ALP to abolish full-fee places (1 Viewer)

[SSaint]

because they didnt deserve to get into that institution in the first place. i hate the notion that because you are richer, you can pay to get into a course that you otherwise would not have got into.

what i meant by my different degree, for example, is

as it stands, person A gets a csp place at usyd commerce and person B gets a dff place at usyd commerce

what i would like to see is that person A gets a csp place at usyd commerce whilst person B gets a dff place at the sydney school of economics and business, and that would be a subsidiary/almost private college of usyd, where the teaching would be identical, just that the degree would be awarded from a different place. the problem is that the latter degree would be stigmatised to a certain extent and no one would bother signing up for it.

This is a terrible idea, and as you just said, it would backfire to a certain extent - if a full fee paying student completed the exact same program as a hecs student, why should he be awarded an apparently lesser degree? More to the point, why do you think this is a good idea? There's no point seperating full fee and hecs students like that, even if it did happen, I don't think employers would be bothered too much if they completed the exact same program and did well.

Although the full fee system is a little unfair, compensating the unis the loss associated with scrapping full fee places would be a worse alternative to using that funding (or even part of it - as its a very large sum of money) to create more hecs places or to provide more funding for universities (win win - sort of). Also, as waf mentioned, the increased burden on tax payers - this is no way worth solving a relatively minor problem.

 

[ur_inner_child]

As those above, I find a full fee paying student getting in with a UAI of 86 when HECS is 91 discomforting, but after that, it becomes a different story. One who gets HD's is nevertheless better than one who got a credit average, regardless of how you got into the institution.

I do believe they are very seperate concepts.

Personally I think abolishing full fee places is more or less a clumsy idea.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The universities must be pissed off; they have the choice of Liberals who brought in VSU, or the ALP who want to remove a source of funding.

I agree with snickerdoodle, I mean, someone who went to a private school and bought tutors to do their work for them, etc. might have already 'bought' their way into a CSP place anyway.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Decreasing the funding private schooling was without a doubt, the best of Latham's policies. If I had it my way, I'd ban private schools from the get go. Let us let the rich get a potentially better education than the poor - what an excellent idea! Let's put a price on education.

Alas, that's not the topic at hand. I'm not terribly fond of the idea in reality. It would be nice if the government could abolish DFEE's and increase CSP places, but the lack of funding that uni's could potentially suffer through means that it's probably not the greatest of all of the ALP's policies.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If I had it my way, I'd ban private schools from the get go.

And take up the slack that the private schools do?

 

[takehomecopy]

I'm not homophobic, I have many homosexual friends, am massively in favour of gay adoption rights, keeping the age of consent in line with heterosexuals, deinstitutionalising marriage etc. I'm just not PC, and you might want to refer to the colloquial definition of the word:

...but you are quite happy to call someone a homosexual as an insult. It's a bit of a personal internal contradiction. So I guess that makes you closentedly PC. Non PC on the outside but really PC on the inside, not to mention a complete juvenile. Last time I heard someone seriously call someone a faggot for taking offence at something was back in high school. Grow up.

It's like being against the White Australia policy but then calling someone a racially derogatory name to insult. Oh oh no! But I'm not a racist. I have a whole bunch of racially diverse people I know who I really love! But in the mean time I'll call use racially charged insults to illustrate my argument.

In any case I prefer the Australian Oxford dictionary.

Faggot
1. Bundle of Sticks
2. colloquial. offensive. male homosexual.

Wiki

Faggot or fag, in modern American English, Canadian English and Australian English usage, is a generally pejorative term for a gay or effeminate man. Its use has spread to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Not all fags are massive vaginas (like yourself) that will break down crying upon hearing the word 'homo' said their way.

 

[takehomecopy]

Not all fags are massive vaginas (like yourself) that will break down crying upon hearing the word 'homo' said their way.

Faggot wasn't directed at me. It was directed at someone who was critical of the young libs who complained that the young Libs were homophobic.

I think its a bit odd to counter a person accusing your party of homophobia by calling that person a faggot.

Someone accuses the Liberal Party of being racist? What would you do? Call them a racially derogatory remark as a comeback?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

'fundamentally unfair'.

Yeaaa... someone has to pay say $100,000 more than you, to get into a place a maximum of 5 uai points higher than what they originally had. That extra money meaning that there's (potentially) more uni spots for hecs paying students, thus u can potentially get in easier also.

 

[SSaint]

I think it's a bit of a catch 22, because no matter how many extra places are (potentially) created as a result of allowing the full fee paying system, there will always be students below the HECS cut-off but who have performed better than full fee payers who will miss out despite, arguably, being the better student. Note this isn't me saying we should scrap full fee, I think this is a bad idea of Labour's, plus the benefits associated with the full fee system outweigh the negatives

 

[Not-That-Bright]

because no matter how many extra places are (potentially) created as a result of allowing the full fee paying system, there will always be students below the HECS cut-off but who have performed better than full fee payers who will miss out despite, arguably, being the better student.

However, the removal of that full fee paying student will mean that they both lose out.

 

[SSaint]

However, the removal of that full fee paying student will mean that they both lose out.

Exactly.

 

[§eraphim]

It's practical to keep the full-fee places for most courses.

However, I believe there shouldn't be as many (or any) full-fee paying places for courses in demand such as Commerce, Medicine, Law, etc (especially Medicine). They should move some of the fee-paying places from BCom to BEc so that fee-paying students are given the opportunity to do well enough at uni to transfer into BCom (HECS). Otherwise, it cheapens the degree if you let only the rich in.

We could also consider narrowing the differential between HECS and fee-paying UAI cutoff in order to make it more equitable (eg. -2 uai pts)

Also, fee-paying students who wish to do further Honours or postgraduate study in any Australian university should be locked into having to pay full fee-paying courses for their Masters or PhD like any other international student. This will encourage students to do well and transfer into cheaper HECS places.

I've also observed vacancies for unpopular courses such as BAgricultural Economics, etc. Maybe shift some of the places to those kind of degrees to full up the vacancies.

We should all be doing our best to try to motivate these ambitious but academically unworthy students to earn their way into the degree of their choice.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

However, I believe there shouldn't be as many (or any) full-fee paying places for courses in demand such as Commerce, Medicine, Law, etc (especially Medicine). They should move some of the fee-paying places from BCom to BEc so that fee-paying students are given the opportunity to do well enough at uni to transfer into BCom (HECS). Otherwise, it cheapens the degree if you let only the rich in.

- How does it cheapen the degree? They still have to meet the performance quotas that are set for everyone else...

- These are the courses that fee paying students are likely to go for, no one wants to pay $100,000 extra a year to do a B.A.

- The less full-fee students you have, the less funding the university gets. Even if the labor government gives the university all the funding it could ever possibly need, there is always the possibility for greater funding by allowing full fee places. This means that MORE people benefit and no one has anything taken from them (other than the full-fee payer, who loses $100,000).

We could also consider narrowing the differential between HECS and fee-paying UAI cutoff in order to make it more equitable (eg. -2 uai pts)

It's generally not the full 5 points, but even so... why do you care if they can perform well enough to get the degree? Do you really think it cheapens the degree THAT much if someone with a 60 uai can meet all the requirements that the people with 99 uai's did?

 

[§eraphim]

- How does it cheapen the degree? They still have to meet the performance quotas that are set for everyone else...

- These are the courses that fee paying students are likely to go for, no one wants to pay $100,000 extra a year to do a B.A.

- The less full-fee students you have, the less funding the university gets. Even if the labor government gives the university all the funding it could ever possibly need, there is always the possibility for greater funding by allowing full fee places. This means that MORE people benefit and no one has anything taken from them (other than the full-fee payer, who loses $100,000).

It's generally not the full 5 points, but even so... why do you care if they can perform well enough to get the degree? Do you really think it cheapens the degree THAT much if someone with a 60 uai can meet all the requirements that the people with 99 uai's did?

I don't think either of us are qualified to speak intelligently about the trade-off in benefits between hecs and fee-paying places. It's for the universities to decide given their own individual financial positions. However, we can comment on allocation policies, ie, how those places are distributed among different degrees.

Yes, I believe right of entry is a very important issue. In the same spirit as the HSC, students should be given opportunities to be admitted into the degree of their choice based on MERIT. Buying your way in, no matter how small or big the difference in uai cutoff, just isn't right. That's why I believe this is a problem of allocation, as fee-paying courses must be seen as a way to earn your spot in a HECS degree. Universities and the UAC, among other bodies, should be marketing alternative degrees as pathways to degrees in demand. And marketing does have a great influence on yr 12s.

 

[Anonymou5]

I don't really think that allowing full fee students to do the same course as a CSP student cheapens the course. However, that ends if 40+% of the cohort in a popular course are full fee paying students. In that case you are letting in too many less able students who didn't earn their place in any way shape or form.

I also think that it is quite senseless to compare a 60 uai kid with a 99 uai kid. 'Meeting the requirements' as in passing? Anyone can pass subjects, it doesn't even mean anything since fails are so sad if you're actually not capable of passing any subject in uni. While I've seen 99+ uai people with 90+ averages in tough courses like engineering, I've never seen anything like that with a 60 uai person. So perhaps draw comparisons between people with somewhat similar uais?

 

[§eraphim]

We should also push more full-fee paying places into regional universities. It's in the national interest for country areas to get a bit of money flowing in there too.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't think either of us are qualified to speak intelligently about the trade-off in benefits between hecs and fee-paying places.

I don't see how it's possible that full-fee places are of any detriment to CSP's, but ok.

In the same spirit as the HSC, students should be given opportunities to be admitted into the degree of their choice based on MERIT.

If they don't have the merit then they will fail their degree. Meanwhile, no one has been disadvantaged and the university has gained money so that (potentially) there can be more hecs students.

Buying your way in, no matter how small or big the difference in uai cutoff, just isn't right.

I don't think it's very logical to stop people from buying their way in, when it is of great benefit to everyone, when if they do not meet the same standard of work they will not recieve their degree. You would hurt more students, just so that a few don't get an advantage?

That's why I believe this is a problem of allocation, as fee-paying courses must be seen as a way to earn your spot in a HECS degree.

I don't think I understand you. Personally I don't like the idea that a student will do a fee-paying course for a year then transfer to the hecs of that same degree, if that's what you're alluding to.

However, that ends if 40+% of the cohort in a popular course are full fee paying students. In that case you are letting in too many less able students who didn't earn their place in any way shape or form.

Why? The easy solution is just to have outcomes based learning, for instance if the students don't satisfactorily exhibit X, Y, Z - they fail.

I also think that it is quite senseless to compare a 60 uai kid with a 99 uai kid.

It was to exacerbate my point. In reality it's more like kids with 99 uai's and kids with 95 uais.

'Meeting the requirements' as in passing? Anyone can pass subjects, it doesn't even mean anything since fails are so sad if you're actually not capable of passing any subject in uni.

Fine then, if they can pass it just as well as the rest - what's the problem? If they've passed that SHOULD mean that the university recognises their compitence in that subject. If they pass all their subjects then that means the university recognises their compitence in that course. If you don't think it's good enough, then lobby for tougher requirements.

---------

no

their PARENTS pay for them to get in - that would be the case in the majority anyway, as there arent many people our age with 100k + sitting around

I'm aware that some people get their parents to pay, I just don't think it really matters - in the end the uni gets their money. There's also Fee-help, which allows you to take out up to a $50,000 non-interest loan from the government to assist you in paying off your universities fees while you study. So I don't really think it's that unreasonable that a student working part-time could pay off a $100,000 loan over 4-5 years, it becomes much easier if they're doing university part-time.

so just beacuse theyre parents are able to pay for them to get in, theyre able to qualify and take up a spot of someone who got a better mark than them (im referring to the people who just fell below the commonwealth supported uai cutoffs)

It doesn't work like that... at all, as I've explained but you haven't understood.

- They do not take the place of someone who got a better mark than them.
- They pay for their own place and leave extra-funding in the universities 'bank' to be potentially spent on places for MORE students.
- If you get rid of all fee-paying students and don't increase government university funding, then you will have less university spots for ALL students.
- If you get rid of all fee-paying students and do increase government university funding, then you will still have the potential to open up more spots for students or to fund research.

I don't think there's a need to address the rest of your comments.

thats why he stated that it was a catch 22 situation in his opening sentence.

And yet you don't even understand his sentence, thus your long misinformed tirade.

 

[blackfriday]

actually ive just remembered that things like SIBT and Insearch are around, and i think they are far more fairer, because if you cant cut it, you dont get awarded a degree, you get a diploma instead.

 

[Anonymou5]

Why does it (40+% of the cohort being full fee) cheapen the degree? Money is not relevant to this particular issue since this is more about image. It cheapens the degree because from the beginning a large proportion of the cohort are of a lower academic standard. The degree would certainly not be regarded as highly and your marks do not mean as much because you competed against less able students to obtain them. Regardless of whether or not lower UAI students do well in uni, there will be the perception that the marks from a course with a large proportion of under achievers have lesser worth than those from a course with a lower percentage of 'back-door' entrants.

I agree that if someone passes their course their university should recognise the achievement the same way as anyone else who passes. But in any case, having an excessively large proportion of the cohort being full fee students invariably cheapens the degree (image wise) as I explained before.