I completely disagree with the basic argument.

There is no fate more fitting for any system of public honours than that its recipients should turn out rogues and charlatans.

This is particularly true for honorary doctorates, which are a sham and a mockery more often than not. But it is not exclusive to that domain.

Think of all the greedy, violent, sycophantic, and vainglorious try-hards who have won (and kept) Australia Day honours over the years. Or who have had streets or buildings named after them.

Funny enough, Melbourne University is particularly redolent with examples: think of Grattan Street, or the Alan Gilbert Building.

Anybody who takes these honours too seriously is begging for disappointment.

One could ask how honorary doctorates are given in the first place.

There was one recipient of a honorary doctorate from an Australian university who refused to speak to the press afterwards. However the honorary doctorate was taxpayer funded, and a refusal to speak to the press was basically a refusal to acknowledge the public who had funded the doctorate.

That recipient was mainly based in the UK, and once stated that women who read a certain UK newspaper were “n_____s at the bottom of the woodpile”.

She also stated that Princess Dianne was a “devious moron” 10 years after she had died and had no way of defending herself.

She described the recently deceased Peter Brook as a “hoon” and the recently deceased Steve Irwin as “a self-deluded animal tormentor”.

She also called for Tony Blair to stop having sex with his wife, and said that their relationship was "a very weird relationship".

She has urged mother to “go on strike” for better childcare, after saying that teenage mothers were better mothers because its “easier to get down on the floor with kids if you are a kid yourself,"

She released a book that many regard as pedophilic, and refused to remove the photograph of a male off the cover of that book after he had requested that he do so, and had never given permission for the photograph to be used.

She has also stated that she prefers young males to older men, but such a statement by a male professor would obviously bring instant dismissal.

She has also written that men are “surplus to requirement”, and one has to question how an Australian university awards an honorary doctorate to someone who has written that 50% of people in the world are surplus to requirements.

Would that university ask for the honorary doctorate to be returned?

Probably not, but it certainly doesn’t say much for the standards of Australian universities.

I think Jonathon Ariel goes over the top first in attributing too much significance to honorary degrees and secondly in accusing the University of Melbourne of grovelling in "star struck adoration" of its Dr Pratt.

Let's not mince words: Pratt got his Honorary Doctor of Laws for his hefty financial contributions to the University. Everyone knows how the game works and we all know examples where lots of money gets results. Hardly "adoration".

Others get honorary degrees in recognition of their having made significant contributions to knowledge. Some of these hold no formal qualifications but nevertheless make a major contribution to an area of learning. A third group are honoured for their renowned achievements in a variety of fields, not necessarily academic. Universities are fond of claiming a share of the achievements of these last two groups.

Most of us know the difference between the three classes of awards and are hardly in danger of confusing them.

As to the possible damage to a university's reputation when the awardee's reputation takes a nose-dive after the event, I suppose that depends on at least four things:
(a) the nature of the misdemeanors committed by the holder of an honorary degree;
(b) whether anyone gives a fig about the holding of honorary degrees anyway;
(c) whether the honorary degree holder can gain any undue advantage from holding a piece of paper that they may or may not have deserved in the first place ; and
(c) whether the university's reputation is so fragile that it is damaged by the blotted copybook of one of its honorary 'doctors'.

I would have thought that the University of Melbourne - opened in 1854 - relies on many more significant achievements than Dr Pratt's dodgy business dealings.

Next topic please Jonathon.

Frank Gol,
I think people should be giving a fig, as Australian universities have become the worst aspect of Australia’s education system.

Up to about grade 10 Australian students are doing quite well by international standards, but after that the rot sets in, and Australia has only 1 university in the top 100 universities in the world. I would attribute this to the minimal standards in our universities.

I would agree in one respect. If someone gives money to a university or vilifies males and calls themselves a feminist then the university will give them whatever award they want.

Honorary Degrees are one of the most needless awards. What is the point ? either someone does the study to obtain a degree or he/she doesn't get a degree.
a very pointless exercise which encourages what ?
If someone does something extraordinary outside their field of expertise or line of work then they should get a plaque of appreciation but an honorary degree ? Nope !

HRS claims: "Australia has only 1 university in the top 100 universities in the world. I would attribute this to the minimal standards in our universities."

He provides no evidence for that jaundiced opinion.

By contrast, the Times Higher Education Supplement University Rankings, THES-QS Top World 200 Ranking for 2007 show the following world ranking scores for the top 10 Australian universities:

Aust Rank World Rank
ANU 1st 16th
Uni of Melbourne 2nd 27th
Uni of Sydney 3rd 31st
UQ 4th 33rd
Monash 5th 43rd
UNSW 6th 44th
Uni of Adelaide 7th 62nd
UWA 8th 64th
Macquarie 9th 168th
QUT 10th 195th

Eight of our top 10 in the world's top 100. Doesn't sound like "minimal standards" to me.

(Source: http://www.australian-universities.com/rankings/)

On student assessment of quality, Australian Education International’s 2006 International Student Survey found Australia was the country of first preference for 84% of overseas students studying at Australian universities. And the survey found that they rated quality of education, reputation and future employment prospects as the main reasons for choosing to study at an Australian university. They didn't just come because they could get a place.

85% of survey respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the overall study experience in Australia, and 83% were very satisfied or satisfied with their university course.

(Source: http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/content.asp?page=/news/media_releases/2007/avcc_media_21_07.htm)

Doesn't sound like "minimal standards" to me

Frank gol
Rankings depend on the criteria being used for ranking.

Would you prefer this international ranking of universities based on innovative research:-

Macquarie University 201-300
La Trobe University 301 - 400

http://www.irua.edu.au/news_archive/2006/news_item-20061030.pdf

Handing out honorary doctorates to all and sundry hasn't lifted those rankings.

Go a step further. Get rid of honourary degrees altogether.

HRS: You claimed initially that: "Australia has only 1 university in the top 100 universities in the world. I would attribute this to the minimal standards in our universities." And I noted that you provided no evidence for that jaundiced opinion.

By contrast, I cited the Times Higher Education Supplement University Rankings for 2007 which included 8 Australian universities within their top 100. I also referred to a study of international students in Australian universities. The vast majority of these students were happy with standards.

In return, you cited other international evidence which variously denied your starting point that our universities have 'minimal standards' and certainly contradicted your 'only one in the top 100' claim.

Finally, you conclude that: "Handing out honorary doctorates to all and sundry hasn't lifted those rankings".

Is it more logical to conclude that handing out honorary doctorates and university standards have nothing to do with each other?

Universities should not indulge in extra academic activities.The politicians should keep away from academic institutions.Education is being hijacked by misguided and greedy politicians.Why should universities award honorary degrees? If the govrenment wants to honour (or please) somebody let them do it seperately and let them not misuse the educational institutions for the purpose. This happens probably because of the fact that vice-chancellors are political appointees. That means the the educated people are equally responsible for this rot.

The level of discussion here is just so abysmal.

I'm out of here - going somewhere more rational.

Well, I couldn't resist. After reading in another place (an old edition of Crikey) the following - which I have edited for brevity - I have to say I am changing my mind about the awarding of honorary degrees:

"Joh Bjelke-Petersen, forgetful Queensland Premier, was awarded an honorary doctorate in Political Science by University of Queensland Chancellor and accomplice Llew Edwards, despite not being able to recall the meaning of the 'separation of powers'.

They had given an honorary doctorate to the Premier of the time when the university celebrated its 25th and 50th anniversaries, so when the 75th came along, the Senate decided there was a tradition (i.e. it had happened twice already) and Joh must be similarly honoured.

"This was 1986 and it caused outrage amongst staff, students and the general community. There was a minor riot at the graduation ceremony, plate glass windows were broken, Joh failed to show up, and he was allegedly awarded the honour in a private ceremony in the Administration Building some time later. He never used the title.

"It provoked indigenous poet Oodgeroo Noonuccal to return her Honorary degree to the University. A student protest made a convincing argument that the honorary degree was far from well deserved by the scurrilously corrupt and morally bankrupt Friend of the Farmers."

On the other hand, the awarding of honorary degrees can spice up student life (and don't we need that these days?)

The same Crikey source reminded me that Monash University awarded the Duke of Edinburgh, professional gaffe-maker, an honorary doctorate in 1986 at the same time as it cut funding to the library. In protest, students conducted a ceremony where they gave the Duke's Chihuahua a degree.

And in the late 60's a pig was given a degree in protest at Premier Bolte getting
one. They had a little gown and cap made for specially her.

And to cap it off, John Winston Howard has at least two honorary degree - one from Bar-Ilan University, Israel, in recognition of his friendship to the Jewish people and his
commitment to security and peace for Israel but not Iraq; and an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Notre Dame (WA) for...nobody can remember quite why

The politicians should keep away from academic institutions.Education is being hijacked by misguided and greedy politicians.Why should universities award honorary degrees?
Ezhil,
Isn't it more a case of academics infiltrating politics & hijacking common sense & why should taxpayers fund their every nonsensical whim.