UNSW call it quits after 3 months, $250million wasted
-
For UNSW heads will roll. For EDB this will be a lesson learned or a long-term investment.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I wonder.... if UNSW's conscience finally came to bare like Warwick's did.
-
I am curious now. A private university still relies on state funding for research and what not. And early support for the university is still required since there were bound to be hiccups.Originally posted by robertteh:For UNSW heads will roll. For EDB this will be a lesson learned or a long-term investment.
If the official reason given was that they were short of 15million and they pulled out so abruptly, I am under the impression that there is more to it that it seems. Or did the Govt play hard ball and UNSW returned the favour?
Or are there other reasons? Hmm.... -
i'm betting on the latter as well.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I am curious now. A private university still relies on state funding for research and what not. And early support for the university is still required since there were bound to be hiccups.
If the official reason given was that they were short of 15million and they pulled out so abruptly, I am under the impression that there is more to it that it seems. Or did the Govt play hard ball and UNSW returned the favour?
Or are there other reasons? Hmm....
too abrupt. -
KInd of shocking to know it's closed. Something is wrong somewhere or is it because students intake falls way below what they projected and they are starting to make losses.
Or could it be because, our Singapore students prefer to study in Australia UNSW. Given a choice, I will study in UNSW Australia. -
That's bad. I am actually looking forward to study there too.
It's still pretty fishy. Whats 15 million when 250 million are ready to pump into the university. There must be something wrong with either the contracts or the policy set for them to open up here. Moreover, UNSW is a reputable university, in Australia, they are earning millions based on intake(my own perspections)
With reputation and government support, i don't see this coming seriously and this incident hits its creditability real bad i believe. -
Short-term goals not favourable compared to the long-term ones
-
I think EDB played hardball lah... my guess is that it has something to do with funding on condition that certain "quotas" (student intake) are met before more funding is released...
They think that Australians are stupid like S'poreans, easily bullied. -
No one will tell the truth as it affects relation between natons. If they could not strike a win win solution,that's it. When elephants fight, the grass always suffer!
-
Unfortunately, there's always an option for one elephant to quit, which I think a few civil servants and ministers haven't gotten into their heads yet.Originally posted by Heartlander:No one will tell the truth as it affects relation between natons. If they could not strike a win win solution,that's it. When elephants fight, the grass always suffer! -
Heads should roll because they ruin the hope of further studies or wasted the time of some hundred over students. Any other reasons? What is the lesson for EDB?Originally posted by robertteh:For UNSW heads will roll. For EDB this will be a lesson learned or a long-term investment. -
That "it was an honest mistake", no accountability, no responsibility... make another mistake again next time... "it was an honest mistake", no accountability, no responsibility...Originally posted by sgdiehard:What is the lesson for EDB?
We need more opposition members in parliament ASAP to make them take responsibility for their actions... otherwise.. they will suka suka make us pay and pay so that they can pay themselves more... and more... -
Hello, UNSW is Australia's university, making Singapore students foreigners. So you pay foreign student's price rather than a local student price.Originally posted by UandMe:do singaporeans pay this amount too? if yes that's really freaking expensive! -
Depending on who is paying the bills, it sure is an expensive ball game. The true victims are the students, many students could miss one year if they can't go to australia, can the students claim from the university?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:I am curious now. A private university still relies on state funding for research and what not. And early support for the university is still required since there were bound to be hiccups.
If the official reason given was that they were short of 15million and they pulled out so abruptly, I am under the impression that there is more to it that it seems. Or did the Govt play hard ball and UNSW returned the favour?
Or are there other reasons? Hmm....
If this is the way UNSW handle investment, I think those who enroll in courses like Bz Ad, Finance or Econ should pull out.
-
aiya, i also know what they might say, i want to hear what people here say mah. I don't think EDB even think that it is a mistake in the first place, and if the university did their own evaluation and decisions, with so many professors, how can it be EDB's accountability and responsibility. EDB never take responsibility for the winding up of so many companies in Singapore, why should they be accountable for a university.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That "it was an honest mistake", no accountability, no responsibility... make another mistake again next time... "it was an honest mistake", no accountability, no responsibility...
We need more opposition members in parliament ASAP to make them take responsibility for their actions... otherwise.. they will suka suka make us pay and pay so that they can pay themselves more... and more...
It is true that we need more opposition members. So we not only need to vote for them, if we know what are the mistakes of EDB, should voice out, and give ammo for the opposition to shoot on issue. Here so many know or don't know also anyhow shoot the government and pap, no use one, just to vent frustration. But opposition MP cannot anyhow shoot in the parliament, or they would be skinned alive, reputation down. -
We rely on Australian press on the australian side of the story, and Singapore press on singapore side of the story. We hope to see a complete picture. What is the truth, it is up to our own judgementOriginally posted by LazerLordz:At least the Australian press can be relied upon to cover it.
-
Until the details of the deal ever see the light of day and the backdoor politicking details ever appear, I don't think it is a trivial matter of "handling investment".Originally posted by sgdiehard:Depending on who is paying the bills, it sure is an expensive ball game. The true victims are the students, many students could miss one year if they can't go to australia, can the students claim from the university?
If this is the way UNSW handle investment, I think those who enroll in courses like Bz Ad, Finance or Econ should pull out.
It is interesting that the students were offered a place in UNSW's main campus and scholarships are offered to pay for travel and accommodation. How much those are worth will be interesting.
But nevertheless, I don't money was the only issue. EDB and UNSW did set a very very ambitious target to meet by a certain year and I suspect UNSW found that it was an too ambitious for it to make it. -
I think the Singapore press will shut its mouth on the real problems. Unlikely we will ever know it from them, typical Govt secrecy.Originally posted by sgdiehard:We rely on Australian press on the australian side of the story, and Singapore press on singapore side of the story. We hope to see a complete picture. What is the truth, it is up to our own judgement -
From the Aussie press.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/red-faces-millions-lost-as-uni-closes-campus/2007/05/23/1179601495596.html
Red faces, millions lost as uni closes campus
Harriet Alexander Higher Education Reporter | May 24, 2007
HE University of NSW will abandon its Singaporean campus at the end of next month just one semester after it opened its doors, losing millions and precious face in the export education market.
The university decided at the weekend to close UNSW Asia after talks with the Singaporean Government failed to produce a rescue deal for the campus, which was struggling to survive on a tiny student population.
"It was really a brave initiative, but it was really the numbers and the inability to get a support package that [made] it unviable," the university's vice-chancellor, Fred Hilmer, said yesterday. He admitted the venture had always been risky and that he did not know of any Australian universities making money in the overseas campuses they had pegged as the solution to their financial woes.
Offshore education is now worth $30 billion worldwide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures show Australian universities enrol about one third of their students offshore.
The closure announcement comes a day after the university revealed it was shedding all casual staff and some subjects in its arts faculty, and less than a year after a redundancy program that involved 10 per cent of its non-academic staff.
UNSW Asia was planned as a unique venture among overseas operations of Australian universities, both in terms of its scale and that it planned to conduct research as well as teaching.
It was banking on a student population of 15,000 over the next 20 years, but it decided to close after enrolling fewer than 150 students this semester, less than half the anticipated number.
The university has already spent $17.5 million on the project, but it had guaranteed a further $140 million for the construction of a permanent campus in South Changi.
Professor Hilmer said the university had lost $15 million in not reaching its anticipated enrolment numbers, and as a result it was unable to borrow the money it needed. "I don't want to play a blame game [but] I inherited a situation," he said.
"But I know that the council and senior management took it in good faith."
Singapore has invested heavily in higher education with hopes of becoming an overseas student destination in its own right, and its national universities are cheaper than the foreign ones.
The market was always going to be difficult for an Australian university to compete in, said Carolyn Allport, the national president of the National Tertiary Education Union.
John Kaye, the NSW Greens education spokesman and a former lecturer at the University of NSW, said the failure of the campus would be a blow to the university's reputation in the international student market. "It's huge egg on their faces as a provider in South-East Asia," he said.
Simon Marginson, a professor in higher education at the University of Melbourne, said UNSW Asia was never in the university's interests because it was designed for "B" students, while the best students went to Singapore's own universities. "This was not good given that UNSW itself is a world class research university not far below National University of Singapore and at least as strong as Nanyang IT." -
A A$100 million investment is not a trivial matter. In any failed project, the true details of the deal is unlikely to surface for public scrutiny. For any investment, factors involving local government authorities or politik, are major considerations.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Until the details of the deal ever see the light of day and the backdoor politicking details ever appear, I don't think it is a trivial matter of "handling investment".
It is interesting that the students were offered a place in UNSW's main campus and scholarships are offered to pay for travel and accommodation. How much those are worth will be interesting.
But nevertheless, I don't money was the only issue. EDB and UNSW did set a very very ambitious target to meet by a certain year and I suspect UNSW found that it was an too ambitious for it to make it.
We failed in Suzhou, may be because they speak Chinese, we speak english, they are communists, we are capitalists. Now with Australian, both capitalists speaking english and they are one of our closest allies in the region, if we cannot come to an accord on something that last longer than 1 year, something must be wrong. I don't think any side would attribute the failure to political difference. Is it purely an financial miscalculation, with different economic philosophy?
In a business investment, like a factory in china, even when we know from the very first day that the original assumptions are wrong, the authorities are not as cooperative as expected, the infrastructure are not as efficient, the market has taken a down turn, we would take immediate corrective measures and try to work it out for another one or two years, before we call it quit. Why is there no determination to take a longer view and work things out?
Or is that a problem with academician playing the real game? -
Which is the big question here. It seems that both sides gave up. Either that or the Govt got unreasonable or unrealistic or something, which isn't too hard to imagine.Originally posted by sgdiehard:A A$100 million investment is not a trivial matter. In any failed project, the true details of the deal is unlikely to surface for public scrutiny. For any investment, factors involving local government authorities or politik, are major considerations.
We failed in Suzhou, may be because they speak Chinese, we speak english, they are communists, we are capitalists. Now with Australian, both capitalists speaking english and they are one of our closest allies in the region, if we cannot come to an accord on something that last longer than 1 year, something must be wrong. I don't think any side would attribute the failure to political difference. Is it purely an financial miscalculation, with different economic philosophy?
In a business investment, like a factory in china, even when we know from the very first day that the original assumptions are wrong, the authorities are not as cooperative as expected, the infrastructure are not as efficient, the market has taken a down turn, we would take immediate corrective measures and try to work it out for another one or two years, before we call it quit. Why is there no determination to take a longer view and work things out?
Or is that a problem with academician playing the real game?
First John Hopkins, now this. Does anyone see a pattern here? Have we totally priced ourselves out of the market? Or simply thought the "Singapore brand name" sufficient? Or simply too cheapskate as usual? -
Think this is the result of Sillypore gahmen playing hardball...
Besides I favor UNSW cutting its losses and getting out of here...they will have better luck and market in China....what the hell were they thinking when they decided to invest in Sillypore...bad move....let this be a lesson to all universities or even companies thinking of coming here.....its all take take take by Sillypore and companies give give give -
It is quite likely the whole system relies on use of power with legalistic wrangling which at times due to lack of entrepreneurial spirits result in our losing many opportunities to solve many problems.
The Mahathir's constant tiffs can be easily resolved in going for people-to-people cooperations and building of deeper friendships.
The constant dares to sue people for the slightest criticisms over mistakes in government policies NKF or lack of accountability and transparency can be reversed by some pro-people accountable system of government.
The problem with ALPHA-S, Suzhou's breakdown of communication with local chiefs, constant denials of mistakes in over-taxing of people driving up costs of living and doing business are all examples of legalistic wrangling with too much self-centredness and refusal to understand others' point of view.
Mayor mindset change is needed for all our ministers but they simply cannot see there are more ways to skin the cat than all the fondness to engage in pure legalistic wrangling or leadership talk ad infinitum. -
i hope the 148 students sue their pants off
-
Hey guys, what happens to the school fees of the students? Will they get refunds? Why no mention anywhere?