![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 1 of 1. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 26, 2022, at 7:05:48
really interesting.
really informative.
what the international community has learned, about the state of new zealand.
the new zealand vice chancellor's committee has statutory responsibility to uphold the quality and integrity of nz university qualifications. if you have complaints about how the university has handled your enrolment, progression, completion. more in particular, concerns that they have not upheld what they sort of promised in the calendar regulations... in order to force additional labor and additional payment of fees... in order to fail students and prevent and prohibit completion. withholding qualification completions...
but the new zealadn vice chancellor's committee can just throw away the complaints that it receives. it doesnt actually have to do anything with the complaint. so... basically, in effect, the nzvcc doesn't have the function of protecting whistleblower's at all (even though this is written in the statutes students are not employees therefore there are no whistleblower protections for studnets says the high court judge).
good to know, eh?
not just statutory interpretation (studnets are not employees if they complain about how they were treated as studnets) btu not willing or able to go out on a common-law limb, there, that if the university is acting in a way contrary to quality and integrity (by refusing to confer qualifications that should be conferred OR by conferring qualifications that should not be conferred) then complaints need to be heard and things put right. for the quality and integrity of the universities. and for their actual and deserved reputation in international community.
but the high court judge has spoken. and the nzvcc can just throw away teh complaints. and it was also found by that same judge in teh same proceedings that there is no problem with a university delaying enrolment and forcing extra time and then refusing to confer a degree. it is entirely at the univesrity's discretion whether or not they grant university degrees. not an objective thing where there are objective standards at all.
so.. that is the quality and integrity status or standing of nz universities. so... it's just a matter of time before they won't be in the top 100 list of universities of the world. because, i'm fairly sure, whatever kind of thing it is that they are... it is not a univesrity.
__
what else do the judges have to say about nz universities...
they don't have to process enrolments if they don't want to. entirely their discretion again. they aren't answerable to how they choose to do that. same when it comes to calculating GPA. throwing away applications.
so you might want to consider if you want to invest in secondary school education beliving that investing in that and dworking hard might mean you get to earn a place. the places aren't merit based. they also don't seem to be financial investment based. it is entirely at the discretion of the university, apparently. for whatever arbitrary reasons they want.
so... think about that if you want ot choose to.. roll the dice. play with fire. i would put it like that. investing in nz.
__
what else do the judges have to say about nz universities...
yeah. well.
and how about the practice of unlawful detention?
won't even proceed to a substantive hearing.
and of course then there's all the 'pay teh courts' nonsense if you want the courts to uphold statutory law.
they won't uphold statutory law. the interpretation of which is supposed to be understandable by the common-man so as the common-man can act guided by the laws.
but i'm not literate.
i don't have the capacity to write a masters.
and i don't have capacity to read statutes. apparently.
i mean... i passed that at first year university level. statutory interpretation... but i guess i didn't get the memo about the judges interpreting the statutes so that the government who was supposed to be subject to them could do whatever it wanted whenever it wanted because it wanted with impunity.
i guess that's their common-law judgment of the function or role of the government. declared by the judiciary of nz.
they hauled a couple judges out of retirement to be explicit about that.
and there we have it.
i don't quite know why the courts have decided to go self-destruct. then abandon applications to have the obvious nonsense above heard on appeal.
they are determined.. they want the world to know the status of the statutes and the sort of things they can expect from the common laws of nzl.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.