ANU's Loss-Making Cybernetics School Exposed
· diy
The Dark Side of Innovation: A Cautionary Tale from Canberra’s Cybernetics School
The Australian National University’s (ANU) School of Cybernetics has been touted as a revolutionary program, combining engineering and design thinking to tackle complex problems. However, beneath its ambitious curriculum lies a tale of financial mismanagement, high dropout rates, and lavish subsidies for students.
Compared with other ANU programs, the numbers paint a stark picture: while the School of Computing brought in $60 million in revenue and generated a profit margin of $15,000 per student, the Cybernetics program hemorrhaged money to the tune of $228,000 per student. This disparity is not just a minor discrepancy but a significant financial black hole that raises questions about the wisdom of investing in such an expensive and exclusive program.
Professor Genevieve Bell’s vision for combining engineering with design thinking and ethics is undoubtedly innovative, but it comes at a cost. Her appointment as founder of the School of Cybernetics was marked by controversy, particularly given her subsequent role as vice chancellor. Under Renew ANU, Bell’s cost-cutting program aimed to slash $250 million from the ANU’s cost base in just one year. Yet, the School of Cybernetics appears to be exempt from these austerity measures, with students benefiting from lavish scholarships and generous subsidies.
A comparison can be drawn with the School of Music, another expensive program slated for rationalization under Bell’s tenure. Initially, the university justified cutting staff and redesigning the course as unprofitable, citing a conservatoire model of education that cost $22,000 per student. However, secret financial documents reveal that this figure was significantly lower than the actual costs associated with the cybernetics program.
The implications of this story are far-reaching: universities must be transparent about their financial dealings and prioritize programs that deliver value to students and taxpayers as they grapple with declining funding and increasing competition. The ANU’s School of Cybernetics has become a symbol of the dangers of unchecked innovation and the importance of fiscal responsibility in higher education.
As we look ahead, it is essential to question whether such exclusive and expensive programs are worth the cost. Are they truly driving innovation or simply perpetuating a culture of privilege? The answer lies not only in the numbers but also in the experiences of students and staff who have been affected by these decisions.
Reader Views
- BWBo W. · carpenter
The ANU's Cybernetics School is bleeding money, but what about the real-world implications? How many small businesses and startups can't compete with such lavish subsidies for students? We need to focus on making innovation accessible, not just throwing cash at a flashy program. The article mentions high dropout rates, but I'd like to see some data on what happens to those students after they leave the ANU - do they actually go on to make a meaningful impact in their field, or are they just taking up space?
- DHDale H. · weekend handyperson
It seems like ANU's grand experiment with the Cybernetics School is just that – an experiment gone wrong. But what's really striking is how this program stands out from others due to its enormous costs and questionable priorities. What about the students who dropped out of this program? Are they simply being written off as failures, or are there underlying issues with the curriculum or teaching methods that contributed to their departure? We need more transparency on this aspect before we can assess whether this pricey program is worth continuing.
- TWThe Workshop Desk · editorial
The ANU's Cybernetics School debacle highlights the university's tendency to indulge in pie-in-the-sky initiatives at the expense of fiscal responsibility. What's striking is the absence of student outcomes data - how many students actually secure jobs related to their field after graduating from this program? It's one thing to tout innovation and design thinking, but another altogether to justify millions in subsidies without demonstrating tangible returns on investment.