Norfolk Parliament unanimously supports Greenwich and "condemns" Australian action

Norfolk Island Parliament

Today, Wednesday 20th November 2002 the Norfolk Island Parliament, by unanimous vote, passed the following resolution

That this House expresses its regret at the recent rushed passage of Commonwealth legislation regarding Greenwich University without any genuine consultation with the Norfolk Island Government, and in the absence of appropriate transitional and compensation provisions, and condemns the responsible Federal Minister for refusing to meet with representatives of Greenwich University to discuss the issues, failing to respond to the Norfolk Island Government's attempts to consult about the matter, and misleading the Australian Parliament and the Australian people.

 

The grammar of the legislation, apparently, was beyond reproach.

 

I only know US law, but it seems to me that this is the equivalent of a US state legislature passing a resolution (non-binding) that the Federal government is doing something they don't like.


Bruce

 

Norfolk is mad at Australia because of its (Australia's) political interference. It doesn't sound like they're sticking up for Greenwich as much as they're sticking up for their autonomy. No language there about how good Greenwich is, how it should be considered a university, blah, blah, blah. This might as well be about fishing rights.

 

The reference to "compensation provisions" is interesting. Compensation from whom to whom?

The mainland presumably was put to some expense in cleaning up the mess that NI left them. Of course, Canberra's own idiocy in signing off on it probably relieves NI of any liability.

Perhaps the NI territorial government should be compensating those students who were misled by Greenwich's seemingly hollow "accreditation" claims. If, as it has been credibly asserted, Greenwich does not meet the standard of an Australian university, but it was nevertheless advertising itself to be a "fully accredited" Australian university simply on account of the island's act, and if students suffered damages as a result of trusting that claim, could that constitute sufficient grounds for those students alleging a tort?

I'm not an attorney, but His Lordship seems to have less exposure to civil suit than does the territorial government. His Lordship made an application. It was the government's responsibility to competently review it.

So the issue reduces to this: When NI was given powers over local education, did that simply mean that they could do anything that they wanted? Or did they have the duty to exercise those powers responsibly?

 

Re: Re: Norfolk Parliament unanimously supports Greenwich and "condemns" Australian a

Since when does a legistature have a duty to exercise its power responsibly? Politicians excell at stupidity. Norfolk Island passed legislation within its scope of powers and the legislation was subsequently approved by Australia.

I am not sure that Greenwich University is a bad thing for Norfolk Island or for its students. Greenwich is by no means a degree mill although it is often labelled as such.

 

Re: Re: Re: Norfolk Parliament unanimously supports Greenwich and "condemns" Australian a

Doesn't it depend on the definition of degree mill? I believe the most common definition within the general public may be a school that offers an education that is below the accepted standard. Using that definition, the Australian government is explicitly stating that Greenwich falls within that category.

 

But we don't know the accepted standard in Australia as only one school, Greenwich, has ever been subject to review. Some say that review was inadequate and very subjective and possibly had a predetermined outcome.

 

In a presentation on diploma mills I've prepared as part of my degree program, I've offered up a paradigm called "3 Degrees of Diploma Mills." They are:

1. Substandard (or perceived to be). This is applied to accredited (or foreign equivalent) schools who, for one reason or another, are being criticized as "diploma mills." This happens all the time, especially to DL schools. Phoenix, UIU, Walden, even Nova have all been called diploma mills at one time or another.

2. Unrecognized. These are schools that operate with some form of academic intent, but often at a substandard level, and without proper recognition. State-approved, state-licensed, and the like. Not exactly selling degrees, but not exactly part of academe, either.

3. Degree sellers. Little or no academic process.

But here's the rub: which schools go where? And what to do about those cool, unaccredited schools that are otherwise okay? It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

The normal procedure in Australia seems to be for the individual states to conduct the reviews. In NI's case, the local government seems to have done nothing comparable. Nevertheless, by calling itself "accredited", Greenwich was implying strongly that it had successfully passed the same sort of quality assurance procedures that other Australian universities must undergo.

That's why outsiders were called in to conduct the review that NI had failed to perform. Apparently Greenwich did not pass.

 

Bill and Rich bring up, yet again, the matter of what is a degree or diploma mill.

And once again, let me bring up the notion that there is a simple test of this.

For instance:

Let an impartial judge pick five Master's theses or doctoral dissertations from the shelf at Greenwich (or whatever school is being tested), and five from the shelf at the University of Nebraska (or any decent major RA university). Disguise their origin, and present them to a group of professors at other RA universities with experience in supervising graduate work.

Their task is either to rate them, to rank them, or simply to decide which are the five Greenwich ones and the five Nebraska ones.

Wouldn't this go a long way to addressing the quality of the Greenwich-like schools?

One could even expand it to include the entire graduate program: courses, exams, papers, etc.

 

And as John rightly points out the quality issue, I'm reminded of the credentialing issue--and the recognition of those credentials--which doesn't change with the quality of the education gained and/or demonstrated

BTW, rap master "Little En" sez it's def at two-thirteen.

 

I like it. Seems that it would be fairly cheap and quick to execute the test as well.

 

It will never happen, and we all know why. Most of us have searched dissertations and theses at times and wondered why our professors have singled us out for harsh and exacting treatment ...

... don't just stick with Nebraska, throw in a couple of real doozies from Columbia [36 pages and less than a half page bibliography] and such like ... and the one from the honours econometrics students at Monash who shot a few the other day - and who needed an interpreter when he appeared in court as he couldn't communicate in English, and .....

 

What you're saying is that he was a native Australian, but you guys can surely understand each other. Can't you?

 

This bloke was an Asian, but ggod enough [?] to get through the tough Monash BEd and be selected to be among the elite honours years econometrics class - under 20 in the group - and to have his thesis ready for presentation but didn't understand English well enough to be addressed in Court

Regarding John Bear's reasonable and previously repeated suggestion, comparison would have to be made with Australian degree work - not US degree work - and when that was done the Greeenwich material equalled Australian year 12 essay work.

Further to other comments made, Australian Universities are subject to quite stringent quality assessment - to state that Greenwich was assessed and that was not required of others is not correct.

Maybe Norfolk Island should print its own currency and go alone. We will then withdraw all support, and tax Australian residents who live there out of choice. They don't accept our Corporations Law, so why don't they opt out of the application of our Tax Legislation as well. Send the Australian Adminstrator home, and instal Walsh as the true Crown Prince.

 

I read that he was smart but incapable of speaking English effectively. He killed the students at the final session where he was supposed to have presented his thesis orally. Interestingly, he had purchased 7 hand guns, and I think took 5 of them with him on the fatal day.

 

...he was rootin with the shootin, but his Chinglish was buggered...but then magistrates probably don't communicate in academic Chinglish