Is QUT a real university?

by

In 1989, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) was created with the hope of creating a local competitor to the University of Queensland. The resources given to it by the community have been immense, with real estate and subsidies worth many billions. With its prime location in the very middle of the city, next to the parliament, it has the basic resources to be the best university in Queensland. Let us have a look whether it has become a serious university by seeing if it is a place that is serious about whom it calls a professor.

One of the hallmarks of a real university is that you don’t get called a professor for being a high level administrator: you have to have been a serious scholar with some degree of national and international recognition before you get the highest academic title a university has to offer. Whilst it is thus quite normal in many universities that high-level administrators are not academics because the job requires different skills, serious universities will only hand out academic titles based on academic merit, not administrative merit. After all, professors are supposed to embody and profess the quality of the academics in their university! So the reputation and quality of these publicly funded universities stands or falls with how easy or difficult it is to get an academic title. I will let you judge the case of QUT.

Let us start at the top of the university, made up of the Vice Chancellor and 6 Deputy Vice Chancellors. All 7 of them are professors. The 2 people just below the VC on the QUT management website, the ‘Senior’ Deputy Vice Chancellors are Professor Carol Dickenson and Professor Peter Little. Let us look at their achievements and those of the others using two standards every other academic has been judged by in recent years in Australia: whether they have published in good journals and conferences, and whether their peers have cited their work. For publications we can turn to the rankings used by the journal lists of the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercise, wherein publication outlets have been ranked from high (A* and A) to low (B and C). For citations, there are various possible sources, but let us take the very generous and easily accessible Google Scholars information, a resource frequently used and recommend in Australian grant applications.

A complication is that one cannot find the CV of any of these DVCs online, which is unusual because normally academics are not afraid to let you know their achievements. Yet, QUT helpfully has a reprint facility and Google Scholar finds almost every paper from the last 50 years. Also, the QUT website does tell you whether they have a PhD and where it is from, so there is enough information to trace people’s academic careers from these sources. To be sure the results are not biased, the DVCs were individually approached to see if publications and citations were overlooked in this search (none responded with information on additional papers or citations).

Professor Peter Little has a PhD (from Bond university). He has one publication in 2001 registered at QUT (co-authored with two others) in a journal that is not on the ERA 2010 journal list. He has another paper from 1998, also in an un-ranked journal, with a total of 31 Google Scholar Search cites (including self-cites) up to 31.

Professor Carol Dickenson has 17 cites generated by two papers, one of which is a report from a ministry and the other in a B-journal on the ERA journals lists.

What about the next four DVCs in line then: Professors Scott Sheppard, Suzi Vaughan, Arun Sharma, and Tom Cochrane?

Professor Scott Sheppard doesn’t have a PhD, has no publications to be found anywhere and has been a diplomat most of his life.

Professor Suzi Vaughan comes from an art background. In terms of publications,  she has two book chapters,  an un-ranked journal paper, two conferences (see here), and 14 citations on Google Scholar. On top of this is a 2003 ‘art work’.

Professor Arun Sharma  is still producing as an academic, with an A*, 6 A’s and 2 B’s to his name in the 00’s alone, as well as some serious conferences. He has 40 citations from his QUT-registered publications.

Finally, Professor Tom Cochrane. He does not have a PhD. He has one B and one C publication on the QUT repository . His main publication is called ‘making a difference: implementing the eprints mandate at QUT’ and has been cited 21 times, bringing his estimated total number of Google Scholar cites to 44.

Let us for comparison look at the publications and citations of senior professor-administrators in other regional universities in Queensland: the University of the Sunshine Coast and the Southern Cross University.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Sunshine Coast has hundreds of citations and dozens of articles, praised on his own promotional website.  The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Pro Vice-Chancellor International, and the Pro Vice-Chancellor Research, all seem to be solid academics with hundreds of publications combined. Indeed, they are still publishing and are encouraging some of the lower managers, who primarily have worked in government, to write papers too. The one person on the management team who is clearly not an academic is also not called a professor.

At the Southern Cross University, meanwhile, the VC, the Deputy VC, and the Pro-VC look very solid academics too. Together they have about 500 publications (papers, book chapters, etc.) and thousands of Google cites.

Let us now take a different comparison and look at what is normal within QUT, the school of management in the faculty of Business. Let’s look at the lecturers first for they are at the bottom of the academic hierarchy. One of the lecturers there had 5 publications, including an A on the ERA 2010 list. And at the senior lecturer level, the standards are higher: this senior lecturer for instance has an A and an A* and a whole list of further publications. Another senior lecturer has several C’s, B’s and an A* too, on top of 165 Google citations, which is more cites than all 6 DVCs combined.

What is normal at GO8 universities? Well, senior professors at GO8s typically have thousands of citations and dozens, if not hundreds, of articles that are in the ERA rankings. In economics at GO8 universities, it would be hard to even get tenure as a lecturer without at least a couple of A/A* publications. Professors with less than 500 Google citations are rare. I don’t know any professor at a Go8 without a PhD.

What are the criteria at QUT for being a professor? Well, the official QUT criteria for professors is that they demonstrate “leadership and authority in research and scholarship”. Judging by some of the DVCs this apparently does not include the need for either a PhD, journal publications, or citations. Who judges, you might ask? In the end, at QUT it is all up to the Vice Chancellor whose word on this is final according to its criteria.

Do these DVC professors then accept a lower wage as compensation for getting an academic title with their levels of academic output? Not quite: they get huge salaries of around 500,000 dollars each (see pages 44 and 45 for their salaries) and average ‘bonuses’ of 271,000 in 2011!.

I have not looked at all the Deans and other ‘lesser managers’ at QUT, but from a quick glance at ‘Creative Industries’, the situation seems the same as higher up. You might want to browse their list of emeritus professors who are supposed to be top scientists.

I think it is up to the reader to judge whether QUT takes academic titles seriously or not. Personally, I am amazed at the ease with which administrators there get professor titles. I want to see QUT adopt far higher standards and find myself wondering, whenever I meet a QUT professor, whether they are a real one or not.

 

Disclaimer: the views expressed above are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer (UQ). Previous writings on related topics are here, here, here, here, and here.

99 Responses to "Is QUT a real university?"
  1. A top post Paul! All of this info is publically available but no one had the guts to comment on it. Those salaries are absolute nonsense. There are current phd students out there with better CVs and research records than those so-called DVCs and emeritus professors. Haha what a joke! Well, looks like the Sunny Coast (uni) just got sunnier! I am off to buy myself a surfboard and some sunblock.

    • I did not look at when they were given their titles. On the official management team website (first link in the post) they are all listed as professor!

        • Not if its not an active operational position within an academic institution. It demeans and trivializes the normal processes for academic promotion while creating a privileged elitist system of peerage akin to knighting. Ask the Queen his that’s worked out with Rolphe Harris.
          Yes, there is something wrong with it. It wasn’t EARNED through the processes everyone else must follow, is devoid of the criteria required of anyone else, and is bestowed to mates and donors.

  2. Is QUT a real university? NO!
    Why? Little Peter’s going price for at best a zero-impact publication: $500,000+ per year

  3. If a decorated and illustrious professor gets $170k per year and a senior “administrator” gets $500k, is the latter overpaid. I’m not so sure. The latter, even if terribly successful, can’t be expected to be in the job for long, and has no guarantee of many decades of stable CPI+ gainful employment. Oh, and imagine the thrill of herding illustrious academic cats. There is a market for the provision of management services, and why should we think it is failing?

    • You think this is a market salary Bruce and that these people were earning the same amount before or would get the same amount elsewhere? I encourage you to have a look at the actual histories of senior administrators in Australian universities and tell me which big-paying jobs they came from! Or that they could command!

  4. On what basis can one say that the quality of being a university is based on the criteria for what an institution calls a professor or not? That’s a big call to make, and you haven’t given any evidence as to why that should be the defining quality.

  5. Maybe not DZ but Paul does have a point. Mind you the ultimate test IS in the quality of the graduates. But that is becoming problematic, given the decline of quality output from all Universities since the changes Whitlam set in train.

    • I tend to think the ultimate test is the value added to students coming into the university. So the question is if QUT had the quality of students that UQ has, would it produce equivalent quality students? And (not entirely equivalently) if UQ had to accept some of the students QUT accepts, would they produce better outcomes? An interesting discussion (with US data!) is here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322.pdf

  6. Maybe they should take a good look at build environment faculty LA. Run by untrained un-professional staff who haven’t had a year of work training or experience.

  7. I thought you went a tad too far in your criticism here, Paul. I may be slightly off-topic, but In my experience (not QUT) administrators of whatever title are worth every cent, most keenly felt by talking to staff and students and entering classes to contribute their experience on course design, pedagogy and good assessment. Similarly, they provide great stimulus to inquiry by establishing direction and mentoring researchers. Of huge importance, I think, is their willingness (often on short notice) to fly overseas to establish or maintain educational partnerships which typically provide long-term benefits to both parties. And, because I know you want more, let’s not forget their flexibility – most clearly shown perhaps by their willingness to abandon old management traditions such as ‘management by walking around’ with the newer and more powerful ‘management by bottom-line’ type of approach. Imagine handling the pressure they must feel when designing the next restructure!

  8. Unfortunately the man is right (I say this with much chagrin, as I also am a student at QUT) But QUT fails not just at the points and for the reasons mentioned above. It has in fact lost–perhaps it has never had–motivation to excel.

  9. Paul,

    This is true for most non G8 Universities. Did you see the publication record of University of Melbourne VC and his wife?

    Academics are expected to publish in quality journals and administrators are not required to have any standards. Based on what I have observed , I see that the most important qualification for university executives (position including Dean and above) is to come from a British/Irish background. Further, if you are from non-Anglo/ European background then no matter what your publications are, you are not supposed to be an executive.

    I am sorry to say that such an apartheid regime exists in Australian academia.

    Cheers,
    Sriram

    PS: I am a bit surprised that at a time when Australian government is looking to cut education spending, they are not planing to cut VC (and other executive) salaries. I can’t understand why the VC’s of public universities get paid more than the Australian PM.

    • I think you are unto something really important here, Sririam . (I see that the most important qualification for university executives (position including Dean and above) is to come from a British/Irish background.). It would be interesting to quantify that not just for QUT but am pretty sure the observation generalizes. There is massive, and very exclusionary, gift exchange going on. And it is not just something going on in universities. You find similar developments in politics (just follow the masterpiece theatre called the ICAC and recent revelations involving people like Torbay, MacDonald (Sir Lunch-a-lot), the Obeids and their various minions. Undoubtedly it goes on in other parties and walks of life, too.

    • Not true (exclusively). At Melbourne the dean of the faculty is the very Dutch – and well published – Professor Paul Kofman and the dean of MBS is the very Belgian Professor Zeger Degraeve.

          • I don’t know. What does that mean? Paul has made an interesting argument. And Sriram made an interesting observation. Which I conjectured is likely to generalize from what I have casually observed. NotSoSImple gave a couple of counterexamples. Which did not persuade me. That was all. I did not intend to answer your question, And won’t now.

  10. QUT > UQ.

    Every day of the week. Of course a UQ student/graduate wrote this. Jealousy is strong with this one.

    • Direct evidence of the kind of mentality, logic and argumentative abilities a QUT student possesses right here.

  11. This has been an interesting discussion. What is not clear is the allegiences involved.

    But the key question is: are professional academics or professional managers best equiped to manage Universities.? My answer would be whoever achieves the best outcomes in terms of the graduates. But this is not clear from whhat has been said here.

  12. The degrees at qut (especially honours level within the business faculty over the last 2 years) are discounted heavily by both academics and the industry. The managers from the main financial institutions in qld now first look at the non-QUT file of applicants.

    As also apparent, non-researchers are being promoted up the academic ranks in a short amount of time. They know who they are, and don’t get a lot of respect from serious academics nor students. Perhaps, they are aiming to get to DVC soon?

  13. Great article Paul. From personal experiences with some of the persons mentioned I can confirm that those people are not great scholars and academics nor are they particularly great administrators warranting the huge salaries. For example, apparently the QUT Dean of Research stated that research postgraduate students only cost money and that the uni does not really want them. But of course, how can one except understanding of this issue if the person making the statement and in charge is not an academic and obviously does not value the impact and importance of research?!
    It should be noted that other factors must be considered to decide whether the award of the title professor is warranted. Again, having studied at Sunshine Uni many people there do not deserve the title professor as well. I would consider somebody who is a leading authority worldwide (or at least nationally) in his or her field being worthy of the title of professor. Since there is only a limited number of such people, not every university can have one – more motivation for the others to reach the echelon of the field. Also, spurs on the competition between unis for the really good people.
    QUT must clean up its act and follow its own standards, rules, and procedures. If that means exchanging the people at the top, then so be it.

  14. I agree with the comment about the QUT Built Environment faculty. I went through Urban planning in the late 90s/early 2000s and it was a complete mess. Absolutely no rigour, either from the staff or the course structure itself. The course looked good on paper but was executed very poorly. I wouldn’t recommend anyone study at QUT for anything except perhaps Nursing which is quite regarded apparently.

    • I beg to differ, psychology and social work are pretty good as well. In fact, social work at QUT is leaps ahead of social work at UQ.

  15. Are you hostly arguing that a University’s “Real”-ness best judged by the on-paper qualifications of its leaders? Rather than, say, their performance? Or, indeed, the institution’s overall performance in terms of research and teaching?

    My (admittedly limited) experience would suggest that traditional, “hardcore” research academics don’t always make good managers. So, I would much prefer to see University *leaders* awarded those positions because of their proven ability to *lead* and effective administrate, not necessaily the number of A* publications they’ve had their name attached to over the years. For that matter, why does a DVC for “Technology, Information and Learning Support”, for example, need a PhD and/or extensive research track record anyway?

    Call me ‘institutionalised’ if you want, but QUT seems (to my eyes) as a more meritocratic uni than most, and is not unnecessarily bound by tradition.

    Having had one of the DVCs questioned in this article as my direct manager for several years, I will just say this: “Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.”

    • “but QUT seems (to my eyes) as a more meritocratic uni than most”

      this is the funniest line on this blog!
      Stephen, go to any Go8 school’s website, take a junior lecturer’s pubs and compare them to a QUT prof’s pubs. You will see the point of Paul’s argument.

      Moreover, take some of the people on the emeritus list (who are supposed to be or have been top researchers), and compare them to a junior lecturer at Go8, you will again see that the young junior lecturer outperforms them on academic merit.

      I will just say this: “Your job must suck!”

      • “go to any Go8 school’s website, take a junior lecturer’s pubs and compare them to a QUT prof’s pubs. You will see the point of Paul’s argument.”

        OK, big call. Will I? Are you sure? And, is that ANY QUT Professor?

        I love my job, but thanks for addressing the substantive point I was trying to make nonetheless.

      • Which would you say is better? I am an international student looking to study nursing at QUT or UQ and would like to hear from people who experienced both first hand on what they think?

        • I was a student in Education for three degrees at Univ of Qld and I was a lecturer at QUT. On the basis of my knowledge (which is not in nursing and which spans 1972 to 2001), I would recommend Univ of Qld for the quality of the education received. I know that every degree I was awarded at UofQ was thoroughly earned.

  16. “the fact that as an academic you can not see beyond academia”

    Isn’t that the point? I found that sentence to be hilarious and terribly wrong.

  17. Hey Tom, you are a long winded dingbat but I fundamentally agree with your point. The administrators of a Uni could call themselves “Shambu, King of the Toilet” for all I care. I don’t give a Flying F*** about their title or what they publish.

    What I do care about is how the institution is run, how it treats its students, whether it can attract a quality teaching faculty and whether it is in ascendence or decline. Holding degrees from both institutions I have to say that QUT was streets ahead from an undergraduate perspective.

    QUT law lecturers write standard texts. I don’t recall reading anything authored by anyone from UQ in my professional practice in years.

    I don’t know about the comparative research opportunities but for basic quality in undergraduate education there was no comparison between QUT & UQ law faculties. UQ was (and still is, by all accounts) a dreadful sausage factory with lackluster, time serving staff and no focus on practicality. QUT teaching staff were for the most part industry professionals who had mud on their boots and were straight out of the trenches themselves. They had their odd ducks as well of course, but I know who I learned more from, and I know which institution generally turns out graduates that I can show to their desk and tell them to get on with it.

  18. I find this obsession with having such highly qualified people as professors to be a load of garbage. I am a UQ student and I have to say that the lecturers with PHD’s et al more often than not are beyond appauling. They may have a good knowledge base, but they often are terrible at putting together learning programs that effectively teach students what they know.

    Oh, and did I mention said lecturers have NO IDEA how to present their content. Does anyone else here do ECON1010 – the content is dull, the tutors barely know English and the lecturer in my view has abysmal presentation / teaching skills. He also has a PHD.

    The facts are guys, having 10 qualifications next to your name doesn’t make you a better teacher. I’m sure there are good and bad lecturers at both UQ and QUT. But I know for one that the best in the business are the ones that have passion for what they do, have good presentation skills and effective methods of learning. (see Carl Sherwood)

    Cheers

    • Harry, Dave, Tamas,

      You are entitled to your opinions but keep it civil. I removed Tamas’s reply for rudeness but left Harry’s and Dave’s though they are skating on the edge. I will say that I won’t tolerate anonymous slights on others. You want to make strong statements, then be civil and put your real name behind them like a man.

  19. Harry,

    As a student, I can understand your frustration with phd ‘qualified’ lecturers. I have experienced the same at QUT first-year economics. I am sure if anyone has had Uwi Dulleck and his german speaking tutors, they would rather stay at home and read the book. Compared to the lecturers in the States, they were very very poor. Not sure how some of these guys get there, must be also political rather than merit based (as this blog seems to suggest).

  20. You wrote “I think it is up to the reader to judge whether QUT takes academic titles seriously or not.”

    Clearly, you take these titles far too seriously. As to whether being a “real” professor is a sufficient or even necessary condition to take on a top management role at a University, surely not.

  21. The true nature of a Professor is so old hat, QUT is a university for the real world. Talking specifically about its business faculty, QUT’s triple crown accreditation reinforces the fact they are ahead of the times (and the double of UQ)

    • Yes, I wonder if the accreditation will be extended in the near future, as I understand that it gets reviewed every few years. I have just convinced my kids not to have QUT on their preference list for next year (they are completing high school at the end of this year). As for the ‘real world’ argument, looking at the recent media stories, UQ seems to be producing a lot more interesting and applicable research than QUT.

    • Jarrod
      The ‘triple Crown’ can be paid for. And your ‘real world’ comments shows you can repeat a slogan you have seen advertised.

      But think this through – while you are celebrating the lack of tradition – can I ask you if not based on merit, then on what basis are the Professorships being granted?

  22. Interesting read, and you’re obviously right. But as a QUT graduate with a good graduate job, it never lessened my education not having traditional professors… The amount of undergraduate students i know who have transferred from UQ to QUT is ridiculous, all to receive a less traditional and more hands on education, and were a lot happier. I know it was the main reason I got a job so quickly. But in an academic sense, that is ridiculous you can be a prof without a PhD, or little peer reviewed work, but for the students sake, does it matter?

  23. Very impressive post Paul,
    It seems like a very Queensland thing to do away with formal traditional things like needing a PHD to become a Professor and often Queenslanders wear such an attitude as a badge of pride against the stuffiness of the southerners – but of course the blind spot for Queenslanders is that when you do away with formal institutions and practice – the gap is almost always filled with cronyism, nepotism and then corruption. Thats QLD writ large and QUT should seek to recognise and rise above it – not celebrate it. So well done Paul in highlighting this bizarre rise of the non-academic to Professorships which probably happens from time to time at other universities but seems to be common place and almost of virus proportions at QUT.
    My brother has a law degree from Melbourne uni and a PhD in Astrophysics – he has over 2,000 citations and cant get a research job or a fellowship in Australia and has spent the last decade overseas – let alone a Professorship! Go figure.

  24. Paul,

    There seems to be a possibly good argument on here that people in Mgt and Admin positions don’t need to be Academics – this seems like quite a reasonable argument.

    Perhaps a more sensible approach is simply to allow these people their current positions but simply don’t call them ‘Professors’. Has anyone considered raising this with the ACCC? I actually think it is misleading by QUT to do this- Maybe call these people “Executive Directors” or something but dont call them “Professors”.

    Cheers

  25. Just saw one of my lecturers from QUT on tv the other day; talking about the rise in unemployment in Qld. Sadly, he had no idea what he was talking about and looked very nervous. This is another example of their poor hiring decisions.

  26. Paul, tell us why you left QUT, and why you don’t list QUT as your employer from 2006 to 2010 in your bio on economics.com.au…

  27. John Thwaites is a Professor at Monash University and to my knowledge does not have a PhD

  28. Universities in US are following a totally radical approach. There is nothing like a full-time academic position anymore. Every professor is released from their university to work in their respective industry for at least 3 years before they come back to teaching. Again after 3 years they are back to their profession. The full-time academics at university are only responsible for administrative matters. This model has produced graduates with Industry ready skills and knowledge. Wish this takes shape here in Australia too…………..

  29. Qut has save millions of lives and bettered billions more as a result of the research conducted by its staff. If you think its not a real university then what is? there are many world class industry professionals who spend their time teaching the next generation and conducting research to better the world, If you are too shallow to put up with competition then shame on you!

    • What mystical QUT-made cure saves lives? I don’t recall hearing about any legitimate QUT research capable of substantiating your claim?

  30. Troy, the only research I have seen come out of the Queensland University of Technology in recent years has either been plagiarized in some way or completely made up; shame on YOU and all the rest of academics and professionals there!

  31. Professor Michael Lavarch, the previous Executive Dean of Law at QUT would not meet entry requirements to be a Master research or coursework student let alone a PhD student in his own Faculty of Law, such was his academic credentials.

  32. It is not fair to compare QUT to UQ. You need to compare apples with apples, say QUT to UTS or RMIT. The student cohort of UQ comes mainly from prestigeous private schools in Brisbane. QUT has an extraordinarily high first in family and low SES component to its student cohort, a cohort that QUT prides itself on and actively courts. QUT also seeks to increase its ingenous cohort of students and staff and has its very own indigenous unit of very accomplished academics such as Chris Sarra.

    UQ is also in the Go8. QUT is not. QUT promotes itself as the “university for the real world” and actively recruits lecturers with industry experience as do UTS and RMIT. QUT is now also competing with SBIT, the former South Brisbane TAFE, which now offers undergraduate degrees.

    Furthermore, UQ has a number of long established foundations and bequests, such as The Mayne Bequest that QUT simply cannot compete with. This is why QUT needs to attract staff such as Professor Sheppard by conferring academic status. Staff of Professor Sheppard’s calibre have the contacts and experience to attract both research funding and international students.

    • to summarize your point: UQ = apple = real university; while QUT is not an apple, and hence not a real university!
      Its good that someone has answered the initial question posed!

  33. The article and the discussion here seems like a war of words between QUT and UQ employees who are trying to promote their universities, using either fake or real IDs. Am a prospective student exploring postgraduate options and have over 10 years of experience in marketing and can smell such things from a mile 🙂 …….

    Grow up guys! That’s all I’d say, not giving a good impression, neither about UQ nor QUT! Immature approach to this marketing article, pointing fingers at others is not the right way of promoting your product!

    • I think the opening question in this blog needs to be answered with a voting poll: Is QUT a real university? Yes/No (and why is optional).
      I will kick it off:

      No. There are academics at QUT with Professor titles that would struggle to make Lecturer/Snr Lecturer level in G8 departments.

  34. As someone who has attended UWA, QUT and UMelb, I can honestly say I’ve not noticed a large difference in teaching quality, although the facilities have been noticably better at the Go8 unis.

    Graduates in the most fields could expect to have a similar level of skills out of QUT or Go8.

    This petty, bitchy little cavalcade of comments ignores the fact that outside (yes, in the real world), most employers wouldn’t give a sh*t if you went to QUT or UQ.

    Have fun kids.

    • I have attended UWA and UNE and I have to agree that as a rule undergrad level teaching isn’t that different.

      That said smarter people tend to self select into the more prestigious universities. I hire graduate engineers and I do consider the university attended a useful signal when hiring. Not the main consideration, but it helps on the margins.

      Anyway I think people are getting a bit distracted from the point that a university is not just a place that produces workers, but also a place where research is done. Personally I think that titles matter and how they are used is a good proxy for an organisations priorities.

      • UWA went through a round of title inflation – lecturers are now professors, and actual professors are called Winthrop Professors (with ranks in between of course).

  35. Professor Marg Britz? She is one of the world ‘s authorities on microbiology. Fulbright scholer, too. She worked at QUT. She was one of their most popular and innovative Deans.

  36. While some valid points have been made in the article and comments, there seems to be an inherent bias by both UQ and QUT employees/students.

    May I start off by pointing out the appalling picture that people are painting for both universities (primarily UQ given QUT hasn’t seem to found this article yet).

    The quality of academics should not be based on their publications, but their ability to communicate to students. You can have every degree and 1000 articles to your name but still be hopeless in a classroom. The same goes for administrators and managers – its people skills that make a successful leader and educator, along with knowledge of course.

    There is only so far you will get in the ‘real world’ by bragging about your senior lecturers publications and qualifications before people catch on that you really don’t know much (hint: it won’t take long at all).

    If you were to judge the standard of the two universities by rankings by various sources you would not find a significant difference between the two institutions. I find it puzzling that all these sources have gotten it so wrong.

    I find it amazing how people can attempt to devalue the degree someone has worked so hard for. I have met amazing graduates from both universities and am glad to say none of them represent the people here. You would find that if you went to any respectable business event you there would be successful graduates from both and neither could care less about a bitter unproductive rivalry.

    As for tradition, while it has it’s place, we live in an ever changing world. We know more about our brains, bodies, technology and the universe than we ever have. Tradition will ways have its place to guide, but to stay competitive we need to be lead by the tomorrow, not the 19th century.

    It may also be beneficial to stay humble as both institutions quiver to the likes of the Ivy League etc. It’s like two Hyundai’s fighting it out about who is more luxurious. Neither are exceptional, and rather inferior compared to other offerings.

    To be honest I’m quite shocked you would take the time out of your busy day of writing award winning publications to write this.

    And yes QUT is a real university to answer the question. Chancellor’s being awarded titles that they may not deserve doesn’t negate a universities status nor reflect the values of the whole place.

  37. Guys QUT is very much real. There is so much to support this fact. The degree is backed by the government (like any other Australian university), the business school is triple crowned and recognized for its quality, the three major ranking systems rate it among the top 300 universities worldwide. There shouldn’t be any doubt about it being 100% REAL. I really do hope this thread comes to an end.

  38. Keep the thread going–I am just about to start on Academia politics and QUT plus a whole lot more
    J G Kyne husband of a former QUT EDU faculty lecturer. Any reader just email me and I will advise.JKG.

  39. just walked through the QUT GP and KG campuses last week- I must say QUT has much more of a TAFE or training college atmosphere than a university.

  40. Read their “blueprint” v.4. The S. Vaughn indicated above just sent out to staff the epitome of verbose, vapid, BS-bingo buzzword academic-speak communications regarding a new “Real World Learning 2020” initiative. Almost unreadable.
    Such chronic, generalist, corporate-speak “strategy” communications drivel might not be unique to QUT, but I have noted it appears to have reached a pinnacle there. I suspect due to the issues regarding the backgrounds of the managers specifically indicated in this commentary.

  41. I agree Jaime. There is virtually zero detail in the “Real World Leaning 2020” document. Likely, the assumption made by the author(s) is that we (any other reader) must be of weak mind and that we will be overwhelmed by their verbose nothingness.

  42. Any university is good if we are happier learning from it. At the moment I am doing Forex trading, it is a work which needs a lot of determination and only then one can be successful; it is not possible for anyone to succeed without education. I have excellent support in OctaFX, it’s a classic broker with cTrader demo contest where there is 400 dollar prize available to be won and thanks to that we can be really comfortable in how we work and get results according to that.

%d bloggers like this:
PageLines