University fee deregulation (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

I know for a fact people in my cohort have talked about being discouraged from university by the likelihood of fees increasing.

Then they're ill informed idiots who shouldn't be going to uni in teh first place for being so dumb.

Your narrow-minded approach scares me.

"Narrow-minded" of course meaning "not agreeing with me".

I guess it boils down to an ideological basis; that is whether you think universities should be run like businesses or

Whether they should waste as few resources as possible and get as positive an outcome on the money invested in them? Then absolutely they should .

They're still public though, so "profits" are used for investment in the unviersity, not for the private benefit of its "owners".

whether they should be fair and accessible to all, for the common good of society.

There is no change in accessibility though.



Also if you're going to reply to my posts don't ignore 75% of what I type.

 

[SylviaB]

Just because one has a tertiary education doesn't mean they can find work in their field of study due to various reasons. It's well documented.

okay but what the fuck does that have to do with uni fees

 

[Smooth Operator]

Then they're ill informed idiots who shouldn't be going to uni in teh first place for being so dumb.

"Narrow-minded" of course meaning "not agreeing with me".

Also if you're going to reply to my posts don't ignore 75% of what I type.

Your grammar needs a little revision for someone who likes to get on the intellectual high-horse.

Yes, it does mean that. It also means you source your information from no other news source than the Murdoch press.

And I do what I want, I'll ignore 75% of your drool if I like, gosh.

 

[Smooth Operator]

okay but what the fuck does that have to do with uni fees

They are still burdened with debt, working unsatisfied with their job which they didn't go to university for and having to pay off.

C'mon girl, you've got to look at things a little non-linear sometimes.

 

[Fiction]

Wait, so they're going ahead with the uni fee deregulations? I thought nothing had been confirmed yet?

 

[SylviaB]

They are still burdened with debt, working unsatisfied with their job which they didn't go to university for and having to pay off.

if they cant get a job they're still burdened with debt. The more people that go to university the bigger a problem this is.

Don't attack my thinking process when you're incapable of basic coherency.



You want university to be 'accessible to all" and think these changes will worsen this outcome and "make things more like the US".

I point out that university is more accessible in the US, meaning your original claim was flat-out wrong.

You respond by saying that not everyone can find jobs in their fields, which is irrelevant to your first point, which was wrong. And in fact, the problem is only worsened by greater university access.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Wait, so they're going ahead with the uni fee deregulations? I thought nothing had been confirmed yet?

No, it's unlikely to pass in the senate.

 

[jdennis]

You want university to be 'accessible to all" and think these changes will worsen this outcome and "make things more like the US".

I point out that university is more accessible in the US, meaning your original claim was flat-out wrong.

On what planet is university more accessible in the US? That country has some of the most unequal distribution of income in the developed world, and the rich are sadly the only ones that can afford things like university and healthcare. Is this what you want Australia to become?

May I also point out your resort to insults and name calling earlier. It shows you've got nothing intelligent to say in reply to a good point.

 

[SylviaB]

On what planet is university more accessible in the US?That country has some of the most unequal distribution of income in the developed world, and the rich are sadly the only ones that can afford things like university and healthcare. Is this what you want Australia to become?

America is ranked fifth for percentage of population with tertiary education compared to Australia which is ranked tenth. idiot.

 

[Smooth Operator]

America is ranked fifth for percentage of population with tertiary education compared to Australia which is ranked tenth. idiot.

Citation needed.

 

[Smooth Operator]

http://theconversation.com/trickle-up-only-the-elite-will-benefit-from-fee-deregulation-30218.

 

[SylviaB]

Citation needed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-educated-countries-world-102232490.html

 

[Smooth Operator]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-educated-countries-world-102232490.html

Taking into account college as well, which I believe is different to a university degree?

It may be accessible, but it still costs a bucket load more than Japan or Russia.
Harvard as an example also has a great endowment culture (so I'm lead to believe), therefore they are able to, to an extent address inequality for students who deserve to be there. I bet if deregulation in Australia were to happen (which it probably won't), the Go8 universities won't automatically have those sort of funding to disadvantaged students and as if the government would seriously adequately address it with grants to students considering they want to cut university funding in the first place. Js.

 

[jdennis]

idiot.

What was I saying about insults? You could try being polite. People might care what you say then.

It's also interesting to note that while the US has the lowest growth rate of population with tertiary education, out of the ten countries, at 1.4%, for Australia this rate is over twice as high, at 3.1% (these figures come from your article).
This suggests that Australia's system is allowing more people to gain a degree, while in the US, the growth in this is slower because the system is less accessible.

Your stats have little do to with the argument. They suggest that a high number of people in the US already have a degree, not that many people are gaining degrees.

 

[OzKo]

Oh definitely with regards to paying the same amount back.
However HECS is also looking to be taken up to a market value interest rate.
However as I said it becomes a disincentive to go to university from a financially disadvantaged background.
To also know you'll have a few 100k debt by the time you're in your mid 20's is also very frightening. It will certainly not help when it comes to saving up for other things in life such as a deposit for a mortgage, those with wealthier parents obviously can afford upfront payments or to receive support. I think this is part of the inequality argument.

I think you may have missed my point.

Why would there be a disincentive to go to university if you are poor? The threshold is assessed on an individual's income.

 

[OzKo]

Well worth the read.

http://grattan.edu.au/news/why-social-class-shapes-higher-education-less-than-youd-think/

 

[Smooth Operator]

I think you may have missed my point.

Why would there be a disincentive to go to university if you are poor? The threshold is assessed on an individual's income.

The only reason I can think of is that facing higher debts and not being able to rely on parents for support to help pay off the loan may be off putting.
Your point is valid, the argument as well is that people will go to pursue a the degree in their desired field, to get into their career regardless. As entry-level jobs and working your way up the chain of hierarchy with no tertiary education or prior experience is apparently very common in this day and age.

 

[OzKo]

The only reason I can think of is that facing higher debts and not being able to rely on parents for support to help pay off the loan may be off putting.
You are right, the counter argument is that people will go to pursue a the degree in their desired field, to get into their career regardless. As entry-level jobs and working your way up the chain of hierarchy with no tertiary education or prior experience is apparently very common in this day and age.

Rich and poor students will both see higher debts so that point is negligible.

I agree with your point regarding parental support. Anecdotally though, the vast majority of well-to-do students don't receive assistance from the parents for these loans. It definitely happens, but not enough to highlight a systematic imbalance.

 

[jdennis]

I think you may have missed my point.

Why would there be a disincentive to go to university if you are poor? The threshold is assessed on an individual's income.

Higher fees are a disincentive regardless of your background. If the fees are higher we will see less people willing to take on the higher debt associated with university study and a less educated population overall, regardless of social 'class'. Surely this is a bad thing? I can't see the credit in the argument that a less educated population is a good thing for society.

 

[OzKo]

Higher fees are a disincentive regardless of your background. If the fees are higher we will see less people willing to take on the higher debt associated with university study and a less educated population overall, regardless of social 'class'. Surely this is a bad thing? I can't see the credit in the argument that a less educated population is a good thing for society.

In terms of personal welfare, of course it's a bad thing. This is where you need to find out where the extra money is going and whether this will make up for loss on the student's side.

Keep in mind that HECS is a passive debt - it comes directly out of your pre-tax income. This isn't like your standard bank loan and this is why the enrolment rate is high for tertiary institutions.

Psychologically, having a debt which pays itself off by itself is appealing compared to a debt which you actively have to manage your finances to maintain. This is why I don't particularly buy the argument that students will be discouraged by tertiary education now. I'd be curious to see how much extra graduates will have to pay in tax per year as a result of fees increasing. I'm confident that when you break the numbers down, it won't be that much in the long run.