The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Publish and perish? > Comments

Publish and perish? : Comments

By James McConvill, published 10/6/2005

James McConvill argues intellectualism is on the decline while mediocrity is on the rise, especially in universities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
James McConvill "fears that the attack, still ongoing, against Bagaric and Clarke will provide another justification for academics to abstain from meaningful research, clinging tightly to a culture of mediocrity - crying into their soy decaf lattes" (the current preeminent lazy cliche of the right) .

His own intellectually confused article demonstrates that in some cases it may be too late. McConvill's basic 'argument' (make that 'assertion') is if you publicly disagree with people like his colleagues, Bagaric and Clarke, you are somehow intellectually mediocre. Yet McConvill states that the "... role of academics in society [usd to be] to raise ideas in a critical manner - to foster discourse, engender debate and enrich the community". Yet when academics do engage in discourse and debate against his colleagues, he crudely labels them "mediocre", while people with views like his are painted as "intellectuals" likely to become "an endangered species".

There is not one scrap of reasoned argument in McConvill's piece - no intelectual debate or engageent with academics or intellectuals who have views that differ from Bagaric and Clarke - just attacks on those who disagree with Bagaric and Clarke through wild assertion about the state of intellectual debate in our universities.

Maybe it is appropriate for Mr McConvill to return to practising law - at least he will see there the value of argument and evidence.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 10 June 2005 11:17:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It may well be a poorly argued piece, FrankGol, but your picking on one aspect of it does not invalidate Mr McConvill's basic concern that universities are becoming increasingly part of the "packaged education product" industry, and that this trend allows little room for original thought.

This is not confined to Australia, of course. In the UK at the moment there is much debate on "the role of the University", particularly whether it has an obligation beyond simply turning out degree-qualified worker bees.

I have no experience from which to proffer an opinion, but it distresses me to see a potentially interesting debate squashed at the first post by a nit-picker.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 10 June 2005 11:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James has made a valid point in his article but he's simply chosen the worst possible example to illustrate an important point. Mirko Bagaric is no Bertrand Russell and when I read the Bagaric/Clarke article I had to ask myself James - what kind of psuedo-intellectual-wannabes does Deakin Law School produce?! A good piece of academic research can stand on its own, stand out from the crowd and stand the test of time. The Bagaric/Clarke piece was sloppy and simplistic and copped a bagging from a number of 'intellectuals' who took the time to fill in the glaring holes that the article created in public discourse. It is true that sometimes, if you publish you perish. But only if you publish rubbish.

By the look of Mirko Bagaric on the front page of the Age back when the story broke, behind his well polished desk, expensive 'do' and fancy suit I'd hazard a guess that he drinks soy decaf lattes. James, you just sound like a 'young academic' who wants to get in the good books with a beleaguered HOD.
Posted by Audrey, Friday, 10 June 2005 1:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, from my very quick research on the web it appears James McConvill published 3 independently authored publications in 2004. Hardly something you's write home about.
The rest of his 9 publications were joint works with Mr Bargaric whom he quotes throughout this article. (will he count this as part of this year’s work?) Most of these publications appear to be legal opinion pieces and not the results of being a part of a team of researchers doing discovery research. And this is what lawyers do in developing their briefs is it not? Perhaps it’s different for academic lawyers? Does anyone know?

Follow this link: http://www.research.deakin.edu.au/performance/pubs/reports/database/dynamic/output/person/person.php?person_code=mcconja
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 10 June 2005 5:40:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your comments Rainier. One of those articles was in fact a book, just to correct your point.

Regards,

James McConvill
Posted by James McConvill, Friday, 10 June 2005 6:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your welcome James,
The role of teacher in academia is greatly undervalued in my mind and while research certainly can enliven teaching, many areas of theory across the disciples do not require fresh research. Indeed, I would go so far as to say cookie cutter instructions framed around students attaining 'graduate or professional attributes ‘is the culprit rather than as you assert - the lack of connection between research and teaching. Critical thinking skills, research competency, and engagement with the respective history and evolution of disciplines (such as law) are being substituted with process learning and banking education. Students no longer spend as much time on campus as they once did. The classical traditions of teaching in higher education are not being replenished.

So what this creates is a decline is the debate around the decline of intellectualism. Another is the decline of simply reading widely (yes, good old text books). Why bother if you have the World Wide Web? But I could be wrong.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 10 June 2005 10:25:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much of the substance of James McConvill's article defends a publication by his professional collegue (and probably friend)Mirko Bagaric, in this context, it is a bit intellectually dishonest of him not to declare his affiliations, however briefly, as part of the article, the impression given is that he is just defending intellectualism in a detached and academic manner when he is (at least partially) going in to bat for a friend. There is nothing wrong with doing that but it should be made clear.

However I disagree with the assertion that McConvill is arguing that people who disagree with Bagaric and Clarke's views are "intellectually mediocre". In fact the article expressly states "Once understanding their views, we are of course free to disagree - even strongly." he is attempting to make the valid and important point that academics should not be pilloried for unconventional and/or unpopular publications by individuals (or by populist media) that have not actually read and understood their work. What he finds intellectually mediocre is not criticism but criticism without even an attempt to read and understand the view being criticised. This is in fact very much what happened, there was an impulsive media reaction against the proposition advanced in the article- that torture is in some cases justified- yet i wonder how many of these critics actually read the paper Bagaric and Clarke published. I suspect much of the furore is due to the unfortunate timing of the publication post Gumantanomo Bay etc, in fact emminent American law professor Alan Dershowitz has for years advanced the same proposition and never faced such criticism.
Posted by Lubs, Saturday, 11 June 2005 2:11:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In fact, as I just realised, the really amusing (actually pathetic rather than amusing) thing is that the paper copping all this flack has not yet even been published - see http://www.usfca.edu/lawreview/upcoming.html - so it's impossible (unless they recieved advance copies) that all it's detractors have even managed to read it yet. That's the kind of intellectual laziness and mediocrity that's really the problem, that's what will intimidate academics from "pushing the boundaries" and publishing contraversial views. That will be harmful to all of us by stemming debate and promoting a "dumbed down", compliant society. By all means criticise people's arguments, that's what intellectual debate's all about, but isn't it fair to at least give them a hearing (ie reading) first?
Posted by Lubs, Saturday, 11 June 2005 2:28:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lubs - your comments are the kind of intellectual laziness and mediocrity that's really the problem. A version of the article can be found at the link below. The Age 17/05/05.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/A-case-for-torture/2005/05/16/1116095904947.html?oneclick=true
Posted by Audrey, Saturday, 11 June 2005 4:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it's a bit of a stretch, Audrey, to regard an unreferenced 1000 word SUMMARY in a daily newspaper as a valid "version" of an academic research paper based on which the paper's argument may be dismissed out of hand. Research papers published in Law Journals typically run to 30 pages or more and contain not just assertions but arguments backed up by reference to case law and legal analysis. None of that was present in the short tabloid summary you have cited. To regard the Age article you have cited (complete with disparaging cartoon) as a valid exposition upon which to rest a reasoned academic counter-argument is like deeming newspaper reports about scientific studies to have the same academic standing as the industry journals in which the actual studies are published
Posted by Lubs, Sunday, 12 June 2005 4:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite my better instincts, I have to support Lubs here. It's not possible for anybody who hasn't read Bagaric and Clarke's paper to offer any kind of real analysis, and the fact that it now turns out that it hasn't yet been subject to peer review only underlines that point.

Mind you, its premature release is a matter of concern (IMHO) - in my experience, while individual academics are undoubtedly held to ransom by the realpolitik of survival in our contemporary 'universities', the academic journals that have always been the bedrock of intellectual discourse (for at least the last few centuries) remain relatively immune to the kinds of pressures to which McConvill refers.

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer.
Posted by garra, Sunday, 12 June 2005 7:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an interesting forum. I find something to agree on with all the posters - except for frankgol's nitpicking.

Yes McConvill should have been honest about his affiliations. However, the issue he raises is of great concern to me.

When the Bagaric and Clarke piece was summarised in the Age, I predicted the resultant furore that raged about their views. Personally I do not countenance torture under any circumstances, however I will not deny anyone the opportunity to discuss this contemporarily pertinent issue.

I believe it does highlight an encroaching anti-intellectualism - with conservative right wing politics on the ascendancy it is fashionable to dismiss any form of intellectualism as limp left idealism.

We need to foster our great minds and the universities are the only places where they can be nourished.

Mediocrity is a tool for control and has been utilised by both political extremes - currently the far right.

Bagaric and Clarkes paper should be published in its entirety for effective debate to take place - will it see the light of day?
Posted by Ringtail, Monday, 13 June 2005 12:02:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recognise your point Lubs but I don't think we're arguing here over the content of the USFLR version. If that were the only place the major tenet of their argument could be found then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. What are you arguing here Lubs? That we don't dare judge a university professor on an opinion piece appearing in a newspaper and that in fact it's not even remotely like the original piece?! If you feel that strongly about all opinion pieces, what are you doing here on the OO site? Bagaric and Clarke chose to place that piece in the Age and to appear on the front page, placing it firmly in the public domain. Knowingly. Which means that the public (and academics) have the right to judge the merit of its argument in that forum. Which also means that it's ridiculous and intellectual elitism to then argue that every detractor is a complete idiot and how dare they question the work of such a 'noble' academic etc, etc. If you don't want comment from 'fools' as you so kindly refer to Malcolm Fraser and everyone else that chose to debunk their argument, then don't put it in the public domain. Most academic argument never sees the light of day beyond subscriber content and maybe 200 avid readers. That can't be deemed the work of a 'true' intellectual if it's out of reach. A bunch of academics arguing dispassionately over sub-clause C in reference to argument B seems a bit in-humane and reminiscent of Hitler when you consider the content of the argument. James is arguing that intellectuals should be aiming: "to foster discourse, engender debate and enrich the community."

From experience, the full argument won't be substantially different to the abridged version. It'll just take longer to get to the point.
Posted by Audrey, Monday, 13 June 2005 12:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First of all, I wonder whether Bagaric and Clarke chose to place that opinion piece in the Age and initiate this debate or whether perhaps what happened was that the import of the research paper to be published in the USFLR had already been leaked and the pre-emptive criticism had started so that the piece in the Age was a defensive attempt to stem the furore...I don't know, it just seems a bit strange for academics to pre-empt their own paper. As such Bagaric and Clarke may not have chosen to put their argument in the public domain prior to the publication of their paper...

Audrey, I don't think i referred to anyone as "fools" and I certainly agree that ordinary people are justified in commenting based on newspaper opinion pieces, no one expects them to go and seek out a 30 page academic treatise before they are justified in having an opinion.

What I take issue with are other university academics, public figures and so-called intellectuals that presume to criticise Bagaric and Clarke without having read their research paper. These people's opinions are cited in public debate as those of experts and thus are expected to be grounded in logical argument rather than pure assertion and gut reaction. As fellow academics they should show the professional curtesy of reading a research paper before they tear it to shreads.

How can the opinions of professional academics who are supposed to be experts in their field and thus bring something new to the debate "foster discourse, engender debate and enrich the community" when they resort to the same plane of argument as ordinary lay people?
Posted by Lubs, Monday, 13 June 2005 2:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Intellectualism is on the decline for precisely because of the often ridiculous ideas that are generated by the intelligentsia. McConvill argues that articles defending torture should be given a fair hearing. Why? I think that, thankfully, rather than being dumbed down as the author argues, the general population is suspicious of such ideas precisely because they are well educated.

The first world war was encouraged by most intellectuals in Europe, as too was the second by the academia of Germany (after they had discharged their opposition of course). Indeed, the present war in Iraq is attributable to the Neo-Conservatives, not just in the US, but around the world. While I support intellectuals and academics, as well as increased funding for education and universities, the population in general expect to be led forwards by their teachers, not to be taken back to the dark ages.
Posted by machiavelli, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 12:39:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McConvill's paper on this site was not about torture. He used this forum to make a claim that mediocrity is on the rise in universities. He asserted that the outcry that followed the publication in the Age of a paper written by his Head of School and another of his colleagues---which was about torture---was somehow evidence of this rising mediocrity.

My point was that McConvill offered no substantive evidence in support of his claim. He merely castigated those who disagreed with Bagaric and Clarke as anti-intellectual. And because there were so many critics, he concluded that these people represented a downward trend to intellectual mediocrity. By contrast, he insinuates that those who support his views and those of his colleagues are the true intellectuals who deserve respect and should be exempt from the critical scrutiny that came their way.

McConvill's proposition about the role of academics and intellectuals (not necessarily the same, it should be noted) was compromised by the paucity of his own argument.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 14 June 2005 5:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Torture is wrong. I think it is a universal truth. I always thought that academics were the guardians of human rights. How does torturing people protect that universal truth? How does using state-sanctioned torture protect the rest of us from torture? How does promoting it as valid method of information gathering reduce the likelihood of other inhumane methods being legitimised? I think people who advocate torture undermine basic human rights.

Making fun of the defenders of human rights because they prefer soy de-caf lattes is wrong. I always thought academics respected other people and didn't attack others' culture (especially not to speciously further their own opinion). How does drinking decaf affect your academic ability? I think such carry on undermines the credibility of academic debate.

You might satisfy an immediate end by using torture but ultimately you will help destroy a basic human right. Utilitarianism usually lends itself readily to fascism . I also don't think it is a coincidence that a couple of academics are supporting a procedure that our government apparently supports and a philosophy that Howard's mob have always believed in (Mills' stuff). So the next question. Is it academic discourse or propaganda? Is it philosophically driven or ideologically driven? Can anything be philosophically untainted in our politically charged environment? I think academics concerned here have let us down. People get upset about this kind of thing because they have a memory. They have heard all the justifications for advocating inhumane treatment before and they know where it leads. Haven't these academics read any history?

I think the "reasoning" behind justifying torture is similar as that used by terrorists to justify killing innocent folk, those involved in the tortures of the Inquistition, Stalin, Hiltler and so on. The trouble with some academics is they haven't had a split lip or felt the sting of injustice. I think that if the academics experienced a good dose of sleep deprivation, were "mistakenly" suspected and tortured (and subjected to a daily diet of de-caf soy latte) they'd change their thinking.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 16 June 2005 10:10:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"THE DEGREE FACTORIES" – 4 CORNERS MONDAY 27 JUNE

Next on Four Corners: What’s a university degree worth in the 21st century? Is the race for dollars breeding leaner, smarter universities? Or are they dumbing down in a quest to survive?

Four Corners examines the winner-takes-all strategy that will see Dr Nelson manoeuvring key resources – like prestige-loaded research funding – into selected centres of excellence. New private universities, including big name brands from overseas, will be encouraged.

Lacking the funding or the cache to keep their market share of foreign students, some struggling universities may be stripped of their status entirely.

Featuring forthright interviews with vice chancellors, lecturers and scholars, including Nobel laureate Peter Doherty, foreign and Australian students and Minister Brendan Nelson, this report explores the depth of today’s university crisis and what sort of education tomorrow’s students can expect.

Ticky Fullerton reports on "The Degree Factories" – Four Corners, 8.30pm, Monday 27 June.

This program will be repeated about 11pm Wednesday 29 June; also on ABC2 digital channel at 7pm and 9.45pm Wednesday.

Four Corners
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 23 June 2005 5:55:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The answer is simple, in the past academics were educated by those that had life experience in their chosen fields. Now the academics are people who have only ever been to school, so they have no understanding of reality. This can be seen in the collapse of literacy within the education system, go into a shop and ask the young well educated sale person to calculate a price for your items without using either a calculator or cash register. 99% can't do it and when they write, their writing is virtually unreadable. The problem with our education system is that it is operated by those who have only ever been to school so their knowledge is based purely on illusion. It is the same with people they call specialists, or leaders in their field. They learn more and more about less and less until tney know a lot about nothing and that can be seen by the collapse of every institution, government enterprise and business that is controlled by academics, (read beaurucrats). These people live in a fantasy world of semantic garbage as can be seen by how they write, they write a lot but say nothing, except convuluted sematic stupidity. Just like their masters, the politicians who are totally incompetent. Until we can actualyy change the education system so that it puts out people with substance, then we will continue to go down the drain.
The alchemist
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 26 June 2005 12:32:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alchemist, please spare us! There isn't time enough to read uninformed wild assertions. If you must write, please give us some evidence-based thought, or, failing that, a reasoned argument.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 26 June 2005 12:41:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you frankgol, you prove my point. As to my comments being wild and uniformed, I accept the reality of the world not the fantasty illusion that you probably represent. To use one or two expensive and unrealistic methods of energy production that hail from the past is irresponsibly stupid. Firstly, small scale solar, wind, wave and tide energy utilised in many locations and controlled by local communities would go a long way to solving the problems. If we put solar and wind systems on every house in rural australia along with tide generators for those in coastal areas, we would cut out power failure and be able to export power to the cities. Of course in some instances you would need grid or high energy generators, but by the people providing the power freely, would drive down the cost to industry and commerce, increasing profits, good economics I would say. It is just a matter of slowly spreading this throughout the country. Sorry, you don't want answers, like to keep your head in the ground and bum stuck firmly in the past. Nuclear power is yesterdays technology, as is coal and gas generation, even large scale hydro is old hat and very inefficient when you look at the long term effects it has on the environment and water supplies, a quickly disappearing commodity. You are right, we don't have time for uninformed or wild assertions. Have I missed something, don't wild and uniformed assertions relate to using technologies that have been proven to be uneconomic, polluting and evironmentally unsound. I would believe that those who advocate the use of these forms of technologies are actuallty the unimformed amongst us. Look at the national grid, a debacle of huge proportions, higher charges, more blackcouts collapsing infrastructure. That is informed reality, yours is sematic whaffle. McConvill is right that intelectualism is on the decline and mediocrity is the norm in universities. When you have those that have only ever really been to school, teaching others about life and the sciences, you are bound to get less that mediocrity.
The alchemist
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 26 June 2005 2:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a university graduate and past examiner of medical students, I have observed a gradual decline in standards and a loss of intellectual rigour in our society. As it showed on the 4 Corners program last night, students are passed when they fail because of political, economic and legal restraints on examiners and I have seen this with medical students. This is corruption at its worst.We are going down the intellectual drain and our international reputation too. The "hard" subjects are dummed down. In Classics subjects such as Ancient Greek, Latin (of which I did both) are now reduced to reading the Classics in English and doing a bit of Ancient History. Our PhD's have become a joke (I have one from the Uni of Melbourne in Medicine). I know one man who did it in long division. Medicine has also been dummed down and clinical (bedside) teaching in decline.
A CEO of a large US company said to me that the most effective employees including CEO's were those who had excelled in the liberal Arts and not specialised too early eg in IT or business. Uninversities are in name only. Most are TAFE's. These people could adapt to work place changes even in the middle age and did not become redundant. They were literate, capable of critical thought and creative. Many university students are not even literate in English to a unversity standard unlike our European counterparts who are multi-lingual. This leads to a limited paradigm of life. I frequently observed medical students who could not write a report without numerous spelling and grammatical errors.
I observe an appalling conservatism,the death of intellectual tradition in medicine and a slavish conformity which is quite disturbing and a dirth of negative research studies. We risk going to sleep intellectually as a people.
May I recommend Steve Fuller's The Intellectual. The postive power of negative thinking. Icon Books, 2005.($24.95)(184 pages).
The Liberal Arts, the Classics, philosophy etc are the intellectual repositories of civilisation. Intellectual rigor is rigorous. There is no royal road to learning.
Posted by Odysseus, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 7:27:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you are going to bemoan the "numerous spelling and grammatical errors" of university graduates, Odysseus, you might be more convincing if your own spelling and grammar were stronger.

You give us 'rigour' in your second line but 'rigor' in your second last line. You give us 'dirth' when you should have given us 'dearth'. And for someone who claims a PhD from Melbourne University, you surprise us with 'uninversities'. You give us no fewer than three inappropriate apostrophes (PhD's, CEO's and TAFE's). Your sentence structure is wobbly at times too.

Perhaps I missed your ironical intent: you were deliberately writing badly to demonstrate your very point about how widespread illiteracy has become.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 10:42:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two write, Fwankgo. Phanks a lot. You spotted my guile.

My dog who (she thinks she is human and hence the "who") is an Italian greyhound and who barks in Italian, sits on my lap and now does the typing but can't use spell check yet. I apologise on her behalf...woof,woof.

I, Odysseus, still hab twuble with the language of the Anglosaxons as I speak in Homeric Greek and still prefer wine-dark seas, grey-eyed goddesses and I dwink out of a gold goblet.

I like repartee about content not trivia.

No spell check was used here....una grande woofa...woofa...!!

Ciaou,

Pawprint signature...or is it pore??print...off to the Thesaurus.
Posted by Odysseus, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 8:05:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Odyseus, I missed 'dummed' down. How dumb of me.

Now for the content of your message: standards are falling because you say so (and demonstrate it). Can you provide some hard evidence as disticnt from your personal feelings? In the good old days, my university teachers demanded I base all my claims on public evidence. Was that not the case with your PhD supervisors too? So let's have the evidence.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 9:08:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Compare the 1939 Honours papers at UQ with those now.... in all subjects. I have a set at home. Apply a stats analysis and get a high p value....we need evidence...
Examine and teach medical students for 25 years.... experience does not always have a p value. However, patients are happy to pay more to see a more experienced practitioner.
The bar has been lowered. Ask any academic.
This is a forum. Not an inquisition.
Even evidence-based medicine has definite blind spots too. Negative studies are rare and many university studies are sponsored with drug company money...but I am getting off the point.

The standard has fallen...The overseas student market will reflect this as it discussed on 4 Corners.
Posted by Odysseus, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 11:37:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This statement from PROF. ALLAN LUKE within the 4Corners program was interesting:

"Many of the Asian universities are cashing up and building their infrastructure so that within 10 to 15 years they'll in effect be able to place themselves in the top tier of world-class universities. Singapore has never made any kind of international secret about this. Tsinghua, Fudan in China and some of the Japanese universities are also positioning themselves, busy repositioning and redefining themselves. I mean, right now it may appear to government and others that it's salad days, because of the multi billion dollars of revenue that's coming in from the overseas student market. If you lose the core business, and the heart of the operation, in that process, ultimately you're going to go into decline and you're going to be supplanted by universities with better infrastructure and who have a stronger and more clear intellectual visions."
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1401933.htm

The writing is on the wall. In other words, we may regain some ground with standards but at the end of the day the market will determine standards, not spelling, not traditional western notions of academic rigor. In 10 to 15 years many of our own domestic students will be looking at non-Australian universities. Theses universities will have the fiscal capacity to provide the teaching and learning environments and intellectual vision that promises to deliver the types of careers our own students aspire to acquire. These programs will be delivered by the best academics from all around the world. They will be attracted by higher wages and a less managerialist approach to teaching and learning, research and innovation. The death of our own universities will be because we will simply invest too little too late.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 5:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy