Commenting on the opinion piece: Blurred vision obscures uni merger big picture

Unfortunately, Geoff Hanmer has cherry-picked facts once again in his follow-up article on the cons of a UoA /UniSA merger.  I was an academic staff member at University College, Cardiff (UCC) in the late ’80s when Margaret Thatcher took a dislike to the institution due to a $10 million debt. To put this in perspective, at the time it was costing this amount every day to keep the British army in the Falkland Islands following the war with Argentina.  Thatcher organised a merger of UCC with the Cardiff-based, University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology (UWIST). This went down like a lead balloon with the staff at UCC, as it translated into a virtual takeover of the older more august institution (UCC) by the new kid on the block (UWIST), even to the point of installing the then VC of UWIST as the new VC of the merged institution.  There were staff demonstrations and much displeasure. The new institution became University of Wales, Cardiff and then Cardiff University.

So where is Cardiff University now? It is one of the elite Russell Group of Universities in the UK and acknowledged as one of the leading research universities there, with two Nobel Prize Winners on its staff and a former President of the Royal Society and Astronomer Royal.  It always pays to look at both sides of the argument and the outcomes associated with them before coming to an ill-founded conclusion that all university mergers are a bad thing. – Christopher P. Saint

I strongly endorse the views expressed in this article. The proposed merger is a bad idea for too many reasons to mention here. In addition to those given in this thoughtful articles, other compelling reasons include:

• Universities (but apparently not governments) place great weight on evidence. However, there is no evidence that a bigger, merged institution would perform better than the two smaller one. A simple statistical analysis of the published data from the world’s top-ranked 100 Universities for University size (FTEs) versus world ranking clearly indicates the fallacy of this claim.
• University mergers elsewhere (UK, USA) have had generally-poor outcomes.
• Excluding vague generalizations, there is no evidence that a combined university would be more beneficial to SA than the current situation. Moreover, there is nothing in the vision statement that could not be achieved by enhanced cooperation across the two existing universities.
• This is yet another top-down plan that erodes university governance, which has traditionally had a strong democratic, academic-driven decision-making process.
• A merged, low-ish ranked university will be less attractive to top-ranked academic staff and the best national and international (fee-paying) students.
• A merger will cause massive disruptions to the core activities of both universities, namely teaching and research and development, while they try to align policies involving discipline structure, admission and assessment criteria, timetables, recruitment and promotion policies, etc. during the many years (perhaps five-eight) which the merger will take to be fully implemented.
• If one unstated aim of the merger is to lead to better collaboration between academic staff members across these two institutions, it should be pointed out that there is a long history of such collaborations. It is not necessary to undergo the convulsions of a merger in order to facilitate future collaborations.
• The Dawkins reforms of the 1980s indicated the difficulties resulting from cultural differences between tertiary institutions and their staff and practices. In the present case, it is proposed that a merger will be forced upon one institution which has a fine record, particularly of industrial and vocational development, and the other of world-class  academic research. My own experience across both existing universities indicates that these two academic cultures will be hard to reconcile. – Timothy Miles, Emeritus Professor, The University of Adelaide

I agree with the solid data-based arguments of this article. This merger is almost certainly going to hit diseconomies of scale, rather than economies. Worse, there seems little understanding of the key issues of incompatible corporate cultures and the efforts required to create a new culture – far harder than the already formidable task of merging information systems. There is also the loss of the innovative culture which has emerged at UniSa, which has always impressed me – incompatible with a multi-site giant bureaucracy.

There are also other possible approaches left unexplored: while the University of Adelaide would have the best prospects of a stand-alone research-heavy university, UniSA would be a great fit for a dual-sector institution, not absorbing all of TAFE but key segments especially related to engineering – the sort of integration that naval shipbuilding would need for example. As a former Flinders academic, I’m happy with the university’s stand-alone status but it too could venture into some specialised TAFE areas – enrolled nurses would be an immediate fit but also perhaps TAFE Tonsley. We need a substantial inquiry into best options for tertiary (not just higher) education in the state, without a predetermined politically imposed result. – Robin Ryan

Commenting on the story: ‘Excessive’ Rundle St tower plan refused planning approval

At last. Good sense, taste, integrity, and recognition of our heritage legacy prevail. Well done SCAP. – Barbara Fergusson

Bravo! A special part of the City of Adelaide is saved from a gross high rise which can only be described as an abomination that would destroy the ambience and heritage value of that part of our city. – Peter Hughes

Excellent coverage of this important story. The assessment would not be “finely balanced” if the state and local heritage place requirements were given appropriate weight. Heritage provisions are in the Planning Code for good reason – not just ‘nice to have’ but an essential expression of community expectations. Likewise the height limits. Considered by developers as rubbery guidelines, as the starting position for a big stretch. Congratulations to SCAP for finding serious adverse heritage impacts unacceptable. – Richard Woods