The idea of the university
Before we get bogged down in the election, I thought I’d do a quick post on this piece that caught my eye. It was a piece in the Age in the long-running dispute between Melbourne University Private and Senator Kim Carr, Labor Science and Research Spokesman. Here’s what caught my eye.
[Carr] claimed five of the 12 research publications MUP had produced up to June 30 this year did not meet Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training guidelines and suggested there were doubts about another five.
The university, in its final submission to the committee on Thursday, denied making any false claims, maintained its research report had been properly audited, and said its research publication rate was almost twice the national average (emphasis added).
I thought this must be a misprint. An entire university with 12 publications in a year? I get more than that, and so do quite a few other researchers. And how can this possibly be “above the national average?”
It turns out that MUP, which has an annual budget of more then $50 million (this would be about half the budget of small public university, IIRC) claims to have had only 7 academic staff for the year in question and to have 11 (full-time equivalent) today. For such a small group, 12 publications is not too bad, though it’s not stellar either (you can read the whole list in this PDF file) . But there’s clearly some sort of category mistake when this is claimed to be the output of a university.
This dispute came up in relation to legislation giving MUP the status of a university for FEE-Help and similar purposes. I haven’t looked at this closely enough to express a firm opinion. But, in the ordinary sense of the term, MUP is obviously not a university.
fn1. This covers books, book chapters, journal articles and conference papers.
fn2. Of course, at their very beginnings, Australian universities had only a handful of academic staff. But MUP is clearly a big business, in which the academic bits account for only a minimal fraction.