Australian Universities as Degree Mills: The Rise of “Dollar Degrees” and the Erosion of Academic Integrity, By Professor X

Australia's universities, once celebrated for their academic rigour, are increasingly criticised for churning out "dollar degrees," qualifications that choose profit over quality, particularly for international students. A July 2025 report by Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA) highlighted a stark disconnect between graduate skills and employer needs, with up to 90% of engineering and IT graduates deemed "unsuitable" for jobs despite their technical qualifications. This critique, echoed by industry leaders and students alike, points to a systemic issue: universities have become degree mills, driven by the lucrative international student market, which accounts for 46% of enrolments. The resulting "water degrees," as Chinese students call them, lack substance, foster cheating, and undermine academic integrity. This essay explores how Australia's higher education system has opted for profit over quality, the role of international student demand in perpetuating this cycle, and why cheating thrives in a system devoid of genuine educational value.

The term "dollar degrees" encapsulates the commodification of Australian higher education, where universities value revenue from international student fees over academic standards. Australia hosts the world's highest proportion of international students, with 46% of university enrolments coming from overseas, predominantly from China and South Asia. Tuition fees for international students, averaging $30,000-$45,000 annually for engineering programs, generate billions for universities. This financial dependence has transformed institutions into "degree factories," as a conservative think-tank warned in August 2024, accusing them of diluting standards through group assignments, "woke" teaching, and lax oversight of cheating.

Chinese students at prestigious institutions like the University of Sydney and Melbourne University have labelled Australian degrees "shui shuo" or "water degrees," implying low academic value and easy attainment. Yuzhe Zhou, a Sydney University student, noted that Chinese employers view these degrees as prestigious but lacking substance due to shorter durations and perceived leniency. This perception is even harsher for second-tier universities, which attract South Asian students primarily seeking work rights and permanent residency pathways, not quality education. The IDP Emerging Futures survey confirms that 52% of international students prioritise post-study work rights and 43% value permanent residency pathways over academic quality. Universities, aware of this, tailor programs to maximise enrolment rather than rigour, offering credentials that serve as immigration tickets rather than proof of competence.

The JSA's findings underscore the consequences of this profit-driven model. Commissioner Barney Glover reported that employers find 70-90% of engineering and IT graduates "unsuitable" due to deficiencies in employability skills like communication, leadership, and practical experience. Jodie Trembath of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) noted that some graduates lack basic school-level English and STEM proficiency, pointing to a failure in both pre-university and higher education systems. Engineers Australia's Katherine Richards highlighted that while migrants, including international students, comprise nearly two-thirds of the engineering workforce, they often lack local experience or professional networks, further hampering employability.

Despite Australia's global reputation for engineering education, with six providers ranked in the top 100 for engineering and technology (QS World University Rankings 2025), the focus on theoretical training over practical skills leaves graduates unprepared. Glover advocates for "blended" degrees combining theory with vocational training, but universities resist, as such reforms could deter international students who value quick, low-effort credentials. The Times Higher Education Rankings 2025 note that top universities like UNSW Sydney and Monash University excel in research and industry collaboration, yet employer surveys reveal a persistent gap in "work-ready" skills. This mismatch suggests that universities value revenue-generating enrolments over producing graduates who meet industry needs.

In a system where degrees are treated as commodities, academic integrity becomes a casualty. Posts on X from April 2025 report academics' frustration with universities passing international students with "incomprehensible" English or AI-assisted assignments, driven by pressure from university managers to maintain enrolment numbers. A conservative think-tank warned that such practices are "dumbing down the entire nation" and putting lives at risk, particularly in fields like engineering where competence is critical. The University of Sydney's 2025 report on Chinese student employability notes that lax academic standards and insufficient career preparation exacerbate these issues, with students relying on ghost writing or AI to pass courses.

Cheating thrives because the system lacks integrity at its core. When universities prioritise throughput over quality, students, particularly those focused on immigration outcomes, have little incentive to engage deeply. The 2024 Australian article cited in X posts reported that universities overlook plagiarism and substandard work to keep international students enrolled, as they generate significant revenue. This creates a vicious cycle: students cheat to obtain degrees of questionable value, while universities turn a blind eye to maintain their business model. The philosophical principle of integrity, as articulated by ethicist Bernard Williams, demands consistency between actions and values. Australian universities, by choosing profit over education, betray this principle, fostering a culture where cheating is not just tolerated but enabled.

International students, particularly from South Asia and China, are both victims and contributors to this system. South Asian students, as noted in the Macrobusiness article, dominate enrolment growth, drawn by Australia's easy work rights and permanent residency pathways like the Skilled Independent Visa (subclass 189). The 2025 IDP survey confirms that immigration prospects, not education quality, drive their choices. Chinese students, meanwhile, face diminishing returns on Australian degrees in their home market, where employers rank grades and internships over foreign credentials. The University of Sydney's report highlights that Australian universities fail to equip these students with the soft skills, networking, interviewing, needed for competitive job markets, further devaluing their degrees.

This dynamic exploits international students, who pay exorbitant fees (e.g., $47,000-$53,000 for engineering at the University of Sydney) for qualifications that often fail to deliver promised career outcomes. The Australian Financial Review reported Chinese students' perceptions of Australian degrees as "low quality," yet universities continue to market them aggressively, leveraging Australia's reputation as a top study destination. This misalignment between student expectations and outcomes reflects a utilitarian failure: universities maximise short-term profit at the expense of long-term student and societal benefit.

Restoring academic integrity requires dismantling the degree mill model. First, universities must align curricula with industry needs, as Glover suggests, by integrating vocational training and soft skills development. Programs like UNSW's Professional Engagement Program and Deakin's industry internships show promise but need broader adoption. Second, stricter oversight of academic standards, including penalties for cheating, must be enforced, as recommended by academics cited in X posts. Third, reducing reliance on international student revenue, perhaps through government funding reforms, could incentivise quality over quantity. Finally, transparency in graduate outcomes, such as publishing employment rates by program, would hold universities accountable.

Philosophically, this crisis demands a return to the principles of education as a public good, as John Dewey argued, rather than a commodity. The current system, driven by market logic, treats students as customers and degrees as products, eroding the intrinsic value of learning. By choosing profit over truth, universities betray their mission to foster critical thinking and societal progress. Shame on them!

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/07/aussie-universities-sell-rubbish-degrees-to-the-world/