Talk:Australian National University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Australian National University is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra.
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Campus stubs and redlinks

I really can't see the value of the stubs for the halls of residence or the redlinks for the precincts. I think we should only break the information out of this main article when it is too big and cumbersome. I would be surprised if anybody would wish to write an article of more than a paragraph or two on say the Baldessin precinct. I cannot imagine there is much to say on Burton and Garran hall either. I used to live in Burton - fine hall of residence but really ... an article? Happy to be proved wrong.--AYArktos 11:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Fenner Hall and Ursula Hall articles were quite detailed, I thought the other ones might get to something like that eventually. But youre probably right about the precincts Cfitzart 11:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for the precincts to have articles, as I can't imagine them containing anything of interest to even the ANU community. Do you know if there's any reasoning behind them (i.e. is there a law precinct, a science precinct, or are they just random?). If so, it'd be nice to note which faculties are in each one, as opposed to buildings (which probably have no relevance to anyone outside of ANU).
The hall articles are another matter - they can be quite interesting. There is some precedent at other universities for having them (such as at Monash), and I think they're helpful to have if they're done well - the Fenner article being a good example. Ambi 16:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression the precincts where a recent invention used to break the uni map up into fairly equal sized parts. I don't think there is much thought into what goes where within the University, apart fromt he fact that the undergraduate stuff is mainly contentrated in one half of the university and another side is mainly halls and colleges. Martyman 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I've did alot of work on the Bruce Hall page over the past couple of years. I think its worth having a page for them. I also think its worth having pages for the individual colleges and research schools. They are redlinked on the template, waiting to be filled out. Khing (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pruned from page

=== Recent events ===
On Friday 5 August, 2005 at 1.50pm an explosion in the Research School of Chemistry blew out three windows, burned the roof and caused an evacuation of the University. No-one was injured although it caused $1 million in damage. [1]

I have removed the above section from the article as I feel quite strongly that it is not noteworthy. The university has suffered many, many fires in the last 10 years I have been working here. Many of them much more notable that the most recent one at RSC. Add to that, that the article in the Canberra Times is wrong (Less than 1/3rd or the university was "evacuated"). If we are just including recent events without regard to notability maybe we should include the burst water main of yesterday, or the many different construction projects started or finishing around the university at any time.

If anywhere the fire should be mentioned under the article for the Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University. If anyone feels strongly that it should remain in the article please comment. Martyman 21:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It may look a bit out of context there (perhaps it needs to be part of a history paragraph encompassing things like the burning of Mount Stromlo), but I do think it warrants mention in the article. And for the record, while some of the IAS areas may not have been evacuated, to my knowledge the entire undergraduate area of the campus was. Ambi 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
There have been many other fires here that I know of in the past 10 years. In the past 3 years there has been 3 in our research school alone (RSPhysSE). Granted none of them caused as much damage as the RSC one but they did involve the fire brigade putting them out. Going back further almost half of RSPhysSE burt down back in the 60s. The Coombs building was quite badly burnt a few years ago. I just think trivia like this would be best dealt with in a more detailed article about the research school in question rather than the university article.
From our side of the campus you could not even see smoke. The emails I recieved on the day where:
There has been an explosion and fire in the Research School of Chemistry. The fire brigade is in attendance. There is dense smoke on campus and it would be prudent for staff and students to stay out of the smoke. Staff and students should stay away from the area while the emergency is being dealt with. The police have closed off that section of the campus. As far as we know there have been no reported injuries.
and
The fire in RSC is now under control. Staff and students should not cross safety barriers until permitted to do so. Some areas may remain closed for at least the rest of the day. So, unless there is reason not to do so, staff and students close to the affected areas may go home.
Martyman 01:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It caught the attention of the national media, and there were police going through every building forcing people to evacuate quite some distance away. Even stuff over in the law faculty was cancelled, for gods sake. It's hardly trivia, it is recent, and as you admit - none of the other fires have caused as much damage. Ambi 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it would look better at the end of the article, rather than near the beginning? Alot of wiki articles seem to have news or recent events at the end.. You could also mention the other fires you just talked about here. Cfitzart 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
This would be a good idea, methinks. Ambi 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK then, I defer to public opinion. I must say, I am amazed they evacuated Law, that is a long way away. If someone wants to try and make it fit into the article better please go ahead. For now I have reverted my removal. Martyman 10:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] PhB

I've removed this: 'In 2004 the ANU began offering an advanced four year science degree, The Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours), or PhB. This research focused degree is Australia's most prestigious science degree. [2]' from under the Science description. Both Arts and Asian Studies also offer this degree, so would require similar writeups - but it isn't really important enough to warrant front page stuff. Besides, there's already an entire page about PhB degrees in general (including those at ANU).

[edit] Chancellor of the Australian National University

If no-one objects I will merge Chancellor of the Australian National University to here. No point splitting off the list. - Randwicked 11:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

...and the same for Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University. - Randwicked 11:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't. Large lists are inappropriate for an article of this size, and would have to be de-merged if were ever to try and get this featured. Ambi 11:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, has this been done before? So it has. My apologies, but if two or more editors come to the same conclusion independently maybe they are on to something. Nevertheless I won't merge it, but I think there should be a more prominent link to these lists in the article than JUST in the infobox. How about a paragraph or two about governance? As it is there's more prose in the lists than there is in the main article. - Randwicked 12:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A section about governance would be really good; it would help highlight these pages, which are a bit too hidden at present, and could incorporate some of the text here. It's mainly the lists which really don't fit in the larger article, yet I think are helpful to have on Wikipedia. Ambi 12:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that all Vice Chancellors since 1991 have refused to acknowledge letters of complaint regarding misconduct by staff of the ANU (criminal defamation, hate crime, discrimination, persecution, inciting mobs to cause severe injury, students being asked to falsify data to 'up the publication rate', etc).

It is impossible to have such matters investigated, as there are no independant bodies that the ANU is answerable to (for example, Chub is a past head of the Australian Vice Chancellors committee, the Science Academy has been chaired by a past Deputy Vice Chancellor, etc). Because of its special position, the ANU cannot be touched by ACT Human Rights or the Commonwealth Ombudsmen (in fact, the ANU legal office has boasted 'the Commonwealth Ombudsmen does what we tell them to.')

In 1991, the Vice Chancellor formally withdrew all rights of students to file complaint regarding workplace discrimination and bullying in response to an horrific incident in which a student was mobbed and severely injured at Ursula Hall. The change in regulation was effected immediately (within 24 hours) upon notification that a complaint had been lodged. 'Budget constraints' were cited as the official reason for this change of policy.[PEC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.205.194 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] housing listings?

Not really the place maybe, but a little help anyone? I'm moving to Canberra in a couple months. Can anybody clue me in where to find online aparment listings (bikeable to campus). Google is not helpful; either that or there's only 20 apartments in Canberra. Derex 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Not really the place but anyway, having connected, welcome to Canberra. Try http://allhomes.com.au/c/ah?a=rent . The suburbs you may want are inner north; but inner south, Woden, Weston Creek and inner Belconnen are all easily bikeable too. Probably Gunghalin and Tuggeranong, while bikeable would take too long. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
For info on what is in what district see Suburbs of Canberra :-) --A Y Arktos\talk 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Moving halfway round the world has its little challenges. Derex 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends what campus you're referring to, but ANU has a really good housing database on their website if that's where you're going. Rebecca 05:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Secondary college

http://www.anu.edu.au/secondarycollege/ should we add this?? Shinigami Josh 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour. Khing (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings in Introduction

It seems like around 60% of the introduction to this article is dedicated to ANU's rankings rathern that e.g. location, name, founding etc. á la e.g. Cornell University. Any objections to compressing the rankings down to one short sentence?• Leon 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankings

I think the massive chunk in the beginning on the ANU's world ranking is rather embarassing - particularly for those who embrace it are some of the most educated people in the world.

The chunk seems like an over-justification/compensation for something that really isn't true. First of all the sources that have been quoted use arbitary primitve statistical survey methods. Newsweek simply combined the results of of the Times and Shanghai - a monstrosity in survey/statistical terms!!!

In addition anyone who is insightful enough to pay close attention to the rankings would surely question why the ANU ranks higher than known research and undergraduate/graduate powerhouses such as Dartmouth, Brown, Rockefeller, Carnegie Mellon, University of California San Diego etc?

It just goes to show that not merely quoting sources is enough. The sources that you quote need to be valid in themselves. Otherwise, you'll simply attract dismay instead of well deserved admiration. Fredreck 11:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock terms

This article is using peacock terms throughout to show off the topic:

ANU is regarded as Australia's (and the Southern Hemisphere's) leading University...

ANU is particularly strong in research,

In 1960, ANU began offering undergraduate degrees, beginning another era of national leadership — this time based on excellent teaching.

ANU graduates hold top positions in government, business and academic fields, both locally and abroad.

The ANU College of Asia and the Pacific focuses on study relating to Asia and the Pacific region, and is the leading school of Asian Studies in Australia.

The ANU College of Law, established in 1960, is one of Australia's top law schools. The College is a leader in International Law and Public Law.

The ANU College of Science is the largest of the ANU's Colleges, and is widely considered to be the leading institution of scientific education in Australia, and one of the finest in the world.

It should'nt be a promotional page for ANU, but a factual, informative article. Excessive and unsubstantiated use of words like leading, finest, excellent, top, etc diminish the factual basis of the article. Rather than simply saying a College is one of the finest in the world, give information about faculty, publication record, notable achievements and let the reader decide. Although peacock terms may be unavoidable in some instances, this article relies on them too much (c.f. Stanford University, which is a 'leading' university but the article does not state this).

:The article certainly does seem compromised, and almost worthy of a POV label. I'll see what I can do to bring the article into line with those on other leading universities. Mostlyharmless 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Way too showy. There also seems to be a lot of emphasis on the rankings especially the THES ones. Most of the top American universities' wiki sites have completely dropped THES rankings as it has been recognised as an uncredible source. In the 2007 rankings, the ANU was ranked above Stanford, Cornell etc. Doesn't this call for suspicion in the methodology? Fredreck (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)