Australian Members

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

The Ernesto said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Geoffrey Firmin said:

Petepan great shoes EG by any chance?

Click to expand...

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.



Windowpane1967 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Geoffrey Firmin said:

The growth of contracting firms which was an impact of 'small government ideology' is a total waste of public money. Sub contracting by the APS wastes millions each year, it was an example of public waste.

Where pray tell is the fat sitting in the University system? Most associate lecturers are overworked and under paid.

The students I taught did not have 'wealthy parents' to support them and in a lot of cases they were the first in their families to go to university. I always found that kids from the private school system expected to be spoon fed and bitched when they did not get the marks they think they deserved. Didn't matter that their work did reflect their ability.

Click to expand...

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.

Nicholas D C said:

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.

Click to expand...

What might their name be?

Nicholas D C said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DartagnanRed said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DartagnanRed said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Petepan said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Nicholas D C said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.



boff said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Welcome.

Petepan said:

DartagnanRed said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Petepan said:

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

Click to expand...

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 **** about me, though I do pay more tax than most my age. Does this count?

DartagnanRed said:

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

Click to expand...

That's quite alright. Not mean as a dig, just curious whether you are thinking of a particular institution able to do this, or whether it is an idealised theoritical construct.

The whole concept of higher/tertiary education is undergoing enormous debate and uncertainty at the moment, and this discussion today merely reflects the winds of change.

Quite a change from the mafoofan/manton kerfuffle over the long weekend.