Australian Members - Page 1694

Disagree on both.

1 New administration gets in takes blow torch to APS major cuts across board, major redundancy payments involved. Six months later Department heads advise Ministers more staff required. So numerous staff who have holiday on public purse get hired by contractor for $50 an hour contractor adds $25 government now paying $75 an hour for staff. Six months later APS decides to rehire staff. However clause in contract ensures that contractor is paid out of contract to tune of six to twelve months salary.

And APS will subcontract whole recruitment process out to private firms, now that is where the big money is.

How is this effective and it happened in 1996, 2007 and will happen again this year if administration changes.

2 As associate lecturing demands change and you may not teach same subject the following year. This is also case for TAFE so 3:1 still stands.

Petepan great shoes EG by any chance?

Walked past Ferragamo at the top of Collins Street and they were closing up shop for good. Coincidentally am wearing a Ferragamo tie today.

Interesting.  Always thought it was a little too far up Collins Street that location.  Are they moving elsewhere?

Glad you liked them.  Not EG- these are Italian blake/blake rapid bought on the cheap from HK for less than AUD$120.  Could not resist the color and patina, and fits well too.

 

Talking about EG, Tassels had a 2 eyelet derby in the same polish, color dark purple/plum. Vera noyce, but asking HK8000. 

I think they traded on the traffic from the Sofitel. The sign on the door directed people to DJs so I imagine there is not going to be a replacement store.

 

The fat in the university system lies primarily in administrative overhead. I regularly chat to a Professor at Macquarie University, and the horror stories I hear about bloated admin. salaries and corruption are worrying to say the least. The poor teaching staff, in comparison, do the hardest work, on top of half the work the admin staff are paid for, and don't really get recognised for it at all.

 

I did my undergraduate degree overseas in England. I noticed a significant difference between the structure and depth of courses in the American and Australian undergraduate systems, and those in the UK. I have been lucky enough to study at premier tertiary institutions in all the aforementioned countries, and generally I would posit that the English undergraduate system prepares one better in one's chosen field than any other system.

 

This is, in the case of Ox/bridge specifically, a result of the tutorial system (multiple scheduled 1-on-1 classes with professors) and remarkable facilities. Administrative and executive divisions are much smaller in each individual college than the behemoth departments we see at our local universities. In some cases, the entire executive staff in an Oxford college can number less than 15 people, for 400 students. In comparison, teaching staff will be in the hundreds. There is also a distinct absence of 'liberal arts' degrees which give you a taste of everything, but don't let you master anything in particular. That sort of jack-of-all-trades approach is what I would assume high school is for.

 

However, worryingly in Australia there has been a significant shift toward American-style undergraduate learning, which means lower standards initially, and almost necessitates postgraduate work in order to make someone employable and efficient at a particular job. Of course, to emulate the Ox/bridge system is difficult in AU, due to the significant costs associated with running the tutorial system and reimbursing professors for their time. Even full-fee paying international students at Oxford or Cambridge ($180k over 3 years) are receiving a heavily subsidised invoice - so it certainly isn't cheap for the university, and subsequently for the government. 

 

I do believe, strongly, that education should be a loss-making service to society and not a for-profit enterprise. As the saying goes, taxes are the price of decency, and a society has to commit to its own future by deciding what long-term services are necessary but fiscally painful. 

What might their name be?

I hear this rationalisation quite a bit for many public services. There's nothing wrong with it necessarily, but the biggest question is about how much loss is ok (obviously you probably appreciate this, but I don't hear it spelt out enough). It is not appropriate for the taxpayer to pick up the tab in order for all students to be able to study what they like, regardless of employment opportunities or economic demand.

 

Secondly, there is no reason why a university cannot operate and fairly provide tertiary education that is good for the student, the uni and for "society" and make a profit. Too often in this debate (and many others) it's assumed that if the uni is profitable someone is getting screwed.

 

Again, there is no standard corporate interests here. The vast majority of universities do not have shareholders in the normal sense. They operate for a surplus merely to further the uni.

Hello All
First post in this thread. Hope it's relevant.
M.J. Bale are flogging off some old gear round the back of the Woollahra shop. I think their suits, when priced down to $500 are good value. Just picked up a gorgeous peak lapel two button number in a fairly heavy weight stripey blue wool. Can post a photo if anyone is that way inclined. The sale runs until Sunday.

 

I think my specific worry with a for-profit mentality in education is more about universities needing to provide for long-term rather than short-term interests. A surplus more often than not is reflected in the Vice Chancellor's bonus and salary, and those of his executive staff, rather than the actual betterment of the university - e.g. employing more teaching staff. You could see this exact path being followed by the previous VC of Mac Uni (he paid himself 1.5 million dollars a year), although the newly instated fellow has asserted the primacy of academia over the profits brought by commercial property being built on university-owned land.

 

But you do have a good point about the middle ground of profit/benefit to society being ideal. However I have very little faith in execs at these unis putting long-term interests ahead of short-term bonuses, and that negative pattern seems to have been the norm in the last decade. If there was more regulation over exec. salaries and a cap on admin staff/student ratios, we could make progress, but this would require government intervention and believe it or not, there are serious special interests here. 

 

You are certainly correct to note that we can't have 'unlimited' losses being incurred as a result of educational services, and courses offered need to be relevant to the current economy. However, this begs the question, how much loss is too much? Personally I'd love to see a percentage of GDP defined as such, but that might be too arbitrary. It's a tough area. What I do know however, is that Ox/bridge is doing a lot of things excellently, and emulating them would serve our tertiary institutions very well indeed. I don't think I'll see it happen in the next 10 years though - I have a feeling a private provider might take a stab at it, rather like AC Grayling did (with much controversy) in the UK recently.

 

@Michael: I don't think it would be appropriate for me to name her in a public forum without permission, these sorts of discussions can get you in trouble with the aforementioned execs unfortunately. 

If possible, please name one example of such a university.

 

Clearly this is a personal judgement call as how would one measure such things. My personal viewpoint here is rather meaningless.

 

This is a fundamental question of economics. Some would say the government could model such an amount, some would say let the market decide, most would say somewhere in between.

I think you'll find we're all that way inclined on this forum.

Welcome.

An example doesn't need to exist for something to be possible.

I will say I am currently provided a uni education, I enjoy it, I learn from it (usually), my employer has expressly demanded it and I know the uni makes a profit. Not sure whether society gives a shit about me, though I do pay more tax than most my age. Does this count?