EDIT SUPER SRS: May have been generative AI used in report too... Another commenter highlighted this but their post removed. This is really serious if true. Any smartie pants wish to verify? I have commented photo
I feel UWA should not benefit from all the hard work Curtin has put in.
A merger might be in UWA's best interests, but is it really in WA's best interests?
I can certainly see how a merger would benefit UWA. What I'm far less convinced of is whether it would benefit the state, students, or the other universities involved and certainly not Curtin which is genuinely a great institution.
In my opinion, UWA has suffered from increasingly short-sighted management over the past two decades, perhaps longer. That's not to suggest it's a bad university. Quite the opposite. I think UWA remains a great institution with incredibly strong foundations, a rich history and enormous potential. However, I also think it has relied far too heavily on its historical prestige and its reputation as the university to attend in Perth, rather than consistently adapting to an increasingly competitive higher education market.
Meanwhile, Curtin has spent decades improving its offerings, industry connections, facilities and student experience. In areas such as engineering, business and increasingly even law, Curtin has become a genuinely competitive, and often preferable, alternative. Anecdotally, many people I speak to regard Curtin's teaching, student experience and even graduate employment prospects as superior in certain disciplines.
And frankly, if Curtin eventually overtakes UWA as Perth's leading university through better management, innovation and student choice, why shouldn't it?
One of UWA's biggest strategic mistakes, in my view, was its shift towards the broad undergraduate degree model, requiring postgraduate qualifications for entry into many professions.
Consider engineering. Why would a prospective student choose a five-year pathway at UWA when they could obtain a professionally accredited engineering qualification at Curtin in four years, potentially with stronger industry exposure along the way?
UWA appeared to be banking on students accepting additional time and expense for the prestige of its name. I think that was a serious miscalculation.
The same applies to broadening units. I actually support the underlying philosophy of a well-rounded education. But when students are required to spend a substantial portion of their degree studying subjects unrelated to their intended profession, while students at competing universities can qualify sooner, you have to question whether the model genuinely serves students' interests.
There's a reason people joke about having to study something like African drumming instead of another unit relevant to their profession. The criticism isn't necessarily of those subjects themselves, but of a system that can make an already expensive and lengthy qualification even longer.
To me, these are fundamentally problems arising from UWA's own strategic decisions. And rather than addressing them, amalgamation risks rewarding those decisions at the expense of institutions that have worked hard to establish their own identities and competitive advantages.
Why should Curtin potentially have to sacrifice its independence, institutional identity or successful educational model to accommodate UWA's shortcomings?
Universities should be competing to provide better education, stronger employment outcomes and a better student experience. Students should ultimately determine which institutions succeed through their choices.
I'd much rather see UWA invest in itself, reconsider its course structures, improve the student experience, strengthen its industry connections and genuinely recommit to educational excellence.
UWA doesn't need to absorb its competitors to become a great university again. It needs to demonstrate why students should choose it over those competitors. And ultimately, what is best for UWA is not necessarily what is best for Western Australia.