University deregulation beginning 2016 (2014 budget) (1 Viewer)

[Amleops]

In the short to medium term, it is very unlikely that there will be new competitors in the university market. The start up costs to set one up and to attract students are way too high especially when you're competing with well established 'brands' which have been around for so many years. It may be possible in the long term but I still think this is unlikely, which links to my next point.

I don't pretend to be an expert on what type of costs would be involved. Perhaps you can give me a better picture of what types of costs we would expect to see. But I would imagine if this were the case, then starting up a university would just be a project mainly restricted to wealthy entrepreneurs. Which wouldn't mean that their activities wouldn't still stimulate the economy, and provide services to the public (regardless of the quality of it).

Yes, they'd be competing with more established brands. So they would have to adopt business strategies to suit. For lesser universities, the areas they would be most likely to exploit to give them some of the market share would be costs, lower entry requirements or types of degrees (in that they may create demand for a whole new area of study, or pick up areas of study that formerly belonged to TAFEs).

Regarding a future scenario where supply meets or outstrips demand, I think this is never going to happen. Firstly, universities by their very nature only accept 'top students' and have always been competitive to get into. This is in a way increases their value to employers. A situation where everyone can get into a university will heavily dilute the value of a degree and I don't think it is in the university's best interests to intake the lower end of the student cohort if they want to be valued by employers.

I guess that would depend on how you define top students. I'd imagine that you would have a lot of the lesser universities accepting leftovers to be able to fill their quota anyway.

Yes, if new universities were to start up, they would most likely offer a lesser quality degree. But I really don't see those universities at the lower end placing too much emphasis on their students' employability. They'd be more likely to be in it for the business side; to take advantage of the money that people on the lower end of the student cohort are willing to pay just so they can get a degree. Obviously we'd still have issues with prestige, and a degree from USYD/UNSW etc would carry more weight than many of those new universities. But in terms of making money, entrepreneurs still have those opportunities to establish themselves at the lower end of the market. And who knows? In the hands of a competent businessman/entrepreneur, over time, a new university may be able to compete with the more established ones.

If the degrees were ever diluted to a stage where lesser university qualifications have no credibility whatsoever (so much so that students would rather not study it all than go to university), most likely they would be driven out of the market. So I think it would be in the lesser universities interests to at least retain some of this credibility if they can help it, in order for them to survive.

I do believe this system would work under our current political context though. A Government that would believe in the public sector not competing with the private sector would obviously apply this to other areas of the economy as well. Thus, the increased business activity in all areas of the economy, not just tertiary education, would mean that there would be more jobs available for university graduates in general. Perhaps somebody with a Bachelor of Commerce from a lesser university may have trouble getting a job at a Big 4 accounting firm. But there would be many other jobs in the small business accounting sector that he would be able to apply for, and they would probably be more generous in giving them a job considering that the very top students probably wouldn't be interested in working for them. And perhaps, given they perform well at their job, some of the better universities may look upon that favourably if they wanted to go back and study further. The system would work, and there would still be equal opportunity for all based on merit.

 

[Amleops]

Universities do not really need quality teachers. Most thing's are self taught anyway. Lecturer's are paid a fixed fee regardless whether they teach or not, as a lot of their time is spent on research. Money won't really change whether or not you get shitty lecturer's. Lets put it this way, Australia is one of the countries that spend VERY LITTLE for the top of the range strategic minds. Our current funding simply cannot afford to keep our best and brightest. Best example is an economics/business strategy lecturer at UNSW, one of the top brains for in Australia. Italy poached him, paid him a higher salary. How are we to remain competitive if we cannot even keep our brightest minds?

Then surely the increased funding brought by the deregulation of uni fees would allow us to keep those brightest minds? We would therefore be able to have better teachers.

I would call into question your point that most people can self teach themselves as a bit of a generalisation; I would think you would stand to learn more from having someone help you, especially through difficult subject matter, than by doing it yourself. I understand this may not always be the case for everybody though. So if you can prove that most things at university can be self taught, and an average student would learn more from that than what they would through teachers, I will concede defeat.

 

[14]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...from-2016-abbott/story-fn3dxiwe-1226924992372

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...o-new-university-students-20140521-38oqo.html

I just don't know who to believe anymore.

 

[wannaspoon]

I don't think an extra $120k is considered a 'slight' change

That is a really strong hyperbole... I highly doubt you know how much tuition fees will be in 2-3 years time... In my view, they will jack up fees to an amount that is no different to what international students are paying (which is probably about $20k extra for a degree)... The concern of this is NOT! how much you would pay, the concern is more about the viability of the HECS-HELP system... obviously, places in courses are going to be fewer and hard to come by because of these changes... more money for uni fees = more money out of the pocket of the government if things don't change...

TBQH, it doesn't actually seem like a half bad reform... would get rid of all the bad apples in many universities that just come along for the ride... cunts like this...

seriously, there are people in many degrees, I have just looked at them and said "how the fuck have they got this far!!!" (probably put me in that barrel, because I'm a cynical arsehole)

would probably do a shit load to stop the flood of law graduates as well...

 

[bangladesh]

That is a really strong hyperbole... I highly doubt you know how much tuition fees will be in 2-3 years time... In my view, they will jack up fees to an amount that is no different to what international students are paying (which is probably about $20k extra for a degree)... The concern of this is NOT! how much you would pay, the concern is more about the viability of the HECS-HELP system... obviously, places in courses are going to be fewer and hard to come by because of these changes... more money for uni fees = more money out of the pocket of the government if things don't change...

TBQH, it doesn't actually seem like a half bad reform... would get rid of all the bad apples in many universities that just come along for the ride... cunts like this...

seriously, there are people in many degrees, I have just looked at them and said "how the fuck have they got this far!!!" (probably put me in that barrel, because I'm a cynical arsehole)

would probably do a shit load to stop the flood of law graduates as well...

Firstly, please don't say something without any previous knowledge. The figures i was referring to aren't even CLOSE to what international students are paying for medicine. A post graduate medicine course in australia will cost them around ~300k and if they want to do their undergrad here as well, that'll be another 40-50k AT LEAST depending on what they do. For a CSP student however, It's around 40k overall (10k per year for 4 years). Now, if the changes are implemented, the medicine fee is set to rise to around 44k per year meaning a postgrad med degree would now cost a CSP student a min of 120k EXTRA (160k in total) and that's not even counting the raise in the undergraduate degree. So don't say it's a 'strong hyperbole' when you haven't really looked into it..

I really ceebs replying to all the other points you've made because non of them are logical and you haven't thought any of it through..

 

[wannaspoon]

Firstly, please don't say something without any previous knowledge. The figures i was referring to aren't even CLOSE to what international students are paying for medicine. A post graduate medicine course in australia will cost them around ~300k and if they want to do their undergrad here as well, that'll be another 40-50k AT LEAST depending on what they do. For a CSP student however, It's around 40k overall (10k per year for 4 years). Now, if the changes are implemented, the medicine fee is set to rise to around 44k per year meaning a postgrad med degree would now cost a CSP student a min of 120k EXTRA (160k in total) and that's not even counting the raise in the undergraduate degree. So don't say it's a 'strong hyperbole' when you haven't really looked into it..

I really ceebs replying to all the other points you've made because non of them are logical and you haven't thought any of it through..

source???

 

[bangladesh]

source???

Umelb medicine page.

 

[D94]

Cutting out a few quotes, but after reading them, most of the points will be repeated.

I agree, they do have a huge focus on research. All I'm saying is that it can't come at the neglect of the teaching; students would be their main source of revenue, and they wouldn't want to jeopardise giving other universities any sort of competitive advantage (if they can help it), which would take their student base away from them.

It's unlikely, at least in NSW, that another university will supersede UNSW and USYD in terms of overall reputation, and the "quality" of education, so to speak. Even if fees increased (and remembering that there will still be HECS), their existing reputation is the foundation for their success. It would be very hard for another uni in NSW to break through and be considered equal or better, both in terms of teaching and research. There would not be a neglect in teaching - all that can stay the same.

There would not be a "lack of teaching ability". All that does not need to change. The amount of funding towards teaching at UNSW and USYD can be kept the same, and they will still produce many of the best graduates in the country.

You cannot simply advertise a superior teaching package when UNSW and USYD already produce top graduates in many fields. Many students go through uni in the hope of being hired in a well structured graduate program. So long as UNSW and USYD have reputation in the industry (and consider that many in the Australian industry probably attended a Go8 university), Yr 12 students will continue to harness that power of drawing students in.

Refer to what I said about why increases in teaching quality would happen under a deregulated system above. I think that would establish the unlikelihood of the situation you have described here.

I think this is the main point of disagreement. I maintain that teaching quality of non Go8 universities will not supersede Go8 universities - again, not saying there will necessarily be a drop in quality for Go8 universities, but they do not need to do anything different and I maintain they will still have solid enrolment numbers.

But I'll answer your question from a personal standpoint, just for the sake of not dismissing it. Yes, I would still go to USYD. The atmosphere and learning experience I thought better suited me, and after spending some time here I think the quality of the lecturers are on the whole pretty good. If fees were higher, and everything else was the same, I would still go to USYD. I like learning for the sake of learning and would study regardless of the cost.

So if USYD applies that same logic, they know they don't need to change anything, and increase fees without ramifications.

I think an overall rebuttal would be that:
1) In order for a "lower" tiered university to supersede a Go8 university, they would need more than an injection of money. UNSW, USYD already have a long standing reputation, and the quality of education or at least the reputation of their quality of education, dominates over other universities in NSW. They consistently take in the brightest students and those students end up in well paying jobs, which in turn, increases the reputation of those universities. For a high school student, that is very attractive.
2) Money towards research does not imply a lowering in the existing teaching standards. UNSW, USYD do not need to change anything.


Ultimately, your whole argument sits on your belief that a lower tiered university would use the extra revenue and spend it on improving teaching quality. I don't think you have addressed how they will market that (and sure, it might not be your place to determine how, but it is a significant assumption), how they can gain vital industry support when many are linked to Go8 universities, and essentially how they can then supersede the reputation of Go8 universities. Even if this could be achieved, it would take at least 10 years for such a university to prove they have superior teaching quality - the time of a degree (3-4 years) + graduate program (1-2 years) + being established in the workplace (5+ years). But to even get that first cohort of high achieving HSC students is a big feat. That is the dilemma facing those universities and although it's unscientific to simply dismiss another university superseding UNSW/USYD, I believe it's extremely unlikely due to the requirements that I outlined above.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Then surely the increased funding brought by the deregulation of uni fees would allow us to keep those brightest minds? We would therefore be able to have better teachers.

I would call into question your point that most people can self teach themselves as a bit of a generalisation; I would think you would stand to learn more from having someone help you, especially through difficult subject matter, than by doing it yourself. I understand this may not always be the case for everybody though. So if you can prove that most things at university can be self taught, and an average student would learn more from that than what they would through teachers, I will concede defeat.

University professors don't exactly become better teachers... They're just at the top end of their field and a lot of them hate teaching and would purely want to do research.

Trebla: It happened with the US. State's started increasing uni fees and ton's of uni students have help from their parents or had to go get scholarships elsewhere. I doubt a parent who sunk 20-30k a year on their kids private school fees would bitch and moan at 15k a year for uni. If you can afford to send your kid to private school, you can afford to contribute more to their tertiary education. Fuck it, just make university tuition 15% of your parent's last year income.

 

[bangladesh]

University professors don't exactly become better teachers... They're just at the top end of their field and a lot of them hate teaching and would purely want to do research.

this.

 

[isildurrrr1]

I would call into question your point that most people can self teach themselves as a bit of a generalisation; I would think you would stand to learn more from having someone help you, especially through difficult subject matter, than by doing it yourself. I understand this may not always be the case for everybody though. So if you can prove that most things at university can be self taught, and an average student would learn more from that than what they would through teachers, I will concede defeat.

The people who actually teach and help on the personal level are uni tutors who get paid WAY LESS than your avg lecturer. Course conveyors and lecturer's make a lot more but again, most of their work is researched focus. And I know for a fact that less than 30% of students actually show up to lectures.

 

[Amleops]

Hmmm OK, I could go on but I think I'll leave it there. The fact that I'm not really convincing anyone makes me think that if the political philosophy I believe in is correct than I must be missing something. I'll have to do more research.

Still not entirely sold on all of your points but thanks anyway, you've all given me a lot to think about.

 

[wannaspoon]

Umelb medicine page.

point I was trying to make is that you are making a judgement about fees 2 years from now... you don't understand that fees are indexed annually (determined on an annual basis)... all you are doing now is speculating...

you might get your wish anyway... doesn't look like it is going to pass the senate... Clive Palmer's party holds the balance of power...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-to-zero-fees-within-days-20140519-38jyx.html