Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
UNSW follows the footsteps of Warwick
I was quite taken aback to read that UNSW has decided to close their Asian (i.e. Singapore Campus). The full announcement is on the UNSW Asia webpage, which can be accessed here.
The reason cited by UNSW was that enrollment numbers were insufficient to meet their expectation. This might be a valid reason, but I do wonder if there are other reasons, such as interference with academic freedom (which was given by Warwick when it decided against having a campus in Singapore).
Whatever the case is, it is quite surprising to me that UNSW has decided to take such a step after so much fanfare when the agreement was inked a few years back. I really wonder what happened. And, UNSW’s move certainly made a huge dent in the government’s grand masterplan to make Singapore an education hub. To have two universities of good reputation reject Singapore is probably going to cause future problems in attracting other world class universities to set up shop in Singapore.
I guess for now, students will have to make do with the joint programmes that local universities have with other top foreign universities. I still can’t believe that UNSW decided to close down the Singapore branch. 
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 23/05/2007 at 5:02 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Think of the current students! It must be really jarring to have your university become non-existent before you even completed your first year…
about 3 years ago
I think it is rather far-fetched to claim that UNSW closed down its Singapore campus due to concerns over academic freedom. After all, such concerns would have been considered BEFORE they agreed to establish a campus here, not after they have started advertising and accepting students.
about 3 years ago
It only shows that EDB and UNSW did not do their homework properly. It seems that EDB refused to lower their target figure, that again goes to show that they are unrealistic and over-ambitious, and only pursuing numbers. What happens to the students now!? I am sure many can be said as “bright future messed up (temporarily?)” all the anxiety, stress, more money to cough out, etc. Obviously there are people who are concern with statistics but not the real people/lives involved…
about 3 years ago
Nought was said about academic freedom; though that could be a possibility.
The question that should be asked is why were enrollment figures low? What was the cause of this situation? And what could have been done or was done about it?
about 3 years ago
“The university decided at the weekend to close UNSW Asia after talks with the Singaporean Government failed to produce a rescue deal for the campus, which was struggling to survive on a tiny student population”. – Red faces, millions lost as uni closes campus
The “academic freedom” issue could’ve played a part after the up & running of the university. Looking at the figures involved though, both money & student enrollment, i guess the closure is mostly due to financial reasons.
But hey, who knows huh. Give it sometime and maybe there’ll be further news reports, mostly by the foreign media, on what were the deeper issues that really went on and pushed UNSW Asia to close.
about 3 years ago
Well, from what my australia friends tell me. They said screw it and never come to Singapore because the country has form (look good on outside) but no substance on inside. It doesn’t help that recently LKY and his load of rubbish and ministers’ so called sacrifice is an great insult to Singaporean’s intelligence and the Austrialia people and indo potential students do not want such a gov in Singapore, especially an authorian one. To hell with it, they say as much as LKY say about Political video !
My friends in Australia told me that the arrogant and money-faced gov is why they doesn’t want to come because it is too hypercritical and now they laugh that they make the right choice afterall. They at first want to study here but after reading up all the blogs (including your, surprising !, Aaron and SammyBoys), they have bad impression of Singapore. They think that gov just want their money and nothing else. They also lament at the ridculous reasons give to increase price, and they laugh at me for being a Singaporean as a chicken who could do nothing but squeak here and live to die without choice!!!!
I happy for my foreign friends that they find Singapore suck. But I sad for myself because I also suck as I staying in this heartless, money-face country.
“Build it and they will come”, stupid gov always have this mentality and never realize that they are liability and that because we do not have a positive culture to attract people. What we have is money-culture that attract money-laudering ! What a fuc@#$k am I staying in Singapore. To be slaughter ?
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
As a student,
a) the fees are high.
b) there are limits to the number of courses seat especially the popular ones.
As UNSW
a) the shortfall between target/budget and actual was too big.
b) this despite extensive publicity
For those who think that academic freedom plays a part in overseas universities especially those in business or hard sciences/applied sciences in setting up overseas campuses, it does not except for the liberal arts or philosophy faculties.
Further, say what you like about the Govt of the day, those in business or the education business prefer it for its economic pragmatism, although it could do with a bit more societal nuances.
about 3 years ago
Anyway, as a business decision it doesn’t even make any sense… So your first intake fell somewhat short of projections (which is mostly voodoo anyway), amidst some non-existent advertising. 140/300 is considered pretty ballpark, if you ask me, as 300 isn’t a huge number. Of course, you would prepare to revise downwards and scale down some operations if such a trend continues.
So you shut down a very major investment after one intake, that statistically speaking, hardly means anything? Riiiiiight…
about 3 years ago
RSE
As you are unaware of the contract terms, you are purely speculating.
Let me put it bluntly, the main cost to UNSW is the cost of the lecturers and ensuring that the degrees are offered upto par. The semester has just started.
Frankly, the best time to kill any business project is at the start before too much sunk cost especially for such education ventures.
See how fast US/UK/Aust companies can close their offices in Singapore if the internal politics are not right and the Singapore offices are not meeting their profit targets eg 3months to 6 months.
The hardware ie land cost or even building costs considering the rise in commercial land should result in a profit.
They have done their part by offering places to those affected.
Please also find a news report which better shows it were mainly economics and internal politics.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/23/1179601495596.html
about 3 years ago
UNSW?
Seriously… education hub? To be a hub we need much better than…. UNSW…
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
about 3 years ago
WANG,
I don’t think one expects to make a quick profit from any business venture. While it is logical to pull the plug to stem future heavy losses, the fact that the plug got pulled so quickly raises questions. Sure, it might be a commercial decision, internal conflict at UNSW or whatever, but the fact remains that it is unusual for the plug to be pulled so quickly, especially as RSE has pointed out, there are other options to pursue if UNSW was really keen on remaining in Singapore.
As a new entrant into the local education scene, UNSW should have been prepared for the initial uptake to be slow. It will take time for the university to gain acceptance locally and regionally. If UNSW wasn’t prepared to take this risk, I doubt that they would have initially made the decision to set up shop here. There’s certainly something going on somewhere that we do not know about, but the sudden decision certainly seems fishy.
about 3 years ago
If Singapore gov only want to talk about money, and only money, then NSW is just doing that. Make money, I stay, Lose money, I leave. That’s why I feel the gov here is terrible. The MNC will have this mentality too because the gov here promote it as way of life.
In China, it is about relationship as much as making money.
I wonder how much money gov has been giving MNC as incentives to make them stay ! And media will make gov think that they are superman despite all the expense incur show otherwise !
about 3 years ago
Aaron
For any business, there is no such thing as risk free. It depends on targets and also change in management or etc.
Doing the numbers, yes, you would expect some losses, but tell me is 300 students so difficult to achieve considering the size of the market.
Further, as noted in the news article, there were no possibility of ratcheting up as noted in the 2nd semester enrolment figures . In this , why should any rational business person continue. Most CEOs or CFOs expect a shortfall of 10%-20% or max 30% but anything above that in a buoyant global economy means the numbers were wrong hence cut loss time unless it is the CEOs or CFOs pet projects.
about 3 years ago
It’s indeed very disappointing. I don’t know whether it’s fair to criticise NUS and SMU for this, because both these schools advertise in a way that misleads people, eg: the Biz School TV ad, statements like “They tell you to be a realist; we say follow your dreams”.
Being a NUS student, I know NUS is a good place to be in, but I feel most ads I see in papers or TV don’t really represent the true picture.
The NUS and SMU media war is more of “shock and awe” and “winning hearts and minds” than anything. They create hype in students’ minds unnecessarily and unfairly, and may have played a role in UNSW Asia’s downfall (in terms of intake nos).
about 3 years ago
let’s not squeeze water from a rock. maybe it’s just due to poor enrolment. it’s all economics. they didn’t have the board to develop it… get it? get it?
about 3 years ago
The market was just not there for an Aussie branch university in Singapore. It only made minor incremental sense for students in Singapore and perhaps neighboring countries to go to the UNSW Singapore campus.
The cost savings, if any, btw the Singapore and the Aussie campuses does not outweigh the benefits of having an established and wider campus experience in UNSW’s Aussie campus, plus the ability to take a lot more courses.
UNSW isn’t UChicago, INSEAD or Tisch… both in terms of quality and locale inconvenience (Australia is only a few hours away, the others are half day journeys at best). It was unfortunately an ill-conceived venture to begin with.
about 3 years ago
from http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/financial/2007/vol2/pdf/17_0454_university_of_new_south_wales.pdf
if u look @ their report page 13 , seems like the net liabilities is the most @ 3.4 mil , supporting the factor of finance contributing to the pull out from sg
about 3 years ago
Like i said in my earlier comment @ mambo no. 5
…..
“The accounts committee said that the Economic Development Board (EDB), the city-state’s powerful economic agency, had shown lapses in its governance structure, financial operations, procurement and accounting systems.
“This was the first audit of the EDB undertaken by the Auditor-General and the audit had given rise to a large number of observations in which the board had not established proper internal control procedures,†the accounts committee said in the report released on Friday.
A sum of S$105 million ($69 million) allocated in the EDB’s 2005/06 budget was not submitted to the EDB’s board for approval, and the board had allowed staff to grant loans and to borrow without reporting that to the board, the report said.”
The local press, as usual, are not giving this report prominence. Hardly surprising. Its a Reuters report which i’ve posted over at my blog if anybody wishes to read it… Public Accounts Committee Finds Lapses Within EDB
about 3 years ago
“For any business, there is no such thing as risk free. It depends on targets and also change in management or etc.”
My advice to everyone is if you want to drive off the cliff then go and see WANG, bc he has absolutely no idea how to manage a successful business.
The central issue here has nothing to do with the viability of the business. That after all is deduced from the financial projection i.e how many students? What is the optimal fee? Whats the overheads? What are the fixed cost? Whats the working capital? etc. Essentially, its a matter of statistical analysis – no mystery there! So no point looking into that empty box.
The issue here is how did they EDB and UNSW get it so wrong as to miss the mark by the proverbial mile? Over 100%!
This naturally throws out questions was EDB fulfilling its role as a value added partner and facilitator in this entire business venture? After all if the figures were so delusionally unrealistic shouldn’t they have alerted UNSW? Or am I to believe they left the entire market projection to UNSW? If so how could they have been so negligent to authorised such a large investment without first conducting their own feasebility study?
To determine what is the sickness or where it all unravelled. You need to be able to find the root cause. All of you are just commenting on the symptoms.
The question that answers this entire debacle isnt who pulled the plug. That a bit like blaming the night watch man for calling the fire brigade when the building is on fire. Or even why they have decided to jump ship even before they set sail. Obviously, they dont want to drive their car off the cliff, so you cant blame them.
But that still doesnt answer the question: how did they dig such a hole for themselves in the first place?
Go back to the root: how did they derived at their projections? How realistic were the projections? How could they are erred so far off the market reality to suggest their projections were even delusional? Were there any factors that skewered their analysis? If so what were they? And why?
Always go back to the source. Everything has a source. Otherwise all you would be doing is rain dancing.
about 3 years ago
Is it surprising EDB is like that ? Hey, guys, remember ACCS, where the founder Victor Tan was jailed for fraud. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/225156/1/.html
And yet EDB is the largest financial for this company and fork out $19 millions, and sure enough the share price shoot up to 80 cents and down to peanuts few days later !!! And yet when Victor Tan and ACCS get scrutinized, EDB is not being examined !!!! Holy shit, for a gov board to fork out millions of dollars and do not know what the fuck is going on is just plain pretension ! Will you spend taxmoney on a company without the planting and knowing what happened to ACCS’s operation ? My foot !!!
And now this saga happened with NSW happened. Only this time, the AngMoh is more daring and eloquent and willing to admit the whole thing. In ACCS, the gov is been protected to save face. By with outsider, we now know better what happened to EDB !!
“Victor Tan,ACCS’s Founder,
Managing Director and CEO, credits
EDB for fast-tracking the growth of
the company at a critical juncture. In
2001, EDB recognised the potential
of the business and invested S$19
million to fund its expansion.The
capital injection enabled ACCS to
grow at an accelerated rate, from
11 centres across six countries as at
end-2000 to 66 centres across 11
countries just 12 months later.”
from http://www.edb.gov.sg/etc/medialib/downloads/about_edb.Par.0069.File.tmp/page66_accs.pdf
Either case, the EDB just keep bloody mouth shout ! Something fishy is going on !!!
Wakeup Singaporean, we been duped !
about 3 years ago
Just call WANG a pile of shit! Just like that. OK.
Agree with you darkness. How did they get it so wrong?
Coming to think of it how did the Bio tech push get it so wrong.
What abt MTI?
What abt Shozou?
What abt Shin Corp?
Are we living in the Matrix or did it really happen darkness?