Was the Model widely debated in the University of Melbourne before adoption, or was it fait accompli by executive fiat.

Let there be light shone upon these groves of academe.

Nov 18: Adam Schwab takes apart the hype issued by MU spokesperson Christina Buckridge (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/18/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups-126/)

Nov 20: Melbourne University staff protest by with-holding exam results (http://www.theage.com.au/national/uni-staff-withhold-marks-20091119-ioy6.html)

But they’re “vacating the undergraduate market” so why should they care? Glyn Davis an old mate of the PM’s? Did any of the 2020 Summiteers criticise his new “Melbourne Model”?

These so called executives are morally unstable. They expect thousands of dollars for an unsubstantiated education whose classes are overfilled – under the guidance of overworked lecturers. The debt that then incurs is of concern in this scenario. Are there work opportunities out there for the amount of places they allow (especially in post grad courses), and is a student of an international standard under this crap banner of a ‘new model’? Nope!

RM: link fixed

http://airminded.org/2009/08/03/a-dispatch-from-harvard-by-the-yarra/

Now take all the known problems with corporate accountability and add in the following:

- no shareholders. Not ‘weak as piss ones with few actual rights’. Just none.
- no tradition of corporate governance, or managers having, like, management quals.
- an almost limitless ability to sack blameless underlings to cover up your own incompetence.
- no actual bottom line

OTOH, as noted, the incompetence has upsides. They’re pretty easy to roll in a stoush, if you’re determined and united. But it takes a lot of time and effort we dont really have.

that sounds grim…. Is it as bad as this at other Unis? Are we seeing the long-term effects of Unis having to scramble to find new funds because Fed Govt support has slowly dwindled away?

Now and then someone bemoans the rise of “corporate thinking” in Uni management. What I wonder is this: if “corporate thinking” is bad for Unis, could it also be bad for corporations??

But then I’m reassured because a large company would never over-pay its senior management, especially if they made foolish decisions leading to financial difficulties…. Just wouldn’t happen! The shareholders wouldn’t stand for it.

The fear and uncertainty since Glyn’s arrival wiped out any unified response by the majority of the academic/teaching staff. Things became secretive, no-one was sure of the real goals, the hype and advertising became ever harder to swallow. But you realized it was not a good career move to state the obvious contradictions – your job was potentially on the line. You saw others being pushed out. Hard working academics derided, leaving one-by-one. There was a time when the campus newsletter used to accept letters, and people could say what they liked. Now, it is a propaganda machine; everything on its pages is carefully selected, and is sweet and rosy. You can talk about anything as long as it in no way reflects badly on MU. Sounds a bit like China, doesn’t it.

Let’s see how many staff respond to the ERP on the uni website, or if indeed the request for staff feedback is yet another blind. Management have already stated publicly they prefer to get rid of staff rather than delay high-profile building projects.

And when you as an individual staff member are being targeted, where do you go? Human Resources? You have to be joking. They are admin employees who are paid to quickly get rid of problems, and they side with management (admin, heads of departments,Deans). Unless it is an obvious misdemeanor or criminal act, they treat anyone below HoD level as the problem. Afer all, their careers are most likely to be negatively influenced if they don’t side with their employer. An appeal system? Check out the enterprise bargaining agreement at MU. It is a panel selected by the admin. Great. The only folks on MU campus that can give non-admin biased assistance, and that give a damn, are the NTEU. (note: I am not an NTEU employee).

Both put around the view that this is what students wanted – more flexibility, faster timeframes.

The only problem is: students didnt want that. And nobody asked them. Those jokers didnt do any market research.

Turns out international students liked the break to have a look around australia and go on hols; and (wait for this amazing heads-up) domestic students are working so many hjours they wont even contempate doing MORE subjects in a year.

Who didnt know that? Only upper management.

As a result:
- students are now doing the same number of subjets, but over three semesters instead of two
- so stafff get no research done
- labout costs have gone up, as expected
- BUT no additional fee inocme is being earned,

So, its a NET LOSS to the unis! Nice one, morons!!

And who’ll get the sack to cover it??? Those incomeptent bozos?? No siree.

I ask: would disasters like this have happened under the old collegiate management models? Who holds tese bozos to account? University Council on all too rare occasions, but basically no-one.

If you read the UniMelb VCs comments recently – he’s just put a freeze on all general appointments as well. That place is going to go to the dogs, quick smart.

I sit on one side of the industrial landscape in Universities and I know that the field will always be tilted towards academics, just like in health it will always be tilted to doctors and nurses. I’ve a lot of empathy for the increasingly difficult situation academics are facing. (I don’t think there’s any credible case to make that they are underpaid, but they are awfully overworked and burdened with a lot of ‘admin’ stuff they are generally not good at and prevents them from doing their actual job.) I’ve chosen a career supporting the academic needs of universities and I’m very happy with my choice.

I’m not an member of the NTEU, I don’t trust the NTEU and I urge my colleagues to stay away from them and join a more appropriate union like the ASU, the CPEU or the Misos, but that’s a stoush for another day.

d

I think you’ll find that general staff who do all those important things are not only NTEU members behind the academic staff, but also themselves directly in the firing line from upper management at Melb.

Upper management should take the hit for their failed investment policies and growth strategies, rather than making academic and general staff pay.