walrusbear said:
when you say that graduates will earn back the cost of their degree 'and then some' are you referring specifically to degrees that lead to high paying jobs?
even with the current HECS system in place whereby payments are made proportional to income, doesn't it place a strain on many students who will be forced to make payments long into adulthood? given the expected strain on future middle aged generations with the large 'baby boomer' generation getting older and the rising birth rate wouldn't it be problematic to place greater economic burden on an already struggling class by promoting expensive education fees at this stage?
Imo the baby boomer problem has been one of poor planning by past governments, in that they should at some stage make it clear that aged pensions to people who earned over x amount of $'s in their working life cut out in 20xx, thereby forcing them to provide for their own retirement.
And you're forgetting the fact that by the government subsidising the education you're not eliminating the financial burden, you're just spreading it to people who didn't use it. And with regards to the rising birth rate, is it my fault that some people are stupid enough to have children they can't afford to care for?
I don't think that everything should be introduced at once, because, as you said, this would place an unfair burden, but gradually over the course of a couple of generations taxes should be ground down to next to nothing leaving people to provide for themselves, or those who can't to rely on the substantial contributions the population gives to charity ($241 billion in the year of 2003 in the US, and this would only increase if people didn't have to pay unnecessarily high taxes).
Anyway, here's something I prepared ages ago:
The Status Quo
At present most Australian university students are in Commonwealth supported places, where they contribute between 25 (agriculture) and 90 (law) per cent of the cost of their education. This already reveals a huge inequality between degrees, without any solid reason for its existence that I can see. Under the current HECS scheme universities struggle for funding and must reach out to full fee paying and international students to compensate for the losses they make through HECS spots. This means that HECS spots will continue to decline in number, because it is simply inequitable for universities to provide them under the present system.
A New System
I propose that HECS be increased to cover 100 per cent of the cost of a student's education for several reasons:
* A tertiary education, unlike a secondary one, is not necessary to prepare the population for citizenship, because after high school they already possess the necessary skills to make an informed decision in elections, conduct their personal affairs etc.
* If a tertiary educated student becomes employed in a high paying position of some kind after they complete their degree (as is the case a large percentage of the time), then they are drawing substantial financial benefit from the degree, and as such I believe that it is wrong that public funding should go towards funding someone's degree when they can clearly afford to pay for it, and more, with the extra income gained as a direct result of holding it.
* While having the best and brightest citizens at a high level of education is undoubtably desirable for society, it is my feeling that they would still go into such an education with or without government subsidies. Whether or not they would all get in on scholarships under a full-fee paying system is another matter altogether, and because I'm sure that many people would disagree that the market could provide enough such scholarships I have chosen not to propose such a motion. It is interesting to note, however, that at Princeton in the United States, where all spots are (to my knowledge) full-fee paying, the average student debt is a mere $2000.
* If a tertiary educated student is pursuing knowledge for its own sake, then the benefit they provide to society is minimal, and hence it is foolish to expect the government to fund such an activity.
* Finally, this proposal does not interfere with anyone's right to an education, be they rich, poor or middle-class, and in all likelyhood it would lead to a boom in the accessibility of education for those less financially well off who possess the ability, for reasons already stated in my first paragraph.
While most of you, as university students with HECS debts, would undertstandably be predisposed to disagree with this concept, I'd suggest that when looked at from a logical, pragmatic perspective this is the best option for our universities.
