Questions on university direction

THE imminent departure of Professor Peter Rathjen provokes some comments. The professor has provided strong and valuable leadership at an important time and the state is indebted to him. I wonder if he or one of his deputies, or the Chancellor, would provide some reassurance on the following topics: 1) Are the academic standards in all disciplines for all students truly first class? 2) In view of the poor standards of functional literacy among pupils leaving primary school, is the University of Tasmania doing the best possible job as the virtual monopoly trainer of teachers? 3) Are staff relations and HR management at the best possible level? 4) Is the proportion of administrative to academic staff appropriate? 5) Is a proper level of pastoral care provided to all students?

Professor Rathjen has strongly driven the concept of a “university city”, which seems to mean a CBD in which every second building is connected to the university. I have a vague recollection of one university city, Oxford, in which buildings are sprinkled around a metropolitan area of many hectares, surrounding the commercial centre and including parklands and playing fields.

I wonder whether we could not already claim that Hobart is an academic centre worthy of recognition and development as such? Consider institutions like the medical school, Theatre Royal centre, IMAS, old Domain Building, TMAG, Sandy Bay campus, Taroona complex and (using a slightly broader brush) Mona and Australian Antarctic Division. It seems to me they can all be seen as having academic relevance, and I have probably missed some. I have not forgotten the needs of the northern suburbs, but Kingborough, Huon and Channel have similar claims. Through buses might help. And there’s all that land on Mt Nelson. Please can we have wideranging public discussion which is not monocular about turning UTAS’s priorities away from CBD real estate and back to teaching, research and the care of its people?