EDITORIAL: Regarding Victoria University, Expansion Should Not Be A Regulatory Offence
At the heart of the Victoria University pharmacy course controversy lies a simple question: should a university be judged by an old enrolment quota or by its actual capacity to train students effectively?
Numbers alone do not determine quality. Facilities do.
If a university has invested heavily in modern laboratories, specialised equipment, qualified academic staff, clinical training partnerships and expanded infrastructure, then regulators should assess whether those resources are adequate for the number of students being trained. A cap fixed years ago should not become a permanent ceiling regardless of subsequent investments and growth.
Victoria University’s supporters argue that this is precisely the issue being ignored. The institution has reportedly spent substantial sums establishing pharmacy laboratories, recruiting staff and creating a learning environment capable of accommodating a larger student population. If that investment has genuinely expanded capacity, then the logical regulatory response should be inspection and verification, not automatic restriction.
Equally important is the university’s teaching model. The pharmacy programme is not conducted with all students squeezed into a single lecture room or laboratory at the same time. Students are distributed across day and evening sessions, with class sizes managed to minimise overcrowding and maintain effective practical instruction. Capacity, therefore, cannot be measured simply by looking at total enrolment figures in isolation.
The purpose of regulation should be to answer a straightforward question: can the institution provide quality education to every student it admits?
If the answer is yes, then growth should be encouraged, especially in a country that continues to face shortages of healthcare professionals. If the answer is no, regulators should identify the deficiencies and require corrective action.
What should matter is not whether a university has 50 students, 250 students or 900 students. What should matter is whether those students have sufficient access to lecturers, laboratory space, equipment, clinical placements and academic support.
A university that builds additional capacity should not be trapped indefinitely by historical limits that no longer reflect reality. Otherwise, institutions are effectively punished for investing in expansion and innovation.
The real issue is quality assurance, not numerical quotas. Regulators should inspect facilities, evaluate staffing ratios, verify learning outcomes and assess student experiences. Those objective measures provide a far more accurate picture of educational quality than enrolment figures alone.
If Victoria University has the infrastructure, personnel and systems to accommodate larger numbers without compromising standards, then the question is not why it enrolled more students.
The question is why its expanded capacity has not been fairly and promptly assessed.
