Greenwich University article (long post)
Maxie
Campus Review hot off the press:
When the chancellor of Norfolk Island's controversial Greenwich University,
Dr John Walsh, met the head of DETYA's higher education
division, Michael Gallagher, in Canberra earlier this month, it was the
first direct contact between them since Australia's education ministers
chose
Gallagher to conduct an "urgent" inquiry in April, promising a decision by
June 6. BRIAN DONAGHY argues the Gallagher committee's task is more
difficult than it might appear.
---------------
Dr John Walsh left the meeting in Canberra on Friday 13th angry that
despite weeks of official silence, Greenwich University was still under
review. with no outcome expected until October or November. After all, the
Prime Minister, Mr Howard, had written to Greenwich in April
promising that a decision on the university's status would be made by June
30.
"This is the fourth review Greenwich has had to go through . . . . We are
suffering a great deal of damage," he told Campus Review.
"Greenwich is sick of being used as a political football." He insisted that
last year "the most senior people we could find" in
DETYA, Australian Education International and the Australian Qualifications
Framework Advisory Board positively encouraged the American distance
education university to transfer its operations from Hawaii to Norfolk
Island.
The government maintains, however, that Greenwich had only informal contacts
at a relatively low level with Commonwealth officials before it
opened its doors on Norfolk Island on January 4 as an Australian university.
One of the tasks for the Gallagher committee is to sort out exactly what was
said and by whom.
Walsh said the first inquiry faced by Greenwich was by the Norfolk Island
authorities before the NI assembly approved the legislation last year.
The second was early this year when Greenwich asked why it had not been put
on the AQF list, and was told the university was being reviewed by
Catherine Wildemuth (then acting head of Higher Education Operations) in
DETYA.
According to Walsh, there were "no negative comments" as a result of that
review.
Then in March this year Greenwich was asked, in a formal request from the
Commonwealth to the Norfolk Island government, to prepare documentation for
another review. This time they were given only a week to get the
documentation together, in preparation for the education ministers' council
(MCEETYA) meeting in Adelaide in April.
"It is just going on and on," Walsh said. "No-one has yet given us a
satisfactory explanation as to why the commitments by everyone else were
broken.
"The reality is that if these commitments had not been made last year about
putting us on the list (of Australian universities) and treating us like
everyone else, we would not have moved (from Hawaii)."
"We have suffered a great deal of loss and damage, not just the losses from
not being online (with the AQF and AEI) but as a result of damaging
messages that are being put out about us.
"Gallagher told us (on Friday 13th) that his review would be complete by
October or November. That means 11 months of damage, instead of the eight
months so far," Walsh said.
"We are having problems with our faculty. Some are saying we should take
legal action against the Commonwealth for fraud."
As an example of "damaging messages", Walsh said that "the Australian
Education Office in Washington has been putting out some damaging stuff.
When we complained about it, we found out that the education office was an
American operation which just happened to be based in the embassy, but is
paid for by a consortium of Australian universities."
"Yet everyone in the US thinks it is part of the Australian government."
Walsh, a London-born Melbourne barrister who now lives and works on Norfolk
Island, told Campus Review that Greenwich's connection with
Australia went back to July 1990, when it opened a representative office in
Melbourne.
In January 1994 it was incorporated as Greenwich University Pty Ltd on
Norfolk Island.
He said that in 1997 the Commonwealth, through the administrator of Norfolk
Island, Mr Tony Messner (a former Liberal Party Senator), actually
suggested that Greenwich relocate its operations from the US to Norfolk
Island. The federal departments responsible for territories and for
education were both involved, and there was both discussion and
correspondence between the Commonwealth and the NI government in October and
November that year.
"The (federal) department of education confirmed to the Department of
Territories that education supported the setting up of Greenwich.
"That is in writing. To set up anything like this Norfolk Island needs
consent, it is in the island's constitution, the Norfolk Island Act. The
Commonwealth has to agree, and the Commonwealth did agree." Walsh said that
throughout last year Greenwich made further inquiries about
operating as an Australian distance education university, had discussions
with both Bond and Notre Dame universities, and recognised the need for a
proper legislative base.
Walsh said those involved in various discussions included Ian Lucas
(director of the educational technology section of DETYA's Higher Education
Division); Stuart Hamilton, (executive director of the AVCC) and his deputy
John Mullarvey; Jennifer Ledgar (at the time an assistant secretary
in charge of the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition); Judy
Forsyth (executive officer of the Australian Qualifications Framework
Advisory Board); Jock Blackburn and Susan Bennett (of the International
Policy division of DETYA); Adrian Van Leest, (director of industry
liaison and resource management at Australian Education International) and
Sandra May (director of international communications and marketing at AEI).
All now decline to comment or say that any discussions were of a general
nature only.
"Ian Lucas gave us a copy of the West report and told us 'we want you to
move here because what you are doing is what we want the Australian higher
education system to be in 20 years' time'. Whether you agree
philosophically with that is not the point, that is what they told us,"
Walsh said.
The second main problem for the Gallagher committee has been that in
Australia there is no internationally recognisable benchmark for deciding
which Australian institutions deserve to use the "university" brand name. If
you are a government leaning towards the free market, how do you
encourage new players to enter the higher education market? And how do you
protect the existing universities' brand image?
Nobody seems clear any more about what a university actually is, never mind
how you decide which is a good one. There have been various attempts to do
both, and the government is busily working on new ones. For the moment, the
only specific requirement is that a university has to be established by
local Act of Parliament.
Greenwich University's Act of Parliament received the official assent from
the executive council in December last year. So if it is to knock it off
the list of recognised Australian universities, the Gallagher committee will
have to show that Greenwich is somehow sub-standard. To convince potential
students that a Greenwich degree was worth having, its 1998 catalogue had
nine pages of (undated) testimonials from graduates saying their Greenwich
degrees had been recognised in countries as far apart as Canada, Nigeria,
Singapore, Ireland, Brazil <\# 150> and Australia.
Two Australians were listed as satisfied graduates. A. K. Hitch, PhD,
wrote that a qualification from Greenwich was accepted by the South
Australian Education Department and the South Australian Independent Schools
Board, and the Greenwich course "increased my knowledge, made me
more able to impart this knowledge to my students".
B. Caffrey, with a Greenwich PhD in law, stated that it was recognised by
the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education in Queensland, and
resulted in two jobs: as a lecturer in law at a business school and as legal
officer of an Australian company.
[No "A. K. Hitch" is now listed in the latest South Australian telephone
book, and there is no "B. Caffrey" listed in Queensland.]
The testimonials are missing from the 1999 edition of the Greenwich
catalogue. So too is the bold type notice on page 2 of the 1998 edition
stating that "....Greenwich University is not accredited by a recognised
accrediting agency or association recognised by the US Department of
Education." Instead, the 1999 edition states that "Greenwich is a fully
accredited Australian university."
Walsh has told Campus Review "What seems to be forgotten is that Greenwich
rewrote the curriculum to meet the AQF guidelines at the request
of the AQF and MCEETYA (the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs)".
Dr Judith Forsyth, the executive officer of the AQF advisory board, admits
having had a meeting with Greenwich but says she was merely responding to
requests for information and did not regard the meeting as significant
enough to be worth mentioning to her board.
According to the AQF handbook, the AQF officially provides "a
comprehensive, nationally consistent yet flexible framework for all
qualifications in post-compulsory education and training". That includes
universities, but the universities remain self-accrediting
institutions. The AQF guideline for them is perhaps inspirational but
hardly specific: "Today, Australian universities, wherever their location
and whatever their selected profile, must enable their graduates to operate
anywhere, and in any sphere, at a level of 'professionalism' consistent
with the best international practice and in ways that embody the highest
ethical standards." This has been incorporated, almost word for word, in
the latest Greenwich catalogue.
However, Greenwich also claims to meet "Australian competency standards", a
term which normally applies to vocational education, not universities.
The Gallagher committee could argue that other Australian universities did
not carry out a comprehensive peer review of Greenwich before the Norfolk
Island legislation was passed. AQF guidelines do state that the objectives
and academic requirements for university degrees should be determined
"having regard for requirements set by peer review". However, the guidelines
are not mandatory. Peer review can be difficult for courses in new fields
of study: it can sometimes become a highly conservative process, influenced
by the desire to protect existing empires and perhaps more suitable for
restricting membership of a cosy club rather than assessing new intellectual
endeavours. And the Gallagher committee will have to decide how important
is peer review
in today's global market where billions of dollars worth of university
exports are at stake.If it is a market out there, you'd expect to be
assessed by your customers,
not your fellow suppliers.
John Bear
This discussion reminds me of the great controversy raging in the 60s over
whether the moon surface was solid, or was many feet of soft stuff into
which a moon lander would sink. The arguments were all well-reasoned,
often testy, but there was no middle ground: the answer, not yet then
known, could not be ambiguous. The instant the first lunar lander landed
(or, more accurately, crashed) on the surface, and remained in view, we
knew.
I fervently hope that AQF, in October or November or whenever, will very
clearly say "Yes" or "No" and not either either delay or waffle or
obfuscate. Then, I suggest, we will have unambiguous evidence as to
whether Greenwich will, so to speak, remain on the surface or sink out of
sight.
br...@cnetech.com
unaccredited school on the globe from trying the same thing?
Mike B
br...@cnetech.com
Larry McQueary
<ducking>
But seriously, I think that the Australian government, having been bitten once,
would be 'twice shy' with any other schools trying to travel this route.
Larry
<br...@cnetech.com> wrote in message news:37c9833c...@news.cnetech.com...
John Bear
> Let's assume that Greenwich doesn't sink. What's to stop every other
> unaccredited school on the globe from trying the same thing?
>
> Mike B
> br...@cnetech.com
One would then be well advised to get into Norfolk Island real estate.
Some Australians on this news group have suggested that if Greenwich does
get it, there may sufficient furor in the establishment that the whole
notion of the AQF may come under fire and perhaps reevaluation.
I don't think there are many, if any, other pairs of entities like the
Norfolk/Australia one. One could not do this with, for instance, Guam/US.
I think Columbia Pacific's Indian accreditation tactic is perhaps the most
creative one can be in the US in this direction.
Peter French
Larry McQueary <Termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZIfy3.15872$vu2....@news.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> Well, for one thing, Norfolk Island isn't big enough to house them all...
;-)
> <ducking>
>
> But seriously, I think that the Australian government, having been bitten
once,
> would be 'twice shy' with any other schools trying to travel this route.
>
> Larry
>
and that required ministerial approval. We must also not rely too much on
AQF - anyone can register a corporation to deliver AQF accredited
qualifications, although they may not be able to do it at the top level.
Peter
Peter French
John Bear <jo...@ursa.net> wrote in message
news:john-29089...@coat35.ppp.lmi.net...
The general feeling in some quarters is that GU will succeed for a variety
of reasons including that (1) the Administrator is a mate of the PM and he
won't let him down, (2) the Government will come up with a Virtual
University framework designed to the requirements of GU, and (3) the Dr John
Bear late of Greenwich, Fairfax, and CPU will stand by GU when the final
submissions are made.
The upshot will be a very great strain on the AQF as there may be some
hesitancy is accepting GU degrees for entry into mainstream Universities
here.
So, do we see you John?
Peter
Aaron Rivacoba
I have been sitting back, just watching this long dispute about
Greenwich. However, this particular remark from French as well as
previous remarks by Aaron Fox (hi, tocayo!), Mike B and others led me to
conclude what I suspected since a while ago: people is looking at this
whole affair with a lack of objectivity which I think is -at least-
peculiar or strange for this newsgroup.
I would gladly see Greenwich receiving recognition by Australian
government. However, I expect this recognition coming in terms of the
quality of education delivered, not because the administrator is in good
terms with the premier.
Australia has a long tradition in distance and non-traditional
learning; Greenwich, at least in concept, is highly innovative, even
today; If GU "get it", and it is the reason for a major breakthrough in
Australian education, so be it.
By the way, I can understand how Australian universities would be
hesitant to accept people from GU (after all, they are the new kids in
the block), but I would be very sad to learn that they
discriminate/despite/reject those guys in this sole basis.
And just to finalize: I have not connection with GU, other than the
curious interest on the outcomes of this adventure. I am not advocating
GU. I think that many of the facts that have been exposed arise dudes
about GU education quality, and even GU integrity. But also I think that
many of these facts must be verified and put in perspective before
establishing GU as a degree mill.
Best regards,
Aaron
Peter French wrote:
> > One would then be well advised to get into Norfolk Island real estate.
> >
> > Some Australians on this news group have suggested that if Greenwich does
> > get it, there may sufficient furor in the establishment that the whole
> > notion of the AQF may come under fire and perhaps reevaluation.
>
Dr. S.
In article <37CD45CB...@spin.com.mx>,
--
References from the scientific literature on
vitamin/nutritional therapeutics at
http://www.doctoryourself.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Maxie
<snip>
> Australia has a long tradition in distance and non-traditional learning;
Greenwich, at least in concept, is highly innovative, even
> today; If GU "get it", and it is the reason for a major breakthrough in
Australian education, so be it.
*WRONG!!!* Distance, yes, and pioneers. Non-traditional - *NO BLOODY WAY!*
It has, and never will be, permitted on Australian soil. All higher ed
instituions must be accredited, weather it come from the state recognition
branch or an Act of Parliament. Theres no bloody way were gonna have the
cock 'n' bull story that occurs in the US
> By the way, I can understand how Australian universities would be hesitant
to accept people from GU (after all, they are the new kids in
> the block), but I would be very sad to learn that they
discriminate/despite/reject those guys in this sole basis.
Doesn't the appearance of a new University on a non-descript territory not
take you back just a little bit. Get real pal.
> And just to finalize: I have not connection with GU, other than the
curious interest on the outcomes of this adventure. I am not advocating
> GU. I think that many of the facts that have been exposed arise dudes
about GU education quality, and even GU integrity. But also I think that
> many of these facts must be verified and put in perspective before
establishing GU as a degree mill.
And that is what is happening pal, just be patient
> Best regards,
> Aaron
Copya.
Maxie
Anybody know the administrator?
A. Fox <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.99090...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu...
> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Maxie wrote:
>
> > Aaron
> >
>
>
> Maxie
>
> Just to be clear, because you left my name (which was the signature of a
> post agreeing with most of your points) at the top of the post to which
> you were replying, the words marked by double indent arrows below are not
> from my keyboard. None of the words below are from my keyboard in fact.
> Wouldn't want someone to think that I though GU held a candle to even the
> lowliest of Australia's fine accredited universities.
>
> AF
nf
Maxie <ma...@aol.com> wrote in message news:37d0...@news.chariot.net.au...
> OK, no probs. This NG is really being selective in seeing posts etc.
> Anybody know the administrator?
>
It's an unmoderated group. There is no administrator.
It's hosted on thousands of NNTP servers across the country. (Distributed
computing, the basis for the internet)
Aaron Rivacoba Bohorquez
Maxie wrote:
> *WRONG!!!* Distance, yes, and pioneers. Non-traditional - *NO BLOODY WAY!*
> It has, and never will be, permitted on Australian soil.
From my point of view, granting a degree to a person that has never put
a foot in the campus is non-traditional. As I do not have specific
milestones, but rather some foggy memories in my head, I'll warn you
that I am not being emphatic with these, but here are some examples of
non-traditional ways in Australian higher education:
a) The first research doctorate was awarded by the Australian National
University after they merged with Canberra (1962?). I consider this
highly non-traditional, even nowadays.
b) The University of Queensland was one of the first universities using
multimedia to deliver content.
c) Monash University, highly innovative as it is, sees distance learning
and non-traditional deliver as one of the foundations of their strategic
plan into the future.
> All higher ed
> instituions must be accredited, weather it come from the state recognition
> branch or an Act of Parliament. Theres no bloody way were gonna have the
> cock 'n' bull story that occurs in the US
OK. I see that was not very clear in the previous post. By
non-traditional education I mean education that do not take place in the
standard "lecture-workshop-homework" format, but rather makes creative
use of technology to deliver content, to inter actuate with the student
and to function as a learning aid, even in asynchronous forms, to people
who may be in campus or miles away. Australian Universities are pioneers
in these.
I am glad that you consider that "theres no bloody way were gonna have
the cock 'n' bull story that occurs in the US". I hope that many
australians share your opinion. However,
I also hope that this rigidity in "accreditation necessary" does not
extend to the point where it may impair the system to develop. In the
very same spirit, I hope that the authorization already given to a
university does not allows this university to implement cheesy programs,
methods or content.
> Doesn't the appearance of a new University on a non-descript territory not
> take you back just a little bit. Get real pal.
Yes, I've said before, I can understand the feeling. I share it, in
fact. However, I also expect that Greenwich will not be rejected in this
sole basis, but have their programs, methods, courses, content etc.
evaluated with the SAME standards applied to the rest of the australian
academic world. After all, they would receive the same kind of
accreditation, do not they?
Best regards,
Aaron Rivacoba (so I am mistaken by Aaron Fox)