Why rigid credit rules, inflexible delivery and thin support are stranding students, and what to do about it now
Australian higher education has a growing cohort of students who are close to finishing but stuck. Their stories share a familiar pattern: a degree that only runs core units on campus during business hours, a full-time job that cannot bend to daytime classes, restrictive credit caps that block a move to a more flexible university, limited or no recognition of prior learning for core units, and a support apparatus that routes pleas for help to call centres that can acknowledge the problem but not solve it. The result is perverse. A student who is 85 per cent complete faces quitting a good job to finish four units, or walking away with a large HELP debt and no credential. It is rational to be angry. It is also important to be strategic.
This article sets out, first, why these dead ends are permitted by today’s rules; second, the immediate pathways families can pursue to unlock remaining study without detonating careers; and third, the policy and institutional fixes that would prevent similar stalemates in the future. The aim is practical: help one student finish now, while arguing for a system that does not repeatedly manufacture the same problem.
How the system creates rational stalemates
Universities are given wide discretion to set course rules, delivery modes and residency requirements. Most institutions cap credit transfer at around 50 per cent for bachelor’s degrees and require a defined proportion of the program, often the final year, capstone subjects or core major units, to be completed “in residence.” Even when other universities teach equivalent units online or after hours, the residency rule means a near-completer cannot simply finish elsewhere and transfer back a final tranche of credit. Recognition of prior learning is possible in principle, but in practice it is rarely applied to core academic units, especially where the learning outcomes include discipline theory, research methods, or accreditation requirements. Work experience, however rich, does not map neatly to those academic outcomes, and providers will not risk dilution of academic standards or professional recognition.
Delivery choices compound the bind. Many schools concentrate final-year and capstone units in daytime blocks that suit staff timetables, facilities and on-campus pedagogy. Some programs have moved to blended or recorded delivery; others have not, and there is no national rule that forces the issue. Student support obligations exist, but they are framed at a high level. Institutions must provide access to support; they are not required to grant individual timetable exceptions, redesign delivery, or waive residency to accommodate employment. The system is doing what it was designed to do: preserve academic integrity and institutional autonomy. The lived experience is that a small set of design decisions, credit caps, residency, and delivery hours, can lock a near-completer out of completion unless they quit work.
A near-completer’s reality, clearly stated
Consider a student who has completed 24 of 28 units in a bachelor’s program. The remaining four are offered only on campus, mid-day, and must be taken in sequence across two terms. The student has advanced in a well-paid role that runs standard business hours and cannot be flexed for a full semester of daytime classes, let alone two. Transferring to a new university yields at most 50 per cent credit; switching programs risks losing years of progress; recognition of prior learning is rejected for core units; and the support centre can only confirm policies, not bend them. The rational economic choice is to hold the job and abandon the degree. The rational human response is frustration and a sense of injustice.
What families can do now: a tactical pathway to completion
The most productive move is to escalate beyond the call centre and frame the request as a tightly argued, one-page case for completion. The audience is the people with discretion: the program director, the head of school, the faculty’s associate dean for teaching and learning, and, where needed, the academic registrar. The message should be respectful, evidence-based and specific. It should state the units outstanding, the delivery constraint, the student’s current professional responsibilities, and the proposed pathway that preserves learning outcomes and assessment integrity while removing the attendance barrier.
A strong case asks for concrete, bounded accommodations. One approach is supervised substitution: replace one scheduled unit with an equivalent unit at the same university that is taught online or after hours, with the program director certifying the equivalence of learning outcomes. A second approach is cross-institutional enrolment with pre-approval: complete a matching unit online at another Australian university in the same study period, with formal advance assurance that the credit will be applied to the home degree. A third approach is an individually supervised studies option: an agreed unit outline that uses the same readings, learning outcomes and assessments but allows attendance flexibility through recorded lectures, scheduled evening seminars, and on-campus assessments outside core business hours. A fourth option for some majors is work-integrated learning: translate existing workplace responsibilities into a formally supervised project or practicum, with structured supervision, evidence logs and an academic assessor. None of these asks for standards to be lowered; each asks for an alternative path to the same standard.
Documentation increases the chance of success. Families should assemble unit outlines from the original course, proposed equivalents elsewhere, a short statement from the employer confirming the role, hours and limited availability for daytime classes during teaching weeks, and a willingness to attend campus for assessments, labs or intensives scheduled in evenings or weekends. The tone matters. Decisions like this are discretionary; they are more likely when academic leaders see a motivated student proposing a respectful, standards-aligned solution that imposes minimal extra load on staff.
Navigating institutional processes and escalation
Universities have processes for course rule waivers, credit pre-approval and cross-institutional study. They also have timelines. The best chance of success comes from working with the academic calendar and giving decision-makers time to act. Families should write to the program director first, copying the faculty office, and ask for a meeting to discuss a completion plan. If the response is formulaic or negative, escalate once to the associate dean (teaching and learning) with the documented proposal attached. If the barrier is purely administrative rather than academic, say, a residency reading that forbids cross-institutional credit, then the academic registrar’s office can sometimes advise on the scope for exceptions in near-completion cases.
Where responses stall or conflict, the university student ombuds office can informally facilitate or, if necessary, trigger a review. Most universities would rather solve a credible near-completion case than manage a formal complaint. If that fails, the external higher education regulator accepts complaints after institutional processes are exhausted; they will not order a university to change a decision, but a regulator’s interest in a pattern can create incentives to find a solution.
Working with employers to create space
Employers are sometimes more flexible than students expect when the ask is precise, temporary and linked to a clear end date. A concise letter to the line manager that outlines the three or four exact days across a term when assessments require physical presence, proposes early or late starts elsewhere in the week to offset lost time, and commits to after-hours study can shift the conversation from “quit or fail” to “negotiate a short, bounded accommodation.” Leaders tend to respond well when the employee shows initiative, proposes a plan that protects workload and outcomes, and connects the completion of the degree to future value for the firm.
If the employer cannot flex daytime hours at all, consider annual leave or leave without pay concentrated around assessment peaks and intensives rather than spread thinly. It is not ideal, but a handful of well-timed days can be the difference between finishing and abandoning the credential.
Financial choices that protect the long view
One fear that haunts near-completers is sunk cost. The HELP balance is already significant; the idea of paying more to finish can feel like throwing good money after bad. It helps to look at the total lifetime effect. A completed bachelor’s degree, even in a field that does not perfectly align with a current job, keeps doors open for postgraduate study, professional migration into adjacent roles, and labour market resilience when the current job changes. It also prevents a costly scenario in which the student returns years later, only to find course rules have changed and old credits no longer map cleanly. If an accommodation or cross-institutional plan is on the table, the marginal investment to finish usually pays for itself over time in optionality and earnings insurance.
A realistic account of why RPL rarely unlocks the last 15 per cent
Recognition of prior learning is often misunderstood. It is not an appeal to fairness; it is a judgment about the equivalence of learning outcomes. In professional degrees and in final-year academic units, the outcomes often include theory synthesis, research literacy, or discipline-specific methods that are not demonstrated by general workplace success. That does not mean an RPL case is impossible, but it does mean the evidence must be carefully curated: artefacts that show analysis, research, writing and presentation at the level of the unit; endorsements from supervisors who can attest to discipline-specific tasks; and a clear mapping from each learning outcome to concrete evidence. Even then, many faculties will apply RPL only to electives. Families should invest energy where success is most likely: substitution, cross-institutional study, or individually supervised studies approved by the school.
What universities can do immediately to prevent recurrences
Institutions can remove many of these dead ends without sacrificing academic standards. Near-completion policies could guarantee a case-managed pathway for students within 25 per cent of finishing, with a menu of approved options: evening or weekend intensive offerings for core units each year, pre-approved online equivalents for common bottleneck units, and a standard cross-institutional agreement framework across a network of partner universities. Schools could publish a transparent residency policy that allows a limited, dean-approved exception for near-completers where learning outcomes are preserved. Faculties can require capstone coordinators to schedule at least one out-of-hours seminar stream each year or to permit attendance via high-quality recordings with in-person assessments.
Support models must change, too. Call centres have their place, but near-completers need case managers. A small team with authority to coordinate between schools, timetabling, examinations and student administration can convert a dozen emails into a single plan. Universities will find that the cost of such a team is quickly repaid by improved completions, reduced complaints and better alumni goodwill.
What governments and regulators should fix at the system level?
Policy can make these problems rarer. A national credit transfer floor for like-for-like units would reduce the penalty of moving to a more flexible provider, while still permitting universities to define academic coherence for majors. A funded right to a reasonable alternative delivery for core units, an evening stream, a recorded option, or an intensive program would align public investment with student labour market realities. A standard cross-institutional study protocol, backed by pooled funding, would let students tap capacity where it exists without months of bilateral negotiation. Finally, near-completion guarantees, modelled on policies in other sectors that support late-stage apprentices to finish, would recognise that the public value of converting 85 per cent progress into a credential far outweighs the marginal cost of flexibility.
A human conclusion: finish if you can, and ask for solutions, not sympathy
None of this denies the anger families feel when systems appear to value timetables over people. The anger is justified. The way through, however, is not a general complaint about fairness; it is a specific proposal that preserves standards and removes a practical barrier. Ask for a substitution with a mapped equivalent. Ask for cross-institutional enrolment with pre-approval. Ask for an individually supervised study variant of the same unit with evening seminars and on-campus assessments. Put the plan in writing, marshal the artefacts that prove equivalence, and escalate politely to the people who can say yes. In parallel, work with the employer to carve out a handful of well-timed days for assessments and intensives. Treat the sunk cost as an argument for finishing, not a reason to stop.
The system needs reform. Until it arrives, the most powerful tool a near-completer has is a credible plan that lets a dean or program director preserve standards and change the outcome. The goal is simple and worthy: transform an 85 per cent investment into a completed degree without burning a hard-won job. That is not special treatment. It is what higher education ought to do at its best: meet a motivated learner halfway, and make the last mile passable.
