aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders; and of students hailing from a non-English speaking background? When we see these figures, we’ll know if the university really does have a commitment to opening its portals to those Australians who might otherwise be excluded from the opportunity to study.