Warwick votes against Singapore campus
-
The top Brit unis won't set up shop here, only the 2nd and third rate unis will cos they need the money. Thats a fact.
You will never see twinning program from the top unis.
We want to great unis like Hopkins & MIT, not Warwick. -
you should also note that singapore currently has only 3 full time academic varsities, nus, ntu and smu.Originally posted by sgdiehard:warwick and NUS no comparison!! warwick rank 203 to 300 in the world (together with 98 other universities ranking the same at 203 in the world). NUS rank 101 to 152 in the world.
warwick rank 20 to 30 among the universities in Britain; of course NUS rank no.1 in Singapore.
warwick rank 80 to 123 among European universities, NUS rank 9-19 among the Asian Pacific universities.
Not all first tier, but NUS is in 2nd tier and warwick in 3 tier!!
Still don't know why EDB wants warwick to set up here.
-
why would they need to come here when people will automatically flock to the states to attend these schools?Originally posted by Salman:The top Brit unis won't set up shop here, only the 2nd and third rate unis will cos they need the money. Thats a fact.
You will never see twinning program from the top unis.
We want to great unis like Hopkins & MIT, not Warwick. they dont look for students, students look for them. -
come on brothers and sisters, No top overseas uni wants to set up shop here , it is so evident it needs no elaboration. That's why they invited warwick.
Unis of the MIT calibre in Singapore may never happen with its outdated mode of thinking. Intelligent people also happen to be radical. If radical they will not stay here. -
Btw just in case i got misunderstood. I am all for liberal institutions. I get frustrated and annoyed when i get told that the main goals is to produce technicians for the industry.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Rather a liberal university than one that tells you what's good for you.Anyone who does the latter can very well call himself a HYPOCRITE. -
They need to come here cos they don't do so well back home and they need the money. They won't even consider setting up shop here if people are flocking to them.Originally posted by vito_corleone:why would they need to come here when people will automatically flock to the states to attend these schools? they dont look for students, students look for them.
The top unis in UK won't do twinning programs or set up campuses here cos they don't need the money. Its that simple.
NUS is better than Warwick anyway, so why shld we even need them? Only second or third rate students who can't make NUS will go there.
We need the MITs and John Hopkins, not the Warwicks. -
ya, 3 full varsities for a population of 4 millions. UK has a population of around 60 million so they should be around 50 varsities there, but then there are big varsities and small ones. Hard to compare and I am not sure such statistics is of any value.Originally posted by vito_corleone:you should also note that singapore currently has only 3 full time academic varsities, nus, ntu and smu. -
there is a lot of truth in this.Originally posted by Salman:....... Only second or third rate students who can't make NUS will go there. -
I am concerned about the apparent distinction practiced by the post secondary institutions. The emphasis on technical skills in the delivery of education without the required conceptual skills. Teaching how something works is not enough, there is a need to teach why.
-
why would people come to nus when they can go to yale or harvard?Originally posted by Salman:They need to come here cos they don't do so well back home and they need the money. They won't even consider setting up shop here if people are flocking to them.
The top unis in UK won't do twinning programs or set up campuses here cos they don't need the money. Its that simple.
NUS is better than Warwick anyway, so why shld we even need them? Only second or third rate students who can't make NUS will go there.
We need the MITs and John Hopkins, not the Warwicks. -
Why would people go to Warwick if they can go to Yale or Harvard?
-
same thing.Originally posted by Salman:Why would people go to Warwick if they can go to Yale or Harvard? -
We therefore don't need Warwick.
The case is clear, the chancellor wants to come but its the ideologues who don't.
Ideologues are not known to make rational economic decisions, thats the reason why LA Times, NT Times, CBS and MSNBC are losing audience and revenue. -
This is for the benefit of those who don't subscribe to ST:
Straits Times Interactive
Oct 22, 2005
Finances, not freedom, worried Warwick University
By Sandra Davie and Ho Ai Li
IT WAS money, not a feared deficit of academic freedom, that scuttled Warwick University's hopes of setting up a campus here.
The British university finally broke its silence on its aborted plan yesterday and suggested that much of the opposition by its academics was centred on the proposed 'governance and financial structures' for the second campus.
Warwick spokesman Peter Dunn would not elaborate on what exactly these sticking points were, only that the concern over academic freedom was just one and not the 'key' issue in the final decision.
'If it was, would we be talking further to EDB?' he asked, referring to the Economic Development Board, stressing that the 'deal is by no means over yet'.
He said the Warwick management will be in Singapore next week to meet EDB officers, to work out 'Plan B', but stopped short of giving further details.
'Plan A did not have the backing of the academics, so we are putting together Plan B.'
In a statement, Warwick vice-chancellor David VandeLinde said the university firmly believes that Asia is key to any international vision for Warwick. And its culture and geography make Singapore an ideal setting for Warwick's key Asian presence.
'The university also feels that it is unlikely to receive a better invitation to raise its international profile,' he said.
Expensive plan
NO DOUBT, Warwick's Singapore proposal is ambitious and would be expensive.
Earlier reports estimated that the campus for 10,000 students would cost £85 million (S$257 million).
Of this amount, the EDB would put in £10 million of grant money and a £37.75 million loan, and the shortfall would come from Warwick.
More recent estimates are higher.
In a feasibility study released early this month, building costs are put at around £152 million over three phases, with facilities such as libraries and computers costing another £130 million. This excludes research funding.
The report did not say how much EDB was prepared to fund, but suggested that it was 'unacceptable'.
The economics of the deal led many Warwick academics to conclude that the Singapore venture would be a risky one, fraught with implications for the university's reputation if it failed to achieve an impressive footprint here.
This concern was also coupled with fears that Warwick may end up stretching itself too thin at home base.
It was thus argued that it would be better off husbanding its resources entirely for the British campus.
Some of the Warwick professors who went on the record said as much.
Professor Malcolm McCrae said he did not doubt that for some of his colleagues, the issue of academic freedom was important.
But it was not his perception, he said, 'that issues around the question of academic freedom were the main reason'.
Apparently, Warwick did try to convey its doubts over the commercial viability of the second campus to the EDB.
But according to Prof McCrae, in the end, 'the reassurances that were provided by the Singapore end...were just not sufficient to tip the risk versus benefit equation'.
His colleague in the economics department, Prof Andrew Oswald, agreed that academic freedom was only one of many considerations.
To him, the main dilemma was whether Warwick should concentrate on being a world-class research university in just one location.
'International students should come to our site, not the other way around,' he said. -
Here's what I think really happened and there could only be two possibilities.
1.The real reason for the withdrawal was financial but liberals from the university took the opportunity to grab the agenda and claimed it was because of academic freedom.
2.Its damage control at Warwick to cut the controversy. -
And this is what was reported in Warwick:
"Disgruntled lecturers will tomorrow attempt to inflict a fatal blow on the Vice-Chancellor's dream of opening a £294m Singapore campus. The crucial vote by senior academics at the University Senate is "too close to call" according to several well placed sources. Many staff are opposed to the plans over the financial risk involved, worries over academic freedom and a perceived threat to Warwick's reputation.
A full feasibility study, the cost of which went over-budget by 100 percent to £800,000, had reported that the venture would be financially viable but gave no guarantees on academic freedom or human rights.
A confidential University letter sent last week, obtained by the Boar, reveals a last gasp attempt to obtain concessions from the Singapore government on the lingering question of academic freedom......"
(http://www.warwickboar.co.uk/boar/news/singapore_dream_hangs_in_balance_as_staff_vote/)
Who's right? What really happened? -
Looks like its possibility number 2 in play.
The libs in Warwick didn't like Singapore but to cut the controversy, they claim it was for financial reasons. -
If it is truely academic freedom, then more so they should feel free to speak up and take this opportunity to tell the singapore government what they are losing out for the lack of freedom.Originally posted by Salman:Looks like its possibility number 2 in play.
The libs in Warwick didn't like Singapore but to cut the controversy, they claim it was for financial reasons.
If they have to hide "the lack of freedom" behind "financial reasons", do these ppl really know what is freedom?? -
I think its a matter of different groups of people from Warwick giving out different messages. It sure sounds like damage control.
-
Forces of pragmatism vs the forces who wish to keep the principles and ideals of Warwick alive.Originally posted by Salman:I think its a matter of different groups of people from Warwick giving out different messages. It sure sounds like damage control.
Thankfully pragmatism doesn't always win entirely. -
It depends on what are the ideals they harbour.
What is it they wish to teach that they think will be objectionable even before they teach it? Ever thought about that? Ever attended a university in the western world? -
Top rated universities will rather focus on their home turf. They would not want unnecessary "pollution" on their good R&D culture from our local high paid gov officials.
-
Err... you do know that MIT has a even stronger student union and champion freedom rite? Yale even have protest right at their front door by their own students. Don't know much about John Hopkins though...Originally posted by Salman:They need to come here cos they don't do so well back home and they need the money. They won't even consider setting up shop here if people are flocking to them.
The top unis in UK won't do twinning programs or set up campuses here cos they don't need the money. Its that simple.
NUS is better than Warwick anyway, so why shld we even need them? Only second or third rate students who can't make NUS will go there.
We need the MITs and John Hopkins, not the Warwicks. -
Ai ya! If want to study at Warwick than go UK lor, if want to go MIT than go US. But if want to work for garmen go NUS
-
Thats right, its liberal down there. Especially at Yale. Students have to suck up all that liberal leftist shi-t from the professors to pass. Thats why ideologues are fighting each other in high schools and campuses all over the country over this issue. You will know what i mean if you lived in US.Originally posted by lighthand:Err... you do know that MIT has a even stronger student union and champion freedom rite? Yale even have protest right at their front door by their own students. Don't know much about John Hopkins though...
Visit this to find out more buddy.
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/