HECS (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

No I don't have a specific article, but I'm curious about people's opinions on whether HECS should be put up so that we're covering our whole expenses of education.

I personally think it should be because we're extracting a financial benefit from the education itself, but the rest of society, many of which didn't get a chance for a university education themselves, are footing a large chunk of the bill. Also if it's deferred and garnished proportional to your salary in a similar way to how the current HECS is it won't interfere significantly with the right of those who aren't as well off financially to still be able to afford an education.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Slidey]

I wouldn't mind at all if HECS increased, so long as it meant an increase or at least no decrease in the quality of university education.

 

[loquasagacious]

I cant see how it would possibly cause a degradation in the quality of teaching.

I believe the Social Marginal Benefit of University education to be above the Private Marginal Benefit and therefore would still favour partial contribution by the government.

I would also like to see some of the money saved used to plough money into making YA more accessible. Or possibly introducing a HECS like scheme for it eg you get say $100 a week support from the taxpayer and pay it back later. As a note several banks already offer this sort of thing so cleary its feasible.

 

[Slidey]

I'm presuming that the quality of teaching is already currently degrading over time. Otherwise my point is moot.

 

[loquasagacious]

For what reason do you presume teaching qualities to degrading?

The only possible danger being that the increased user-pays aspect creates a user-pays-to-pass system....

 

[hipsta_jess]

Bring back the days of free education, I say

Given the financial crisis my uni is going through at the moment, I think it is pretty obvious there will be a marked decline in the standard of our education (God it pains me to say that), so I am against paying more than I already do given the sacrifices my education will be suffering (due to staff cuts, etc)

 

[withoutaface]

But if you pay more, then the university no longer has to depend upon government funding, and is able to set its own fees in a way such that no further cuts would be necessary (there would obviously need to be some kind of government regulation on how high these fees could be though, because I'm somewhat doubtful that competition between unis would be enough to keept them reasonable, or that students are going to be awfully mindful of future debts, given that it seems so far in the future).

 

[loquasagacious]

but what if paying could ease the crisis eg the govt pays the same ammount and we pay more. eg The proportion paid for by the govt falls but the total ammount paid rises.

 

[Generator]

Is there any real point in anyone stating their preference for an Australian social democratic approach (i.e., the government taking on (or maintaining their share of) the greater part of the cost) when the forum's neoliberals will pounce on any such stance and proclaim that it is lacking given the 'obvious' merit of a user-pays approach?

 

[Xayma]

Generally I think that HECS should be raised to either all cost the same flat amount or all cost the same percentage of the course.

However, problems arise here, with a flat rate, you have those who are paying a lot higher percentage of their course component, for example arts students, while others, such as vet science students pay little, despite vet science students earning a lot more on average.

The problems with a same percentage approach is you have subjects such as chemistry and physics which require large amounts of experimentation being priced at such a level that makes it discouraging to enterprising students despite societal need and the income level they can expect.

A free education, I disagree with (for reasons that follow), the student receives the largest amount of benefit out of having a university degree, their unemployment level is half that of degree less peers and earn significantly more. We can not afford to educate all who wish to undertake degrees, so we are forcing those who are less able to pay for those who are more able intellectually. While it would be great in principle economically I view it as unfair. Viewing education as a right, when that right would only be available to the gifted I don't think justifies it.

Levels for teaching, nursing and any other national priorities should probably remain constant and heavily funded by the government for obvious reasons, society gets a lot more benefit out of the few students who do those courses then other courses. Obviously if the courses are over brimming with students then society gets less of a benefit and hence it should be funded less.

One can not simply create an algorithm to apply to a wide range of courses to find the percentage that society benefits and the student benefits, it is open to too much bias. Only those were need is critically visible, should they receive extra funding over other courses.

One of the best proposals I can think of is to set a rate at which students pay unless the cost of their course is under that rate but that brings in the reason why should some students be paying for the entire cost of their course but others only a percentage.

Ultimately one’s desire to learn should leave them willing to pay the entire cost of the course, fully deferrable, while benefiting society the benefits to them will easily outweigh the cost. This is mainly due to the fact that their spot is only available to them, as opposed to other educational institutes such as public libraries and museums.

 

[townie]

i'm suprised at how many so far have voiced support for an increase in HECS, i would to a certain degree, but believe that the government should still fund universities, as there are benefits to the community of having university educated people.

 

[withoutaface]

i'm suprised at how many so far have voiced support for an increase in HECS, i would to a certain degree, but believe that the government should still fund universities, as there are benefits to the community of having university educated people.

Yes, but the fact that people would still attend university regardless of whether they paid 90% or 100% of their fees means that the benefits will come with or without the funding.

 

[Slidey]

And the problem is that the government ISN'T funding them anymore (or rather, they are continually decreasing funding such that eventually the funding will be very miniscule indeed), so if we do want uni degrees we will be forced to pay higher HECS.

Generator, do you think that increasing HECS fees would contribute to the detrimental effects the consumer model has had on university education?

And regarding universities competing - only if HECS isn't controlled like it is now. As far as I know all public universities charge the same for the same band of course, don't they?

so I am against paying more than I already do given the sacrifices my education will be suffering (due to staff cuts, etc)

Why do you think those staff cuts etc are happening? Lack of funding. What would increasing HECS do? Provide funding.

In principle, I do not see how your logic works

 

[loquasagacious]

All universities used to charge within set bands, until this year when they gained the power to set costs themselves. The majority have gegun using this power, MACQ for instance charges a slightly different rate for every course. So now the cost to the student (and the taxpayer
) much more accurately reflects the cost to the uni of running the course. It removes a good deal of the bugetry constraint impossed on the uni and is more efficient overall. In short, I approve.

 

[hipsta_jess]

Why do you think those staff cuts etc are happening? Lack of funding. What would increasing HECS do? Provide funding.

In principle, I do not see how your logic works

Our lack of funding came about by our last vice chancellor squandering $10-15 mil, and then them spending all this other money on stuff like upgrading our website. It had nothing to do with the fact we don't pay enough HECS, it was that they couldn't manage their money.