Talk:Auckland University of Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and/or contribute to the discussion.

For Gadfium - Some parts of your statement are incorrect. The one year agreement was in place only because AUT was having its new library built. This library was completed in 1999 - Check the AUT website!. The agreement was not in place to ensure that AUT attained university status. If you do not know already, all NZ unis have an agreement to share resources.

AUT's application for university status was reviewed over a two year period. University professors, deans, and senior management from universities overseas reviewed AUT's application and decided to award university status.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sinista (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to add the information to the article. I didn't make the original statement, I merely reverted an anonymous change which had no explanation. I did add a request to the paragraph that the information be documented. If you change the paragraph to explain that the agreement was in place as a stopgap while the new AUT Library was being built, that would be fine.-gadfium 09:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the date the AUT library was completed on the website (or the year during which the agreement with Auckland University library was in place). I agree the current paragraph needs to be rewritten, as it has not been substantiated, but you are in a better position to rewrite it than I am.-gadfium 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As an AUT "insider" I well remember the debate over university status. I do not recall any agreement regarding use of University of Auckland library resources, and suspect that this is not correct. Within my own faculty arrangements existed - and still exist - allowing students to have access to the University of Auckland library paid for my AUT. However, there is now a preference for money to be spent on our own library, rather than on the UoA library, so this is being phased out. In all cases the overarching requirement is that sufficient resources are to be made available, by whatever means necessary. The statement that we have insufficient resources to be a university is therefore highly questionable. It is true that when we got university status our library was embarrassingly small, but that is rapidly changing, and hasn't proven to be a significant problem. I would also not call our early years troubled - indeed things went very well - though it would be fair to say the decision to grant us university status was controversial (though soon forgotten). The new library building at Wellesley Street was opened in 2000, that at Akoranga 2005.Ncox 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph along those lines. Feel free to correct any errors.-gadfium 08:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fof Gadfium - Its better to just exclude what you have written all together because you seem to be making incorrect statements. You have no proof or evidence whatsoever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sinista (talk • contribs) .

Please provide some meaningful alternative. The text you are reverting to looks like it came from a brochure. If we removed all the gloss from it there would be nothing left. What I have written is largely based on material from this talk page. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages, and use edit summaries whenever you edit.-gadfium 08:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for article review

I've posted at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board asking people to review this article given the recent disputes over the General Information section.-gadfium 09:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The General info section seems to have been written by the AUT marketing people. It is POV-pushing

• "Despite troubled beginnings, the university is recognised in New Zealand for its innovative approach to teaching, learning and research." - evidence?
• "AUT maintains very high levels of graduate employment in comparison to other New Zealand universities. This can be attributed to AUT's reputation for ensuring graduates are 'work ready' through its relevant coursework and research." - evidence?

At the moment, a {{POV-check}} tag might be an idea. --Midnighttonight 09:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put a {{POV-check-section}} in the appropriate place.-gadfium 09:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to verify the claims made in this section? Doesn't seem like anything has been done so far... and it does read like advertising copy. The logo on the page is also outdated - a current version with the word 'University' underneath 'AUT' would be a good addition. (And yes, that is 'Auckland University of Technology University'.) --Samf-nz 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've toned down the more obvious "marketing-speak" in this section. Unfortunately I have been unable to add references for the claims which remain, but as an AUT insider I have some confidence that the section does not now contain anything contentious. Wherever the original section came from it certainly read like our (generally bad) publicity material. Ncox 02:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chancellor

Could someone provide a source for Sir Paul Reeves being Chancellor? The university's info page (admittedly out of date--2004) gives Wyn Hoadley as Chancellor. 202.89.157.232 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The info page has finally been updated and now shows Sir Paul Reeves as Chancellor. Dippit 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Name

I believe the proper name of the 'University' is the Auckland University of Technology University, as can be plainly seen on the logo displayed on the article. The title of the article should be changed to reflect this.130.216.191.183

No, it calls itself AUT University. A case could be made for renaming the article to that, but at present I believe the older name is better known.- gadfium 05:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)60.234.140.250 06:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AUT -> Auckland University of Technology, therefore AUT University -> Auckland University of Technology University.

They get to choose their name, not you. It's like ASB Bank was once Auckland Savings Bank, but the letters ASB no longer stand for anything. Similarly, AUT no longer stands for anything, but the change of name is sufficiently recent that the popular consciousness hasn't caught up yet. Personally, I still think of them as Auckland Technical Institute.- gadfium 07:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But the letters do stand for something - I'm not planning on doing it, but these clowns really deserve articles renamed Auckland University of Technology University and Auckland Savings Bank Bank. Yes I'm becoming a grouchy old man and I'm not even old yet. If I start posting "cititation needed" on every second random fact in articles, take me out and shoot me... Winstonwolfe 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they used to stand for something. This is not a case of RAS Syndrome.-gadfium 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)