general UNSW chit-chat (2 Viewers)

[Curry]

Yeah its stupid. UNSW Admin is taking over control of the mining timetables as well. Kind of stupid considering we only have like 30 - 40 students in each year, and would be better off adjusting our own timetables. Powerhungry morons.

 

[redslert]

From next year onwards, there will be no more 3-day wks for Commerce students. Everything will be spread out over 4-5 days.

I don't think so. Looking at the timetables now most of the subjects are still within Mon-Thur.

 

[acmilan]

I don't think so. Looking at the timetables now most of the subjects are still within Mon-Thur.

where can you see the timetables? The 2007 version of the timetable doesnt have any dates yet

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Everyone knows that the School of Chemistry is getting a raw deal. It's making losses and it should count itself lucky that the University doesn't cut their funding further.

You're an idiot.

Furthermore (and it relates to what I said in another thread), it's becoming quite a sad state of affairs when a university has to treat its faculties like God damn businesses. Oh who is there to blame I ask? Who is the thin haired, stubby, large eyebrowed, horrible man that refuses to call the Lodge his home? Who is the man who's in charge of a government that continues to cut back on university funding and continues to push for universities to run themselves like private corparations?

 

[t-i-m-m-y]

The timetable is not officially released yet - it should be ready for 1 December, but it might be a few days late. Timetabling thousands of classes is no small task.

Currently, UNSWide timetabling is working hard on the timetable, there are about 3000-4000 classes yet to be scheduled. And yes, it's all becoming centralised - saves $$$. There won't even be a paper handbook next year!

As for the 3 day weeks, I can't confirm it. But I can say that would be more likely in 2008 if the proposed semester structure is implemented - in brief, 12+1 weeks, less STUVAC, 3 exams/day, 7 days of exams ( I think), and graduations in December for S2 graduands.

 

[MedNez]

it's becoming quite a sad state of affairs when a university has to treat its faculties like God damn businesses. Oh who is there to blame I ask?

The new vice chancellor.

He's made us more into a business and keeps cutting our spending and faculty funding to minimise costs and up revenue.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yes, but good ol Hilmer wouldn't have to do that if he had more funding. The guy deserves a bit of credit for doing his best to make UNSW more of a research university over one that spends copius amounts of money on cleaning staff. I don't see many research universities out there without a good chemistry school though.

 

[gman03]

But I can say that would be more likely in 2008 if the proposed semester structure is implemented - in brief, 12+1 weeks, less STUVAC, 3 exams/day, 7 days of exams ( I think), and graduations in December for S2 graduands.

Yeah I read about.. It will be good for course based timetable, but on the otherhand it means I will have less time to do my thesis.. Sheeet

 

[t-i-m-m-y]

The new vice chancellor.

He's made us more into a business and keeps cutting our spending and faculty funding to minimise costs and up revenue.

Personally, I agree with Hilmer's vision for the university. UNSW is sliding down the Go8 scale and action is needed to fix that.

The university is trying to change its financial position - it currently has very little reserves (in the order of millions - compared to USYD - billions). Hilmer's trying to cut spending and its about time the cleaners went - outsourcing would be cheaper, and it's the same. Cutting admin staff means that those remaning works harder (currently, a lot of unneeded lazy staff)- which is only good!

As for research, it's part of the way the government has forced it upon us.

 

[MedNez]

Currently, UNSWide timetabling is working hard on the timetable, there are about 3000-4000 classes yet to be scheduled. And yes, it's all becoming centralised - saves $$$.

They bought new software to help do it.

Unfortunately, jokes on them, it's an NP Complete Problem that can't be solved in linear time.

 

[§eraphim]

t-i-m-m-y, does this also affect subjects with <10 enrolled? eg Pure Maths usually negotiate classes.

 

[Curry]

I don't understand how centralising saves money when considering smaller faculties. Wouldn't it be easier to allow these faculties to govern their own timetables and exam slots?

 

[sunny]

Think about it this way - say you have a "timetabling officer" for each school. Thats a number of people the uni would be paying money for, when it could be all centralised into one system and managed by just a handful of people. To add to that, the end result should be streamlined - less clashes / double bookings, etc. The booking systems within each school (if they have one) might not look like a mess, but looking at an overall picture of UNSW its a big mess.

I couldn't believe there was a question on this in HCI.

 

[redslert]

... (currently, a lot of unneeded lazy staff) ...

Confessing about something?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Politik is clearly a penis. Universities have never been run as businesses throughout history. To do so only inhibits their true function, to enlighten the community and to engage in research. When you're preventing that because one faculty doesn't live up to its profit margin or whatever, you're not running a university, you're running a piece of shit business. It's not the way it ever has been, it's not the way it should be. Finances have never been important for determining what part of a university stays and goes, and it should never be. Is this what they teach you in economics? It's an absolute shame.

 

[t-i-m-m-y]

Politik is clearly a penis. Universities have never been run as businesses throughout history. To do so only inhibits their true function, to enlighten the community and to engage in research. When you're preventing that because one faculty doesn't live up to its profit margin or whatever, you're not running a university, you're running a piece of shit business. It's not the way it ever has been, it's not the way it should be. Finances have never been important for determining what part of a university stays and goes, and it should never be. Is this what they teach you in economics? It's an absolute shame.

Well, yes it is a shame that the way the university operates is to a certain degree influenced by financial matters. Ultimately, the uni has to bow to the almighty $$$ - blame the capitalists.

Unfortunately for UNSW, if nothing is done to 'fix' the university, UNSW might be out of 'business' - which means no more research, no more teaching. Cutting back on costs is one way to ensure that teaching remains viable (financially speaking). Figures speak for themselves, take a look at UNSW budgets, UAC admissions, international students intake, marketing etc, and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

And don't diss the Science faculty, 10 out of the 12 schools are now in the black. Mind you, Hilmer is very aware that he cannot sacrifice teaching quality - that's why (for now), most academic positions are not going under the axe - admin and general staff are the first to go.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'd much rather a university operating at a loss, funded heavily by the government (as it has been for the last...3.5 billion years) with greater emphasis on quality rather than a university that sacrifices quality simply so that it can acheive a profit. Educational institutions shouldn't have to operate as a profit creating cash cow, they should operate as educational institutions above all else.

What's the other school that's doing the dastardly deed of being in the red?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Dear politik, you suck. Stop putting things in capital letters, it does nothing to further emphasise your point, and I'm full aware that those words existed.

If you knew anything about Economics you would know that it is a Science of Choice - it is not a discipline riddled with Moral Nilhilism - rather it advocates that the best place for society is one in which market has the liberty to reach an equilibrium that BENEFITS ALL.

Blah blah blah, bling bling bling bullshit theory regurgitated from some phoney baloney classroom. Explain to me, someone with very little knowledge of economics, how a university that has to answer to the balance books and operate like some kind of small business is good for anyone but a government more concerned with having an absurd surplus that goes nowhere? Explain to me how a university that has to make cuts to a school of chemistry of all things is good for anyone. It's not good. Yeah, fine, if it was some bullshit class like modern dance that's good for nothing, be rid of it - noone will give a crap. It's a school of chemistry for crying out loud. There ought to be limits to your ignorance regarding common sense.

Your common arguement that business is a black art is both unfounded and irrational.

No, noone mentioned that a business was a black art. What my problem is, is that a university amongst others (hospitals, schools) which clearly server a highly important function in society, always have and always will, have to operate according to a stringent set of worthless rules so that money is made. Education doesn't inherently come from money making, it never has and never will. Effective education should be something that creates a loss, and it should be up to the taxpayers to offset that loss.

Most Economics students will tell you that Adam Smith envisioned a world WITHOUT trade barriers, tariffs, etc - all of which ARE IMPOSED BY GOVERNMENTS. Economics provides the ideal image of a market, in which (based on the exchange principle where everyone wins) everyone is equal and producing at a socially-efficient level.

A couple of months in an economics degree and already you're spouting bullshit as if you're some kind of expert ey politik? Anything written in this paragraph I've already addressed.

The only way for ANY UNIVERSITY to succeed is for it to be as efficient as possible. Only then, can there be any social-advantages.

I suppose that rests on your definition of success. You, and others like you believe that an effective education comes from a university that makes money. I on the other hand, along with everyone else who has even a trace of common sense sees that a university is clearly different from a corner shop. It's a freaking higher educational institution, and there's absolutely no reason why it should have to cut back on essential educational components simply to adhere to a few bullshit theories posed by a few old men. If those theories worked for a better world, then sure, I have very little problem with them. I don't see how a university which has to cut back on giving education is good for anyone though.

If academics aren't made to meet targets and budgeted goals (that are attainable), then they would not find the incentive to produce at an efficient level.

Yes, and efficiency clearly means a good education, doesn't it Politik?

If there is NO CASH FLOW in a business, if a firm focuses on making losses and incurring debt in the assumption that there will be a return in the future, THE FIRM WOULD COLLAPSE.

Yes, but that rests on the moronic assumption that a university is no different from any other firm, when it clearly is. It's owned by the taxpayer, funded by the taxpayer, administered by the taxpayer and is used by a select few amongst those taxpayers. There's clearly a limit where a douchebag such as yourself has to step back, think about what you're saying and think to yourself "Jeez, maybe a university is just a tad different from all these other things I'm thinking about. Maybe it does serve a higher purpose besides creating revenue. Perhaps there is something that provides it with money for the sole purpose, so that it doesn't jeapordise education with book-keeping.

If Faculties were put on notice about their performance, THEY WOULD BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM, AND THEREFORE, ATTRACT BETTER STUDENTS, AND ENHANCE THEIR LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.

That's a possibility, but performace at a university isn't always related strongly to how much money its pumping out. On one hand, you have a school of chemistry which is losing staff and facilities because it's not creating enough revenue. On the other hand, my hand, you'd have a school of chemistry which is still opreatring at a loss but with a much higher standard of teaching, with the lsses being offset by the state whose role, is to offset those very losses.

 

[blackfriday]

well is there any reason why those losses are being made? chemistry is the heart and soul of all the soft sciences, and being such a fundamental part of a science education, there shouldn't be any problems with student enrolments. if research grants are the problem, then perhaps the standard of teaching is not up to scratch.

i think your point of view is idealistic (albeit correct to some extent) about how a university should operate. yes, universities should provide first-class education in an important field of science, but that is subjectively your opinion (mine too, and im sure many others also). commerce students in general couldnt give a shit about chemistry on the other hand (or anything 'important'), and if they are the ones ultimately in charge, then thats the way it shall be.

universities are no longer solely funded by taxpayers, so university management should be independent of any imposed constraints, aside from the provision of university places for all those wanting to go and with the demonstrated aptitude to succeed (not saying the hsc is the best test for this either). university is no longer a place where you can learn to think critically and question the world around you. now it's a degree factory, and a ticket to a optimistically successful career. times change.

 

[t-i-m-m-y]

I'd much rather a university operating at a loss, funded heavily by the government (as it has been for the last...3.5 billion years) with greater emphasis on quality rather than a university that sacrifices quality simply so that it can acheive a profit. Educational institutions shouldn't have to operate as a profit creating cash cow, they should operate as educational institutions above all else.

What's the other school that's doing the dastardly deed of being in the red?

Nebuchanezzar: let me just remind you that the school of chemistry operating at a loss is different to the entire UNSW operating at a loss. If UNSW were to operate at a loss, it wouldn't be around.

If you really want to know, UNSW has previously been a 'degree factory' (and it still is). As a result, graduate quality and teaching standards have fallen. Hilmer (in part) is trying to fix that.

You may or may not realise, that even academics are driven by the $$$ sign. UNSW has been increasing the pay, offering around $150K just to recruit and retain the 'good' academics.

The school of chemistry problem is quite complicated, don't believe everything that the Guild/Tharunka told you.

So while your view is idealistic, it isn't quite sustainable. Yes, UNSW's primary 'business' should be to provide quality education. At the same time, it must remain financially viable. Currently, Hilmer is doing both. He is trying to maintain (ie. stop it falling!) education standards, and improve the $$$ situation of UNSW. And mind you, taxpayers already pay a sizeable chunk of the university's expenses.