As of this morning eight universities are offering 43 ‘undergraduate certificates’ in the government’s university short courses program. Last week I outlined the then multiple legal and funding difficulties of ‘undergraduate certificates’.
But as I was writing that blog post a band aid legal fix was being applied. Undergraduate certificates have been temporarily added to the Australian Qualifications Framework. They can be awarded between this month and December 2021. This gets universities, and the Department, which otherwise lacked legal authority to pay Commonwealth Grant Scheme or HELP money to universities, off the legal hook.
Apart from highlighting AQF governance weaknesses – it is just an agreement between education ministers – this leaves the question of what happens to undergraduate certificates after December 2021.
The links between short courses and qualifications
In answering this question we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper. The AQF recently had a major review, which reported in October last year. The review was sympathetic, as I am in general, to helping students build towards a credential. Students don’t necessarily want or need a formal qualification, but where they do we should, where we can do so efficiently with low integrity risks, help them achieve their goals incrementally and cost effectively.
In line with this objective, the AQF review recommended better processes for aligning short courses and microcredentials to AQF qualifications where education providers want to do this. Undergraduate certificate subjects are already aligned with an AQF qualification, as they are part of longer courses leading to diplomas or bachelor degrees.
But the review did not recommend an ‘undergraduate certificate’, which is half as long as a diploma, the shortest undergraduate qualification before late last week. Indeed, so far as I am aware, no six-month undergraduate qualification had been proposed before Easter Sunday 2020.
There can be value in taking subjects without finishing a qualification (a Grattan report I worked on found benefits from incomplete bachelor degrees, for example). But a qualification should be more than the sum of its parts. It should provide some cumulative, coherent body of knowledge and skills. Students deepen their understanding of a topic if they also see how it connects to other topics related to it by discipline, occupation or problem.
This is possible in a six month graduate certificate, the most common short course being offered. Many graduate certificates are related to qualifications or jobs the students already have (or did have, for those who recently lost their jobs). I am less convinced that people new to higher education or a discipline can, in four subjects over six months, acquire a body of knowledge that is substantial enough to warrant a higher education qualification.
Qualifications and employment
For employers, a qualification has information value. It quickly tells them who is likely to possess the bundle of skills and knowledge that they want, as well as giving other signals: that the person was intelligent enough to get admitted to university in the first place, is persistent and organised enough to complete the degree, and so on. Protecting this information value is one reason for regulating certain qualification titles.
While new qualifications are sometimes desirable, it takes time for employers to understand what they mean. A new qualification won’t, initially at least, necessarily have much value for job seekers if employers don’t understand it. It might even be a negative – why did they do this course, when established courses already do much the same thing?
If we want students to train or retrain for work, which was the original objective of the short course policy, we should encourage them to take full AQF courses that are designed as a coherent whole and are already understood by employers. This is one reason why funding legislation is biased towards subjects that are taught within qualifications.
‘Undergraduate certificates’ that nobody had heard of until very recently, and which look to have been quickly created by universities with little time for checking with occupational regulators, professional bodies or employers, could be selling students false hope.
From a broader public policy perspective, other issues also need considering. As the AQF review noted, the qualification systems is referenced in many pieces of legislation and legal rules – about 100 as of today on the Commonwealth’s statute books, 33 in Victorian law, and presumably similar numbers in other states. It is in industrial awards, in private systems of occupational and professional accreditation, and internal rules of education providers. There should be consultation and careful checking for unintended consequences.
There are also potential omissions where the AQF is not directly used but specific qualifications are mentioned in legal instruments. This is the case for the student income support system. A student who enrols in an ‘undergraduate certificate’ is not eligible for income support, but a student who enrols in a diploma can receive benefits.
When the government removed sub-bachelor courses from the demand driven system it specifically named diplomas and associate degrees as not being eligible. Although the government is trying to blur the funding distinctions between qualification levels, this means that funding for undergraduate certificates comes out of the ‘non-designated’ funding that was until last Friday exclusively for bachelor degree courses, rather than the ‘designated’ funding for diplomas, associate degrees, graduate certificates and other postgraduate coursework degrees.
Another important issue is potential duplication of and confusion with vocational education certificates. Some of the undergraduate certificates are in fields, such as aged or disability care and early childhood education, in which vocational education is strong. Someone who wants a quick entry to one of these fields is likely to be better off with a vocational certificate, unless they are aiming for a diploma or above higher education qualification. It would be bad if students enrolled in a undergraduate certificate thinking that it was the same thing as the vocational certificates they already knew about.
The intentions in creating these short courses were good. Helping people find ways back into work is a responsibility of the education system as a whole. But messing with the qualifications system, which helps get students, education providers, employers and regulators on the same, and hopefully the right, page is not something that should be done without careful consideration.
We have some well thought-through recommendations from the AQF Review, and we should start with these in deciding where to go next. I would be surprised if education ministers decided that an ‘undergraduate certificate’ should be a long-term part of the qualifications framework.
5 thoughts on “Should ‘undergraduate certificates’ be added permanently to the AQF?”
Hi Andrew, thanks for this.
Yes this is all bit of a surprise…. and, who knows, the undergraduate certificate *may* have some upside. For example, I have long thought that an ‘exit qualification’ related to the first year of the bachelor degree would save non-completers from leaving with “just credit” – credit tends to expire, and very few people ever acknowledge they have credit towards an incomplete qualification on their CV, because it may look like you don’t “stick at it” when things get tough (we know there a million good reasons people don’t finish quals). So, if the UC can be that certificate that at least gives exiting students “something”, and also if they then do not count as attritting (?!), that may be interesting.
There may well be other benefits that I have not yet thought of…Even so, like you this all seems to be a slightly panicked response to the crisis (noting the UC is legal now until the end of 2021). I am all for innovation but we don’t usually see so little consultation on issues of this importance – and it is always worth hearing what broad groups of stakeholders have to say, because none of us (even education ministers) can see the whole elephant.
Nevertheless it will be interesting to see where this goes. I do applaud the cheaper Grad Certs as pathways to Masters. However, in both UCs and GCs, I fail to see the need for FULL-TIME study. We know that most mature domestic learners in this country study part-time and often online. If you are a displaced worker, you will want/need to be working again asap. Full-time study won’t fit…so what happens then – must you drop out of your course? As you know, I am also very concerned about stressed learners signing up for their first (UC) experience, some admission criteria being really wide open (for several, you have to be more than 17 years old, that’s it), and then you in the deep end: studying full-time an online…I am not sure this is necessarily designing for student success.
Micro credentials are part of broader political and economic moves to atomise work, that in Australia were started with attempts to fragment vocational education training packages into skills sets. Micro credentials facilitate the gig economy – employers employing workers short term on piece rates for specific tasks rather than employ workers full time permanently.
I don’t know the history of skills sets, but the ABS work-related training surveys have always shown that short, non-credentialed courses have always been more common than qualifications (though both have declined in recent years) past the initial occupational entry point in the late teens and early 20s. This is as we would expect as jobs evolve; it is not in anyone’s interests, other than those of education providers, to spend time and money on full qualifications that are not needed.
I see microcredentials as in-between, in the sense that they can possibly be incorporated into a formal qualification and, if they end up being recognised in specific occupations or industries, might make it easier for workers to move between jobs. I see them mainly competing with other less-comprehensive forms of education rather than full qualifications for the main customer base of people adding to their existing skills for their current job, not ‘gig economy’ jobs which mostly don’t seem to require credentials beyond tick-a-box compliance Cert courses (eg responsible service of alcohol).
Skills sets were developed specifically to fragment training packages (Mills, Bowman, Crean and Ranshaw, 2012: 10), which themselves are not very long.
An example is the certificate IV in training and assessment, which was fragmented into a skills set for ‘trainer’ and a separate skills set for ‘assessor’ (Misko, 2010: 50) so that registered training organisations could employ less qualified people just to train since they were not ‘needed’ to conduct assessment. When someone needs assessment the employer can employ a consultant to do the assessment.
Mills, John, Bowman, Kaye, Crean, David and Ranshaw, Danielle (2012) Workforce skills development and engagement in training through skill sets: literature review, National Centre for Vocational Education and research, Adelaide, retrieved 9 April 2017 from
Misko, Josie (2010) Responding to changing skill demands: Training packages and accredited courses.
[…] issues of interest are that the ‘undergraduate certificate’ did not exist in the AQF and as explained by Professor Andrew Norton it was hastily legitimated by an AQF addendum, presumably by jurisdictional […]