Talk:Queensland University of Technology

QUT (Applied Science)

This is the course I've been doing for the past 3 years. You can MAJOR IN STACKS OF DIFFERENT AREAS like microbiology, industrial chemistry etc. It is different from UQ in that it is not as insular and actually it is easier to go straight into the workforce after completing a 3 year course in QUT than in UQ, but that might just be me. Cousre code for applied science is SC01 co-ordinator m.hargreaves

Kelvin grove merger

I agree, also put in a subheading for Carseldine and Gardens Point.

Caboolture - I've changed it like a bajillion times but someone keeps changing it back so I give up, but Caboolture does not offer a full course in Education. I know this because I am currently enrolled at Caboolture.

QUT square +/- wordings for logo

Hi @The Education Auditor! Just re: the square QUT logo versus the version with the addition of the "Queensland University of Technology" text, I again feel as though the latter should be prioritised for use in the infobox. The horizontal layout fits a lot nicer into the natural shape of the infobox, whereas the square version renders as either extremely large and agressive at full-width (giant blue box that distracts from the content) or with a lot of whitespace when at a smaller size. Tim (Talk) 05:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Tim :-)

Here was my rationale for replacing the logo:

1. According to the QUT Brand Centre Corporate Identity document, on page six, it mentions that "The QUT logo is the only logo to be used to represent the university". It shows the square logo next to the text.

2. On every article on Wikipedia regarding a university, a vertical coat of arms (e.g. London School of Economics) or a circular seal (e.g. Massachusetts Institute of Technology) is used on the top of the infobox. These symbols usually occupy a squarish area.

3. The current horizontal logo was added to the article on 19 December 2023 but does not appear on the aforementioned document. The horizontal logo previously used on the article, which does appear in the document as the official slogan logo, is on the header of their website.

I did manage to find the university common seal, which is less ominous, and have temporarily replaced the square logo on the top of the infobox.

Since I don't want to gatekeep, here are some options to consider:

1. Keep the common seal and rectangle logo as is

2. Swap the seal and rectangle logo placements

3. Revert to the square and horizontal QUT logos

4. Revert to simply having the horizontal logo

5. Tag third parties (e.g. Pichpich, DaHuzyBru, etc.) here

I don't have any special privilege on Wikipedia nor do I own it so feel free to make whatever decision you like and I'll respect it. If the size is the only concern, there is also an option to resize the logo. I've added the parameter to the infobox. Perhaps an input between 150-250px?

Kind regards,
The Education Auditor (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, LSE and MIT are two other universities that use an acronym in their primary logo.

The Education Auditor (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Robertsky, your input on this issue would be appreciated.

We're trying to decide what images we should use at the top and bottom of the infobox.

A timeline of previously used graphics:

• A blue positive version of the logo similar to the one on the QUT website
• The horizontal text logo currently at the bottom of the infobox
• The square QUT logo in the Brand Centre Corporate Identity manual
• The university common seal currently at the top of the infobox
  
  

@ItsPugle believes the horizontal text logo should be shifted back to the top as I had changed it to the square QUT logo followed by the common seal.

Kind regards,
The Education Auditor (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong preference. In terms of appearances wise, the logo with text is less imposing. The common seal looks tacky, especially with the common seal text. – robertsky (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the seal does look somewhat tacky. Although the horizontal logo doesn't seem to be used anymore, it does look similar enough to the seal and is less ominous than the square logo that I added prior to the seal. I will revert my changes and withdraw from the topic.

Kind regards,
The Education Auditor (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up again but QUT has just released new merch with this as their logo? Does this change anything? [1] https://ibb.co/hZYfnDd Tiernae (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Tiernae - I'm leaning towards a soft no from my perspective. I think that might just be decorative, all their other public platforms seems to still be using the QUT & "The university for the real world" branding. Have you seen this new rendition elsewhere? Tim (Talk) 07:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, as magnificent as it looks, I've never seen that logo been used before. I can't tell if it's real but I don't see why the university would've changed it from that to the common seal in their corporate identity manual. Regardless, if it's not widely used by the university and it isn't in their brand manual or degree parchments, it shouldn't be used. Although the logo in the infobox is outdated, it was widely used by the university. Even if it is real, Griffith University's crest isn't on their infobox because it is no longer used by the university. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the replies to a discussion I started 😅 Glad to see it's all squared away, thanks for the respectful convo! Tim (Talk) 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

😂😂😂 – robertsky (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nickname field in the infobox not needed

As per the article linked to the term, this is a USA / Canada practice. Having studied and worked in the sector for decades (including at QUT), I am unaware of this or any other Australian university being known by nicknames derived from the names of the university sporting teams. The culture of "college sport" doesn't occur in Australia, where sporting teams do exist, but are not a focal point for the institutions nor the bulk of their students. By all means, mention the sporting teams in the article (appropriately cited) but I think putting them in the infoxbox gives them a prominence they don't have in Australian university culture. Kerry (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

QUT Historical Origins Accuracy

There has been some debate over establishing QUT's history. I have used sources from the Queensland heritage register to set the record straight, and others have then undone those edits claiming "academic boosterism".

QUT is factually Australia's oldest tertiary institution. I have never claimed it is Australia's oldest university, just its oldest existing provider of higher education. That is not an opinion,` that is an indisputable fact backed up by sources.

The Kelvin Grove Campus, when merged with QUT in 1991, contained the Brisbane College of Advanced Education - which contained a variety of colleges before it, but namely did not contain the Brisbane School of Arts. The Brisbane School of Arts is factually the original QUT. It then became the Brisbane Central Technical College, then the Queensland Institute of Technology, and then the Queensland University of Technology. In all cases, the schools had all of their assets, staff and students transferred to the "new" school, functionally continuing on that now former school in all but name. It is not unreasonable by any counts to claim that the QUT of today started as the Brisbane School of Arts, because it literally did - its roots aren't of schools amalgamated, it is the same school over 175 years.

USyd was originally proposed as an extension to Sydney College. The reason we don't count USyd's origins as the start of Sydney College, is because Sydney College didn't become part of or evolve into USyd, it still exists today as the high school, Sydney Grammar School. The difference is that the Brisbane School of Arts (the 1849 one) exists today at QUT.

Taking away QUT's right to make its claim on its long and storied history is disrespectful to a university that has had significant positive impact on its community over its years of service. Saying "it only started in 1989" is invalidating all of its earned prior achievements, and frankly, thats below the standards of this website and community.

QUT is factually the oldest existing tertiary institution in Australia, deal with it. Tiernae (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

For the first claim, what debate? Can you please provide a link to the debate?

For the second claim, a simple Google search finds that Christ College is the oldest tertiary institution in Australia.

For the third claim: if what you say is true, it would've merged with QUT in 1991 so it's not QUT.

For the fourth claim, what on earth is Sydney College? The University of Sydney was established in 1850.

For the fifth claim, QUT is not claiming to be the oldest tertiary institution in Australia.

There's nothing stopping you from adding or correcting it's history but what you've added is clearly false.

Additionally, here is a link to the founding legislation. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For your first point - I'm particularly referring to the debate between yourself and me. You have removed edits with claims that are factually inaccurate.

For your second point - Christ College is a residential college, not a tertiary institution. It may have started as a tertiary institution, but it doesn't operate as one now, so it isn't one. The world bank defines tertiary education as "Tertiary education refers to all formal post-secondary education, including public and private universities, colleges, technical training institutes, and vocational schools."[2] Further - if you read their history you'd find they closed in 1856 due to bad financial conditions and reopened in 1879. I don't think closing for 23 years and then reopening can fairly claim to be the same institution with that large a gap. The teachers, students and vast majority of the assets were not the same when reopened in 1879, and so to claim that it's the same institution is ridiculous. Could Italy claim to be the Roman Empire just with a millennia or two of "sorry we're closed".

On your third point - Yes. The Brisbane College of Advanced Education (Kelvin Grove) was not apart of QUT until 1991. However, their history starts in 1911 as the Brisbane Kindergarten Training College. I'm talking about the institutions from Gardens Point, not Kelvin Grove. the 1849 institution - Brisbane School of Arts, is the direct predecessor to QUT. That is to say that until QUT became a university, it had no mergers, amalgamations, or closures. The best way to describe its history up until that point is one school - a lot of name changes. The assets, teachers and students moved with every name change. So functionally - it is the same continuing institution. I have attached a graphic made by QUT in 2015 for a "Golden Graduates" powerpoint that illustrates the history of QUT's amalgamated institutions. I will also attach the link for that powerpoint.

On your fourth point - Sydney College is now the Sydney Grammar School. Check the second paragraph of their history section. In the establishment of the University of Sydney, it was first proposed that it be an extension to Sydney College (as in Sydney College would evolve into the University of Sydney). This idea wasn't used as it was decided the University of Sydney was to be a whole new institution. Sydney College then grew into Sydney Grammar.

On your fifth point - Could you find a source that states QUT has rejected its claim as Australia's oldest tertiary institution? On this page, QUT says "We began operating as QUT in January 1989, following approval of our status as a university. But our history truly begins in colonial times..." and then literally beneath that starts with the Brisbane School of Arts in 1849. If you'd like QUT to quite literally make the claim that they're the oldest tertiary institution in Australia by saying those words - word for word - on their website or in a public space - I'm sure we can organise something with their University Historian. However, I also think that due to the overwhelming evidence supporting the claim, we don't actually need QUT to make a media release on historical fact. This really isn't something thats up in the air, it's pretty clear if you do the math. QUT does claim to have been founded as the Brisbane School of Arts.

Lastly - I've not added or corrected its history in a false manner. I have made a statement of fact - QUT is Australia's oldest existing tertiary institution. I have not claimed it is Australia's oldest university, because it isn't, that title definitely goes to USyd. The point you seem to either be making is 1. If it's not a university, its not a tertiary institution. If that's your point, thats elitist as heck and disrespectful to the trade colleges that have carried communities - and just frankly untrue. The world bank definition is what Wikipedia uses for Tertiary Education, so will we. or 2. When it became QUT in 1989, the legislation eradicated all former institutions - because technically QUT was a "new" institution despite it having its campus, classes, assets, teachers and degrees made up of the same ones offered by QIT. Further, this is an actual link to QUT's original university legislation, you linked to the current one. Part VI of that act is literally about transitional arrangement for QIT to QUT - including property, students, employees, liabilities, courses offered, contracts, the whole kitten caboodle. I think it's rather odd for a government to make a new institution and then force it to take on all of the debt, responsibilities, property etc of another institution. Unless of course - that new institution isn't actually new and just got a promotion.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but do it with sources and historical fact. Tiernae (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In response the first point, you previously made the claim in an edit summary that "..there has been an argument over age of institutions and the compromise seems to be.." in order to add your university to the lead paragraph of the University of Sydney. This precedes this debate, which is not a reliable source of information to begin with, as it uses Wikipedia as a source.

In response to the second point, you just said "[Christ College] may have started as a tertiary institution" which refutes your earlier claim that "QUT is the oldest tertiary institution in Australia". You also refuted your own argument again when you said about Christ College that "...teachers, students and vast majority of the assets were not the same when reopened in 1879, and so to claim that it's the same institution is ridiculous..." because you can say that same thing about QUT. Your rhetorical question "Could Italy claim to be the Roman Empire just with a millennia or two of "sorry we're closed"[?]" also undermines your argument.

In response to your third point, the history page claims that "By the early 1960s, Central Technical College had more than 13,000 students" and then "Queensland Institute of Technology (QIT) was established at Gardens Point, next to Brisbane's CBD. From 1966..." and "In 1965, QIT had only 4,634 students, but the number grew to 7,665 by 1981". This means that the line of succession is broken even though "professional and technical courses offered at Central Technical College moved to the Queensland Institute of Technology". It's intentionally written like this to frame a perspective, which can't be used here.

In response to your fourth point, I still don't understand what Sydney College has anything to do with this. The University of Sydney article states that it was established in 1850, not when Sydney College was established.

In response to your fifth point, it's not my responsibility to disprove your claims, it's your responsibility to prove your claims. If QUT claims to be the oldest tertiary institution in Australia, simply cite a reliable source and it's done. Marketing quotes like "our history truly begins in colonial times" can be used to claim that King's College London was established in 1561, which isn't true.

In response to your sixth point, you're now claiming that "QUT is Australia's oldest existing tertiary institution"? What happened to being the oldest as you claimed on multiple articles? Is QUT the oldest existing tertiary institution or was the Brisbane School of Arts? How do we even know that Brisbane School of Arts is the oldest? Where is the source? You've added that "I'm sure we can organise something with their University Historian", so go for it and tell them to publish it on their website so that you can add it. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)