De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog

Can't Stop, Won't Stop

25/3/2016

 
WILLIAM MOSEFF
Volume 9, Issue 4
The executive of the University have a strange way of dealing with success. Through a lack of competence and a lack of courage, they find ways to structurally strangle their most successful faculties. The Law School of which we are a part is a very good one. But a good law school is only as good as the administration which serves it. By centralising student services into the Orwellian-sounding ‘Stop One’ centre, an administrative catastrophe has been created. The morale of staff and students is at a low ebb. The reputation of the institution is damaged. Climbing out of this mess will cost many millions of dollars in renovations and rehiring and retraining staff. The University is holding the Law School back from achieving greatness, and we, the students, are suffering as a result.
The world’s top law schools are in that league because they provide a holistic student experience. One can receive course planning, or career advice, or any other student service needed at the law school itself. From conversations with friends who study overseas, it is generally recognised among the university administrators at these institutions that the needs of law students differ from those of, say, undergraduate music students, and the most effective way to implement administrative services is through a decentralised model. Harvard Law School is what it is because it is run in large part as an entity in itself, providing top tier services tailored to the students it serves. This is not a revelation, and the disastrous effect of centralising student administration at MLS is not a surprise. It was assumed by the students and staff at the University of Melbourne that Stop One would be a catastrophe, and these expectations have been met. As Amani Green succinctly posted on Facebook:
 
“My first ever visit to stop one. It is exactly the cavernous corporate wasteland you pictured it as”
 
No top tier law school has student administration centralised in the main university corpus in such a way as the University of Melbourne. Which begs the question, is the University of Melbourne a top-tier institution? One stop at Stop one and the answer becomes evident.
 
But none of this is a surprise. The Business Improvement Plan, of which Stop One is a manifestation, was a review of the university’s administration conducted by a private consulting firm. There is nothing inherently wrong with this - the University Executive couldn’t review a chook raffle without stepping on the chickens and advertising it as ‘colliding with innovation’ or some such inane marketing jingoism. But the firm, Strategy& (Formally Booz & Co), has designed a scheme that places the rationalization of student support ahead of the needs of the very students and faculty such services ought to be prioritizing. While this may result in short term cost savings, for a university, reliant heavily on word-of-mouth reputation, the profit in any given year is not the ultimate measure of success. To ensure long term financial prosperity, it is the reputation of the institution that matters in attracting students. And reputation, in turn, is dependent on the quality of student services.
Picture
Stats taken from university annual reports (http://www.unimelb.edu.au/publications/archives.html#Annualreports)
With management this poor, the University of Melbourne risks becoming the Fairfax of universities: relentlessly cost-cutting services at the expense of the student experience, resulting in reputational damage, resulting in reduced student enrolments, which in turn results in more cost-cutting. It is a vicious cycle of failure towards which the university teeters. And when the university fails, the reputation of our degree wavers, and we all suffer.
 
The Law school would do well to distance itself from this systemic failure of leadership. Let the faculties, as much as possible, run themselves. And of course, questions must be asked of the capability of the University executive. Hiding behind consultants takes no skill, and substituting leadership for outsourcing takes no courage.
 
William Moseff is a second year JD student
 
*Thanks to Simon Pickering for the title of this article. 
 
*Previous versions of this article erroneously referred to the consulting company in question as Bain and Company and Bain Capital. De Minimis would like to thank the readers who brought this error to our attention and apologises unreservedly to anyone who may have been misled. 

More De Minimis!

Other Articles Like This
  • BIP Slip: How Melbourne University Exposed its True Nature
  • The Level Two Fountain: Students Hail False Prophet
  • Law Students’ Pressure Forces BIP Change
 
Also in this week’s issue of De Minimis:
  • The Clerkship Diaries: Embracing Uniformity 
  • Melbourne University Law Students’ Society – Summary of the Student Forum on 17 March 2016
  • Maybe She’s Paranoid, Maybe It’s…
  • Other People’s Money: Life As A Law Student
  • Mental Health in Law School: Speak Up


 
Really?
26/3/2016 02:54:42 pm

Great piece!

However, the article is misleading in its claim that "no top tier law school has student administration centralised in the main university corpus" as Melbourne does.

Both LSE and Cambridge employ centralised student administration and service models. These universities rank higher in QS university rankings (which MLS relies on), and can rightfully claim to be "top-tier." Centralised services at these institutions include careers services and resources, disability services and course planning.

This is but two examples of top-tier law schools using centralised student services and administration models.

De Minimis Editors
31/3/2016 01:36:40 pm

The following are the comments left on the first iteration of this article:

ANONYMOUS

( NO EMAIL )

3/23/2016 17:33:21

Great stuff. But I'm pretty sure PWC was the consulting firm on the project. http://www.pwc.com.au/education/business-improvement-program.html

THE DESK OF MITT ROMNEY

( NO EMAIL )

3/23/2016 17:37:45

Hi Will & DM Team.

Some serious concerns jump out with the content of this article and the editorial standards (or lack thereof) at DM.

The article asserts that Melbourne University awarded the BIP consulting contract to "Bain Capital." Bain Capital is a US-based private equity and venture capital firm - not a management consultant. The firm is best known for leveraged buyouts, and co-founder Mitt Romney's bid for the White House in the 2012 US presidential election.

Bain & Company, a highly respected management consultant, does operate offices around Australia. I know what you're thinking. Confusing Bain Capital and Bain & Co is a small mistake. Sure it is. But Melbourne University awarded the BIP consulting contract Booze & Co (now known as Strategy&). That’s a real stuff up.

Research would tell you that Booze & Co has extensive public sector credentials, including a world renowned social services and education policy team. PwC (who now owns Booze & Co and undertook the name change) similarly has fantastic expertise in education consulting having worked with COAG, the Australian Department of Education, State Departments, and many leading Australian universities.

It's disappointing to see such a poorly researched piece. I, like most students, agree with your sentiments towards the BIP. BIP has sacrificed student services and wellbeing to turn a quick dollar. However, inaccurate criticisms and poorly researched pieces should not be accepted from our student newspaper either.

An inability to comprehend the basic facts of Melbourne’s BIP raises questions about the quality of research throughout this article.

STANDARDS

( NO EMAIL )

3/23/2016 17:41:54

DM has now published two mistaken versions of this piece. One citing Bain Capital as the consultant and now one calling Bain & Company the consultant.

It is proper to correct the article while noting the mistake and apologising. The DM editorial team has shown a complete lack of standards in how it has published and supposedly amended this article

HH

3/24/2016 10:27:24

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about the name of the consulting firm who did the review. It seems like an irrelevant detail to much of the piece.

After all, isn't it common knowledge that they're all secretly run by the shadowy illuminati/reptoid New World Order? If so, why does it matter which tentacle of this many limbed octopus has graced us with its slimy caress?


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog