2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (2 Viewers)

[Captain Gh3y]

Hey, finally! A statement on university policy. Labor still intends to remove the DFEE system as of 2009 admissions, and will compensate universities with ~$400m. Details to be released this week.

That's awful. To think most uni students will vote for it too.

 

[withoutaface]

The idea that people who can afford to pay should be allowed to get into university with lower requirements, but a person who gets the same result and can't afford it misses out, is intrinsically unfair. Also, who said that the number of HECS places would stay constant? Why wouldn't the current number of DFEE places be converted into HECS places?

Situation 1: DFEE exists. Poor kid who scores just below the cutoff misses out.
Situation 2: DFEE does not exist. Poor kid who scores just below the cutoff misses out.
That's righting an injustice alright!

An increase in HECS places would involve a continuous stream of new money, rather than a one off $400m payment.

 

[Triangulum]

An increase in HECS places would involve a continuous stream of new money, rather than a one off $400m payment.

My impression was that he was referring to increasing annual funding by $400m. I may be wrong, but that's certainly what the Labor platform suggests:

Labor opposes full fees for Australian undergraduate students in our public universities. Labor will increase public investment in our universities and phase out fee-paying places for Australian undergraduate students in our public universities.

 

[Triangulum]

Situation 1: DFEE exists. Poor kid who scores just below the cutoff misses out.
Situation 2: DFEE does not exist. Poor kid who scores just below the cutoff misses out.
That's righting an injustice alright!

Poor kid who scores just below the HECS cutoff misses out, but rich kid who scores the same mark gets in because he can afford to pay. That's not an injustice?

Also, removing DFEE places would allow an increase in the number of HECS places, hence lowering HECS cutoffs and allowing the poor kid to get in even in situation 2.

 

[withoutaface]

My impression was that he was referring to increasing annual funding by $400m. I may be wrong, but that's certainly what the Labor platform suggests:

Have they said how much they're going to increase it by? Why not just increase the number of HECS places, but continue to allow DFEE places to exist (after all, it doesn't cost the government anything to allow this).

Poor kid who scores just below the HECS cutoff misses out, but rich kid who scores the same mark gets in because he can afford to pay. That's not an injustice?

You're advocating the formation of public policy based on jealousy from one group about the situation of another. If Jimmy has a ball, and Billy does not, should the ball be destroyed? What benefit would either gain from such an action? The core flaw in arguments for equality is that they treat the world as a zero-sum game, when it's not.

 

[jb_nc]

Wooo, so we (a) remove the DFEE places reducing the amount of choice students have about their university, (b) keep the same number of HECS places and (c) bill the taxpayer for this madness?

Who the fuck wins out of this scenario? I'm seriously angry.

i dunno man maybe john howard can give the middle class some more welfare about it

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

(a) remove the DFEE places reducing the amount of choice students have about their university,

If people could get into uni with a CSP place, I very much doubt they'd choose the DFEE thing. It's only there to allow teh rich kidz entry on account of their parents fat wallets.

 

[Triangulum]

You're advocating the formation of public policy based on jealousy from one group about the situation of another. If Jimmy has a ball, and Billy does not, should the ball be destroyed?

I'm advocating the formation of public policy based on the idea that government shouldn't award one person advantage over another in a field as important as education based on nothing more than an accident of birth. Just because your parents are rich, you shouldn't be allowed to walk into university ahead of people equally or more qualified. It's called the 'fair go', you may have heard of it.

Your analogy assumes that Jimmy is already holding the ball, which is wrong. It's more accurate to make the analogy of someone coming along and giving a ball to one of them. Also, your analogy trivialises the importance of education by comparing it to a toy, so I'm just going to refer to it as an education which drastically improves your chances of bettering yourself. Jimmy and Billy are of equal merit, so why should Jimmy get a higher education, and Billy not get it, just because Jimmy's parents are rich?

Is the solution to just not offer the ball? No. The solution is to create more balls, so that Jimmy and Billy, two people of equal merit, can have one on the same basis. There should be more university places, but we shouldn't be creating a two-tiered admissions system to distribute them.

 

[ZabZu]

DFEE places is a step towards the Americanisation of the higher education system. In the US almost all uni students pay the full-fee because their federal govt does not subsidise degrees.

John Howard said a few years ago that there would not be $100,000 degrees in Australia (for domestic students). Thats yet another promise he's broken.

Although its true that poor kids dont lose. I believe uni students should be selected according to their marks, not their parents bank account.

 

[jb_nc]

DFEE places is a step towards the Americanisation of the higher education system. In the US almost all uni students pay the full-fee because their federal govt does not subsidise degrees.

John Howard said a few years ago that there would not be $100,000 degrees in Australia (for domestic students). Thats yet another promise he's broken.

Although its true that poor kids dont lose. I believe uni students should be selected according to their marks, not their parents bank account.

lol

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Although its true that poor kids dont lose.

It is?

 

[ZabZu]

My views on higher education arent extreme jb_nc. I strongly support the HECS system and i am against free university education.

It is?

HECS (CSP) places arent reduced.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yeah but I'd believe that if there was some kind of ban on DFEE places a few years ago, then CSP places wouldn't remain at the same rate of increase (or stasis) as they are now. But there's no evidence to suggest that either side is right, so MEH! All I have to judge is that the whole idea behind DFEE is eeeevil!

 

[volition]

Also, your analogy trivialises the importance of education by comparing it to a toy, so I'm just going to refer to it as an education which drastically improves your chances of bettering yourself.

So if something is important, only the government is allowed to deal with it? Why don't we have entirely government funded farms and restaurants? Food is really important!

Why does the market work in only some areas and not others?

Just because your parents are rich, you shouldn't be allowed to walk into university ahead of people equally or more qualified.

You know what? By the same token, do you not consider it also unfair that rich people can afford lobster and poor people can't? Do you support government redistribution of lobster?

Is the solution to just not offer the ball? No. The solution is to create more balls, so that Jimmy and Billy, two people of equal merit, can have one on the same basis. There should be more university places, but we shouldn't be creating a two-tiered admissions system to distribute them.

I don't think your analogy is correct. The government is not 'creating' more places, it is taking money from everybody (taking the ball away), and then running unis with that money. (giving the ball to someone else)

 

[Triangulum]

You know what? By the same token, do you not consider it also unfair that rich people can afford lobster and poor people can't? Do you support government redistribution of lobster?

No, I don't, and stop misrepresenting my argument. Lobster and education are completely different things. Lobster is a luxury. Education based on merit is a right. And yes, if people are denied equal rights, the government should in some way ensure they are provided. That is why the government regulates the university entry system, to ensure that merit rather than wealth dictates who receives a place.

And if what you're saying there is that poor people shouldn't get an education if they can't afford it and tough luck to them, in the same way that poor people don't get lobster if they can't afford it and they just have to deal with it, then good luck to you. You'll need it when you express that view to someone who's not white, male and from the eastern suburbs, because I'm sure that they won't see it in quite the same way.

 

[lovethehsc]

No, I don't, and stop misrepresenting my argument. Lobster and education are completely different things. Lobster is a luxury. Education based on merit is a right.

What makes education based on merit a right? More correctly, is higher education (that is not compulsory) a right? Is it outlined in our charter or constitution? Is it promulgated by political theorists such as Locke, Burke or Paine? Does Two treatises of Government state that tertiary learning is one's universal right by virtue of our humanity?

Higher education is also a luxury as the majority of people pursue it in order to improve job prospects. To classify it as a right is a perversion of the word's etymology, and i'm glad i'm (likely) not voting left.

The idea that people who can afford to pay should be allowed to get into university with lower requirements, but a person who gets the same result and can't afford it misses out, is intrinsically unfair. Also, who said that the number of HECS places would stay constant? Why wouldn't the current number of DFEE places be converted into HECS places?

You need to understand that DFEE places help subsidise HECS places. Assume for eg that the maximum number of CSP/HELP places (HECS is the old system, honey) a university can offer is 20 for Course A. If a DFEE place is created, this helps subsidise another CSP place due to the inflow of funding thereby there are now 22 places in Course A. Nobody is losing out are they?

The only person who had foregone a benefit was the DFEE student; however this was their choice and they valued this good more than the price paid for it. The costs however of removing DFEE may be too great if the new government have not planned their economic management well (i'm already wary of how they will fund broadband they keep talking about).

Poor kid who scores just below the HECS cutoff misses out, but rich kid who scores the same mark gets in because he can afford to pay. That's not an injustice?

Also, removing DFEE places would allow an increase in the number of HECS places, hence lowering HECS cutoffs and allowing the poor kid to get in even in situation 2.

You are taking up too much of a theoretical position. There is no way CSP cutoffs would be lowered because the same people who would contest the DFEE places would still have the CSP course as their preference. The only difference is that the removal of DFEE places would mean the DFEE student can no longer take up a position which could have thereby subsidised (at least in part) the place of another CSP student.

Also even if Labor state that they will devote $400m+ to phasing out DFEE places, the current system does not disadvantage anybody. Which means that money could have been better spent on upgrading facilities at universities or even in other avenues.

In my view (which i am actually entitled to, as my right) Labor's policy is simply an ideological push to grab the votes of misinformed voters. Successful American and English universities all have the FEE system in place, and since tertiary education now is geared almost exclusively for work placement (ie internships, work experience, volunteer work being offered within degrees) i believe the Liberal's stance on it is more pragmatic.

 

[volition]

No, I don't, and stop misrepresenting my argument. Lobster and education are completely different things. Lobster is a luxury. Education based on merit is a right. And yes, if people are denied equal rights, the government should in some way ensure they are provided. That is why the government regulates the university entry system, to ensure that merit rather than wealth dictates who receives a place.

You've missed the entire point. I was showing you the arbitrary nature of your distinction between "stuff the govt should do" and "stuff that can be left alone".

Now, if its because you think "education is really important", why don't you tell me why we don't have government run farms and restaurants? And grocery stores while we're at it?

And if what you're saying there is that poor people shouldn't get an education if they can't afford it and tough luck to them, in the same way that poor people don't get lobster if they can't afford it and they just have to deal with it, then good luck to you. You'll need it when you express that view to someone who's not white, male and from the eastern suburbs, because I'm sure that they won't see it in quite the same way.

Quit your moral posturing, if we want to talk about who's got the moral high ground, it's obviously the person arguing for people to be able to keep their own money. There can be no "right to another persons property", therefore there can be no "right to education".

 

[ZabZu]

Also even if Labor state that they will devote $400m+ to phasing out DFEE places, the current system does not disadvantage anybody.

Theres two main reasons why I think Labor opposes DFEE. The first one is what Triangulum and I have said. The second reason is that most people who have DFEE places live in safe Liberal seats.

 

[Silver Persian]

Poll of about 1000 in Wentworth shows Green preferences may get Labor across the line (52-48 TPP) Also, Eden Monaro at 53-47

http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/lib-heartland-slips-away/2007/11/18/1195321609208.html

 

[LCollins]

What Labor is proposing is in no way impossible as some people have made out. Denmark, which has similar demographics to Australia and most other western countries (aging, fattening population), and is capable of paying entirely for university for those who deserve it, according to merit.

What this comes down to is whether it is whether you believe anyone should be able to achieve any position in society regardless of family wealth. I, like Triangulum, am of the belief that if someone is smart enough, that should be the sole consideration in awarding them a university place, not the size of their parent's wallet. Those of you that think otherwise, I ask, would you still think that way if you were poor? I very much doubt that. My parents could afford for me to go into a DFEE position, that doesn't stop me realising the intrinsic unfairness in your argument.

That government-owned farms proposal is different to University, as everyone (even those on centrelink payments) are able to afford the necessities (but not the lobster, as that is a luxury item - I have no problems with someone having to work to buy that). If we were in a serious depression however, and starvation is a serious issue, I would support rationing and other measures (rationing actually occured in WWII in Britain, dunno about here). University is different however - if all the courses cost you $5 a year, I'm sure there wouldn't be much argument against having entirely DFEE, but in reality they are obviously not. University in a large way is responsible for the careers that are open to you - Medicine, Engineering etc, and so thus should be given according to merit, as everyone deserves a fair go and this is what egalitarian societies do (very foreign ideas they are right?).