Talk:Central Queensland University
|WikiProject Universities||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Australia / Queensland / Education||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Please provide some guidance as to where self-published sources (e.g. CQUniversity website etc) have been published "improperly". In some cases the self-references may be the only source of such information. I agree that all improper references should be removed, but not factual unbiased information. User:Chris.veraa 0:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a typo in the second sentence... sounds silly, main campas is in rocky you have is rocky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC) There is a typo in the first sentence... sounds silly, main campas is in rocky you have is rocky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Saying this is one of the best regional universities in Oz means very little, especially considering it's large number of metro campuses. matturn 07:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you click the external link provided, you'll see that the previous author has made this assertion because CQU achieved 7 five-star ratings in 2003, the most of any regional university. As for your assertion that CQU is not regional, it seems they still consider themselves this way, as they have more campuses in regional Australia than in metropolitan Australia. Nonetheless, I've fiddled it a bit to make this clearer. Ranglin 01:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
To Sfacet: I do not consider removing unsubstantiated claims, vandalism User:126.96.36.199
I've reverted the removal of the criticism section. The first criticism is based on an external article, the second is probably true of many student bodies and is a little generic so I'll remove it, and the third needs to be reworded to remove the conclusion. I'll just hop to it. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- In fact I've removed the latter two because they seem more opinion than fact and had no substantation. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Melbourne Student Assocation
Re: "Abhishek Vivian Prasad is the current Director of the Melbourne International Campus Student Association" -- the cited webpage does not mention Melbourne, nor does it mention Prasad. Should be fixed up. Bernard S. Jansen 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Essentially a re-introduction (and substantial rewrite) of the now-deleted 'criticisms' section. This section is absolutely necessary for this article to be balanced and objective.
There are substantial questions about the quality of CQU's service provision to international student, but this article feels more like it was written by the CQU cheerleaders, and does not reflect at all any of these concerns. I feel that, given that this very controversy nearly lead to a hunger strike just last year, it is imperative that the article include reference to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
I am not trying to reignite the flames that previously happened around this section. I am citing the reports of the relevant Commonwealth Department as reported to Parliament. --Bgonch 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Public University = Self accrediting institution
AQF register  lists universities and other self accrediting insitutions.
These institutions are established by or under relevant State, Territory and Commonwealth legislation and have authority to accredit their own courses, which may be accessed via the link to the institution homepage given below. The AQF guidelines for the higher education qualifications reflect advice from these institutions, as do the AQF qualification titles in widespread use by the self-accrediting institutions (together with a small number of local titles).
Being a "self accrediting university" seems to mean that such organisations are allowed to design their own courses and subsequently give credit for completion of such courses by applying AQF guidelines. Most Australian Public Universities (include Charles Darwin, Griffith, USC, ANU etc) and private ones (Bond, Australian Catholic University etc.) seem to be on the list.--ZayZayEM 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The point of the edit was to correct the incorrect information that CQU was accredited by the Australian government, I am happy with where it is now. There is no such thing, as a University accredited by the Australian government.
- agreed--ZayZayEM 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of University Ratings
"These results must be considered with scepticism, as IDP has indicated that the Graduate Destination Survey is not an accurate representation of international students, over half of CQU's enrollment."
Firstly. Saying "these must be considered with scepticism" is POV, it is guiding the reader to a foregone conclusion.
Secondly the source  doesn't mention CQU or IDP Education Australia. It does say this about the survey though:
"The majority of GDS reporting excludes overseas (or international) graduates from the main analysis. This restricts the major examination of destinations to graduates who are Australian citizens or permanent residents in order to present data for a more cohesive group with a higher response rate."
Jumping from that to a statement directly targetting CQU's ratings or survey results is Synthesising information, and accusatory. This material is better suited to either a page on IDP Eduaction Australia or the Graduate Destination Survey of that year.--ZayZayEM 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Taken a bit to think through your comments. I think the section on ratings is inherently unbalanced. Since the Good University Guide is copyrighted, neither you nor I can post enought to establish a npov.
Looking at the other Australian Universities, very few include information from the GUG. Of those that do, It is common to balance it with rankings from other sources, like the Melbourne Insitute (see: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/publications/reports/dr_aus_uni/Paper_Rating.pdf ). So we could have two alternatives, either:
Can the whole section, because there is no way to express it NPOV, or, Expand it to include other sources
Let me know what you think ----RT
- By all means expand it to include other sources for information. If you contrast it with lower rankings (I briefly looked at the links) it has received, and can source those ratings, sounds great.--ZayZayEM 11:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:CQU Logo.gif
Image:CQU Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)