PM to Seize Uni Control from State Governments (2 Viewers)

[frog12986]

I am.

I realised that after I wrote it..

 

[*Minka*]

a)are doing a degree that in productivity terms will add very little (ie english lit, drama students) b) the proportion of students who don't complete their degree is quite high Not surprisingly there is a correlation between high uai's and high completion rates.

I don't think ALL arts majors are useless. For example, many students studying education will take courses in the Arts faculty such as history or drama. Secondly, subjects such as International Relations and Public Relations and Marketing are useful and can build careers. While I don't see the advantage of getting a degree in obscure painting and weird pots, some majors such as History are taken by teachers who will in turn, teacher history to kids and those doing professional subjects under the Arts faculty such as PR.

(For the record, I am an Arts (International Relations, History)/Law degree)

b) the proportion of students who don't complete their degree is quite high Not surprisingly there is a correlation between high uai's and high completion rates.

Of course, but it is also something that is a case by case basis. A girl from my graduating class got a UAI 98.50 and is working as a waitress and smoking pot every chance she gets after going to University for a grand total of three weeks, while a friend of mine from dance got a 78.00 and currently has a credit average at University, is in her third year and will be doing honors.

Peoples motivation does change and it also doesn't take into account people such as my friend who were unhappy at high school, such as my friend who was relentlessly picked on for being a Serbian and therefore a 'Murderer' and a 'Milosevic fucker' and therefore lost all her motivation and will to be at school. Being able to still get into University has been a great thing for her.

So in short - I thinky our point is valid, but shutting out University as an option to anyone who gets under a 91.50 or whatever would block out a lot of people who could succeed and do very well.

 

[bshoc]

HECS doesn't always work well, e.g. WaF's gender studies example, but its still better having it around, especially during a budget surplus and seeing as how a good portion of it comes back anyway.

Tertiary education is an economic multiplier ..

 

[banco55]

I don't think ALL arts majors are useless. For example, many students studying education will take courses in the Arts faculty such as history or drama. Secondly, subjects such as International Relations and Public Relations and Marketing are useful and can build careers. While I don't see the advantage of getting a degree in obscure painting and weird pots, some majors such as History are taken by teachers who will in turn, teacher history to kids and those doing professional subjects under the Arts faculty such as PR.

(For the record, I am an Arts (International Relations, History)/Law degree)



Of course, but it is also something that is a case by case basis. A girl from my graduating class got a UAI 98.50 and is working as a waitress and smoking pot every chance she gets after going to University for a grand total of three weeks, while a friend of mine from dance got a 78.00 and currently has a credit average at University, is in her third year and will be doing honors.

Peoples motivation does change and it also doesn't take into account people such as my friend who were unhappy at high school, such as my friend who was relentlessly picked on for being a Serbian and therefore a 'Murderer' and a 'Milosevic fucker' and therefore lost all her motivation and will to be at school. Being able to still get into University has been a great thing for her.

So in short - I thinky our point is valid, but shutting out University as an option to anyone who gets under a 91.50 or whatever would block out a lot of people who could succeed and do very well.

I certainly don't think all arts majors are useful and even if they were useless there'd be an argument for still offering the courses (just not in large numbers). I do think there should be a bias towards more vocationally oriented courses. We have a shortage of scientists/maths people at the moment. One way to push more people into science/maths courses is so reduce the number of arts places.

Singapore for example does extensive projections of what the economy will need and plans course numbers using those projections. Hence the number of law places is restricted to how many lawyers they think the economy needs.

 

[Sparcod]

I don't think ALL arts majors are useless. For example, many students *Minka*studying education will take courses in the Arts faculty such as history or drama. Secondly, subjects such as International Relations and Public Relations and Marketing are useful and can build careers. While I don't see the advantage of getting a degree in obscure painting and weird pots, some majors such as History are taken by teachers who will in turn, teacher history to kids and those doing professional subjects under the Arts faculty such as PR.

Right. I see what you mean. You're trying to imply that certain units of study from the Arts faculty should be added to what people study. For arts students, there is a (limited) variety of jobs out there if they do things like creative arts but on the other hand, a language is quite useful.

Apart from teaching, where else can Arts grads go? And what about students doing engineering/arts, science/arts and commerce/arts? Are they more into the arts side? No. It's most likely they want to have a double degree that 'widens' their scope.

I certainly don't think all arts majors are useful and even if they were useless there'd be an argument for still offering the courses (just not in large numbers). I do think there should be a bias towards more vocationally oriented courses. We have a shortage of scientists/maths people at the moment. One way to push more people into science/maths courses is so reduce the number of arts places.

I do have a feeling that there are too many arts graduates out there since the unemployment rate for them is relatively high.

You also mentioned that there is a shortage of people qualified in science. Let's take medicine for example. There is a serious shortage of doctors but I guess that there are so few places and entry being competitive due to the fact that it is expensive to run. Is that right? Or perhaps another possibility is that the unis/practice bodies don't want to see doctors who don't even deserve to be a doctor in the first place and so they place a stricter entry criteria.

Singapore for example does extensive projections of what the economy will need and plans course numbers using those projections. Hence the number of law places is restricted to how many lawyers they think the economy needs.

I think that that's a good idea. For some reason, the incentive part is quite hard. It's pretty hard to draw more people into trades and the engineering courses.

 

[banco55]

I do have a feeling that there are too many arts graduates out there since the unemployment rate for them is relatively high.

You also mentioned that there is a shortage of people qualified in science. Let's take medicine for example. There is a serious shortage of doctors but I guess that there are so few places and entry being competitive due to the fact that it is expensive to run. Is that right? Or perhaps another possibility is that the unis/practice bodies don't want to see doctors who don't even deserve to be a doctor in the first place and so they place a stricter entry criteria.

Doctors are kind of a special case because they have to do heaps of pratical training when they graduate and the existing doctors can control (to some extent) the number of training slots. The UK tried pumping out heaps of medicine graduates and then found there weren't enough training places for them so a lot of them have quit medicine.

 

[jb_nc]

Singapore for example does extensive projections of what the economy will need and plans course numbers using those projections. Hence the number of law places is restricted to how many lawyers they think the economy needs.

Singapore is a very nearly a police state.

 

[volition]

Tertiary education is an economic multiplier ..

An effect that we could never even correctly identify, (if it were even a positive effect), and fair to charge average joe to pay for.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I am.

and it's a terrible idea anyway.

 

[withoutaface]

Here's a policy paper I wrote a year ago on the issue. It's not the best now that I read back over it, but it outlines a relatively solid case for what would initially appear to be an indefensible position.

 

[_dhj_]

An effect that we could never even correctly identify, (if it were even a positive effect), and fair to charge average joe to pay for.

So tell me, what does the 'average joe' want and how is it good for the country?

 

[Tulipa]

Waf, you don't give a footnote for this:

"Though increasing the rate of HECS to cover the entire cost of a students
degree would seem to alleviate the above problem, we must remember
that many students do not pay the entire amount back, be it because of
emigration, deciding not to work, early death, or other factors."

I want one.

 

[volition]

So tell me, what does the 'average joe' want and how is it good for the country?

Why are you asking me? Let average joe decide for himself, if you truly thought that his choice mattered. Don't pretend that everybody is happy to subsidise whatever the government chooses to spend taxation money on because that just happens to be who is in power now. If everyone was happy to just pay for random people's education, then surely they'd be willing to do it voluntarily then wouldn't they? It's obvious that many people would rather have the extra money(not that it's bad to want to actually be in control of money you've worked for or anything).

As for "How is it good for the country", it means we're moving further away from the train wreck that is government central planning with it's inability to perform rational economic calculation. We'd be moving towards a system of flexible, more relevant, less costly education.

 

[withoutaface]

Waf, you don't give a footnote for this:

"Though increasing the rate of HECS to cover the entire cost of a students
degree would seem to alleviate the above problem, we must remember
that many students do not pay the entire amount back, be it because of
emigration, deciding not to work, early death, or other factors."

I want one.

"the estimated amount of HECS debt unlikely to be recovered (due to remissions, death, emigration etc). This write down is currently estimated at 19.5 per cent – or $1572 million of the total HECS debt outstanding of $8062 million as at 30 June 2002)."

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/HECS.htm

 

[_dhj_]

Why are you asking me? Let average joe decide for himself, if you truly thought that his choice mattered. Don't pretend that everybody is happy to subsidise whatever the government chooses to spend taxation money on because that just happens to be who is in power now. If everyone was happy to just pay for random people's education, then surely they'd be willing to do it voluntarily then wouldn't they? It's obvious that many people would rather have the extra money(not that it's bad to want to actually be in control of money you've worked for or anything).

As for "How is it good for the country", it means we're moving further away from the train wreck that is government central planning with it's inability to perform rational economic calculation. We'd be moving towards a system of flexible, more relevant, less costly education.

The reason why Liberals have jumped on the tertiary education bandwagon is because it is a major priority of the electorate - even among the so-called 'average joe's. You are confusing the individual positive with the communal normative. Individuals acknowledge that they are driven by self interest and without government regulation will perform actions contrary to the common good. In this case, HECS is obviously needed to achieve the desired communal normative and this has been thoroughly explained in the thread. In regard to the difficulties of measuring the 'multiplyer', it must be noted that not everything that counts can be counted.

 

[Tulipa]

"the estimated amount of HECS debt unlikely to be recovered (due to remissions, death, emigration etc). This write down is currently estimated at 19.5 per cent – or $1572 million of the total HECS debt outstanding of $8062 million as at 30 June 2002)."

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/HECS.htm

Cool, thank you.

Very disappointing that you didn't do it properly the first time

 

[withoutaface]

Cool, thank you.

Very disappointing that you didn't do it properly the first time

As I said, this was done a year ago

 

[Tulipa]

As I said, this was done a year ago

Still *sigh* tut tut.

Should always back up your claims.

God this thread is boring.

 

[volition]

In regard to the difficulties of measuring the 'multiplier', it must be noted that not everything that counts can be counted.

This is partially where the irrational economic calculation of governments comes from. Spending without knowing enough of what you're getting back from it.

You seem to think that the only way people will get educated is if the state does it. I don't think this is true, I think that what we'd see is private institutions popping up with more specialised training, and because they don't suffer from the problems that a government must necessarily suffer when it attempts to 'conduct business' they could do it cheaper too. This, and more cadetship/apprenticeship type positions becoming available.

Individuals acknowledge that they are driven by self interest and without government regulation will perform actions contrary to the common good.

You're telling me that people who otherwise WOULD NOT want to voluntarily pay for education, vote so that EVERYBODY has to? I'll repeat what I said earlier, if people truly wanted to spend their own money on random people's education, they'd do it. Interestingly enough there is also the notion that some private donations get crowded out by public funding. Some people might have set up those trust funds and educational institutions with their own money, but who knows, they might just see the government spending $5 billion of taxpayer money on it and just think "meh, no point now".

I reckon the real reason some people vote for increased government spending is partly that they don't see where the money is coming from. (ie. they don't see that $50 of the $1000 they paid this year goes towards building roads or whatever)

That, and they feel that they won't be the ones to foot the bill, or at least, that they'll get "more out of it than they put in". Don't forget we have a progressive income tax system, so it's consistent that there are people who would think this way . hint: students and parents of students might feel that they'd get more than they put in voting this way.

Think about an evil capitalist right winger like me, who am I supposed to vote for? All the choice I realistically have is the choice between two fat santas who fall over each other to promise to spend more than the other on 'essential services'. Our true choices are very limited.

 

[_dhj_]

Well obviously if you are an evil capitalist right winger you don't care about the welfare of others, and that's fair enough. Consider this fact though: there are some things that individuals cannot choose - they can't choose where they're born - whether it's the first world or the third world (or developing world as we euphamistically label it). They can't choose their family, their race - whether they are Aboriginal or Anglo-Saxon. They can't decide to be born intelligent or to be born with good looks, to be born an introvert or an extrovert. The decisions they make in the determinative years, when they are infants are arbitrary, although that determine much of who they are and who they will become. They have no say over whether they will grow up in Bondi or in Blacktown, whether they are fed by a silver spoon or have nothing to feed themselves.

Considering this fact, the context of the world we are born in, one ought to see that a large part of who they are developed not through the rational choices they made, but through the pre-conditioned path they are to follow. That is why many individuals need protection and encouragement to pursue certain paths and make certain choices. For although in a perfect world the rational being is responsible for who they've become, we shouldn't pretend that we live in this world.