Like anything else, Universities about about economics. The ability to recruit academics and keep them on governs much of what Tara is talking about. The difficulty that Australian Universities have in keeping good academics and researchers is spelt out quite firmly in her artcile.

But why do Australian Universities keep these academics in positions where their students are more qualified? It's because they have little choice. To narrow the criteria for the selection of academic staff only magnifies the aforesaid problems.

Academic staff for Universities are in high demand internationally, and Australian Universities struggle to compete with the salaries which can be offered by institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom. The criteria governing what is an acceptable level of qualification for academic staff is thus narrowed. In fact as an undergraduate Civil Engineer I am often given supervisors who have not yet completed a PhD, nor are they in the process of earning one.

Just as the USA and UK headhunt our own academics, it is not uncommon for Australian institutions to headhunt academics from countries that perhaps the USA or UK would not consider. This can fill the voids in staff numbers certainly, however engineering students in particular have a tendency to be less tolerant of lecturers/supervisors who sometimes struggle with the English associated with such a technical area. Don't get me wrong, these academics have been hired for their expertise and knowledge in a particular area. However it is far more important that these people have the fluency to convey and share their knowledge with the people who will one day be healing our sick, building our cities, defining our future and defending our criminals (apologies to the Law Department).

In no way can Australian Universities narrow the criteria for the hiring of academics until we have the capacity to attract the academics we seek in the first place.

Laurie, Thanks for your post, it’s prompted me to drag out my favorite beef about the traditional lecture, tutorial, examination approach to teaching.

And for me its this. Simply put, this format is not working for many lecturers and students alike.

One important reason is that many Australian university students have paid employment during semester and find themselves working an average of 20 hours per week.

They want (or are being forced) to want knowledge like you order a burger at McDonalds. Neatly packaged and easily digestible.

Gone are the days when the good old approach of laying out knowledge and engaging with students meaningfully - when university life was a mix of lectures, tutes and debates over coffee. The culture and subcultures of student learning has changed dramatically.

But somewhere between commodifying knowledge for easy access and consumption and those fine traditions of 'teaching students how to think critically about content and theory" a balance must be struck.

Otherwise we will see Mc-lecturers being delivered to students who will end up with Mc-jobs. In fact it’s already happening

if you are studying a university course to learn a vocational skill like dentistry do you want a theoretically brilliant lecturer or do you want a skilled craftsman who can pass on their manual skills and techniques as well as theory?

The trend towards publish or perish is coupled with the rise of the published lecturer delivering lectures to 200 students and managing a team of 20 lowly paid, low status and perhaps barely qualified demonstrators and tutors who have hands on teaching with the students.

Then we can discuss how good a PhD is. In the United States a PhD is a broad range of coursework subjects plus a thesis. In Australia a PhD is a narrow band of study. It can be argued that Australian PhDs in IT produce a very narrow body of knowledge of lower knowledge level than the average industry experienced IT professional.

Then we can discuss the content of the specialist Dip Ed's mandatory at Monash University for all lecturers and ask how research methods subjects allow the teacher to deliver more effective lectures and tutorials. I think that qualification is more effective in getting teh acadedmics published at education conferences than making lectures more entertaining dynamic and educationally worthwhile.

Do university students expect to be breaking the grounds of new knowledge which may involve learning crack pot theories that may later be debunked or are they interested in getting a job?

Sex over study - I say:

When I was a budding young uni student I was in to many things and this included visiting American coeds. This expanded my academic reach no end.

These gals were more sexually demanding and adventurous than their Australian sisters, but nothing compared to the kiwis!

In terms of obtaining value for money from our scarce educational resources I think it crucial that sexual possibilities be uppermost in an academic's mind.

Sex has always been a fair exchange for good marks. But that is not the only reason I got my HD's.

Now I'm not saying that sexual over-adequacy defines a nation or its history completely, but its something all serious (personal) gigolos (PGs) should consider.

The weltschauung of the dedicated gigolo can indeed change the course of history.

As a government funded research topic, one could put up an argument that Australia's own socio-sexual sophistication was "boosted" (so to speak) by American serviceman, "oversexed, overhere and over her" in World War Two. It wasn't only that Americans were paid more and better uniformed than their Australian comrades, its just that these Yanks used charm rather than just "You wanna?"

Several books have been written on this subject but the research interests of the (personal) gigolo demand yet more government funding.

Meanwhile, other educational priorities can remain on the backburner of the "less sexy".

Appreciate your argument, Realist, but is it really realistic to follow an economic doctrine that was thrown out by Maynard Keynes to save the world from the financial policies that caused the crash of 1929. It was Keynes who warned that if the liberal freemarket system. or economic rationalism was again taken up, the only way to keep the economy temporarily out of trouble was to keep finance moving whether honestly or dishonestly, what many university economic teachers now term casino capitalism.

No one wants full-blown socialism, but if many more of the big corporates go bust like ENRON and others, while the ones still alive are being supported by mostly naive investors who treat making money like backing racehorses, we could wonder what our great-great grandkids are going to inherit?

As one who grew up in the bush and was poorly educated, it is something one does remember- that the average farmer and ordinary shopkeeper, etc, must keep away from the big league, encouraging even the middle-roaders to protect their futures by joining together either in unions or active lobby-groups, looking for advice from genuine economic historians.

As Keynes would say and even as many modern economists will say, and probably as George Orwell would say, us smallies must ask for a return to the Keynesian mixed economy, not a return to socialism, but as Adam Smith, the father of Laissez-faire and the modern free-market warned - do not to try to make money by putting government utilities on the marketplace. Certainly we might add to that, by feeling sure that a great classic economist like Adam Smith, would never believe in that scary phrase that we've been pestered with since the late 1960s, Get Big or Get Out.

Still with the free-market we've got all this cheap stuff coming in from overseas, so why worry about it, she'll be right, mate

Bushbred you are a man of some letters - I commend you.

Having lived through UK “Wilson politics” of the 1960s / 70s I can advise, neo-liberalism and casino capitalism are a better options than the arrogance which accompanies any wally who thinks they can actually “manage” the economy for the good of all especially when it ends up as the good of none.

Government does not manage the economy, it responds to it. Governments are incapable of innovation and generating economic benefit. Only “individuals” are equipped to take risks and make commercial judgements and invest in innovation.

The 1929 fiasco was a matter of imprudent banking practices. The very fact that the dot com collapse of 2000 and then Enron did not result in a repeat of the great depression is testament to how well “casino capitalism” works.

On the matter of university education, it is for some but is not for all and is not the be-all. The world needs plumbers and sparkies as much as Lawyers and a lot more than anthropologists.

I guess to address Tara’s final statement planning and organising are important to industry and commerce which provide the demand for graduates. So never forget, academia is part of a cycle which is supposed to take the best and develop the imagination, intuition, innovation and expertise which will propel humankind forward. I am still challenged by exactly how many university courses make any “contribution” in this context. I further suspect a lot of academics see “tenure” as their personal goal and bugger the students.

Finally, Adam Smith on “Public utilities”. Interesting suggestion Bushbred, although I think “public Utilities” were too few and far between in Adams day to allow any to be put on the marketplace. The water system was an open drain down the middle of the street, Faraday was still working on electricity generation, trains were privately owned, telephones had not been invented and “gas from coal” was a brand new development. Further, “casino capitalism” was busily engaged in recovering from the South Sea Bubble