Julie Bishop's Vision for Education in Australia (Merged) (2 Viewers)

[volition]

Hey volition, if taxation is against our will, why does the population continually call for increased funding (ie. our taxes) to education?

Try running what you're saying as a state election platform and you'd lose in a landslide.

Dunno really, I can only offer a few guesses:

1. It might have something to do with how we don't see what the actual dollars effect on our taxes would be. It's not as clear as the federal income tax system where you can see the changes in brackets(and how much extra tax you pay). The state government gets its revenue from stuff like Commonwealth grants, stamp duty, land tax, pokies tax. This stuff is more indirect.

2. The people calling for increased funding don't believe that they will be the ones footing the bill. eg. you might have already bought an item which would have it's excise tax increased, and hence not have to worry about paying the higher tax.

3. People want to take funding away from OTHER aspects of government and put that money towards education

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I was actually asking you what reason you have for supporting ‘equal education’, but NOT ‘equal cars’ or whatever. I couldn’t really glean much out of your paragraph here, other than ‘there’s got to be variety’. Would you mind elaborating on why you think equal education is so much more important than equal cars and houses?

Um...because it's an essential building block for the future of everyone's lives? Lol, if you don't get it now, you're never going to understand it. All we can do is pray that you never acheive a position of power within the country. I'd hate to see what mess we'd end up in.

There’s no need to go into what my/your personal situations are, they’re irrelevant to the argument of what is right and wrong.

It's incredibly relevant, as it show what circumstances are forming your opinion.

I’d feel the same way about private property rights whether I led the privileged life OR had no money. This is about everybody’s economic freedom, not just the freedom of the rich. If taxes are reduced, then they would be reduced across the board. Which means the poorer people would also have more choice over where their money goes, and it means more to them than it does to the rich, who have more of it. So it doesn’t have to go into a new Mercedes-Benz, it might be something as simple as being able to go to Macca’s for a meal. The point is they get more choice now, and their rights aren’t being trampled on as much.

You're aware that you didn't actually say anything relevant in that paragraph, no?

Well I can’t guarantee you that the best will go to university, but I could guarantee you that the market appreciates those with true talents, because ultimately employers value green more than they value white, black or yellow. Markets never discriminate irrationally over the long run, people who are smart/talented will prosper and it’s actually free markets that best allow them to do this, rather than having to be restrained and constricted by copping income taxation.

Oh fuck off. What bullshit. The market doesn't value everyone equally, it favours the rich equally. Ever wondered why, even in this beloved free market society in which we live, that there is still a champagne glass of wealth? Ever wondered why those in the North Shore have the highest income, in addition to the highest rate of university attendance? I can assure you that it's no bloody coincidence.

 

[volition]

It's incredibly relevant, as it show what circumstances are forming your opinion.

My circumstances don't change my argument. Attack the argument on it's own merits, not the person.

Oh fuck off. What bullshit. The market doesn't value everyone equally, it favours the rich equally. Ever wondered why, even in this beloved free market society in which we live, that there is still a champagne glass of wealth? Ever wondered why those in the North Shore have the highest income, in addition to the highest rate of university attendance? I can assure you that it's no bloody coincidence.

So you're just going to assume that none of them have worked for it? There is no contradiction between the existence of the North Shore and my argument that over the long run markets favour smarter/better workers, regardless of starting position.

 

[banco55]

Private education is a bit of a chicken and the egg argument. Parents who send their kids to private schools (particuarly the independent schools) expect their kids to go to uni and they tend to value education more highly then other groups. They have higher levels of literacy and are more likely to push their kids to read. Not to mention there is a big genetic factor in intelligence so if you have doctors having kids chances are they will have a higher IQ then average.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

My circumstances don't change my argument. Attack the argument on it's own merits, not the person.

Thanks for the lesson on debating. *scrunches up post, throws in waste paper basket* IF you do come from a wealthy family, it DOES lower the validity of your own argument, because you're being influenced by factors that aren't contributing to a fair point of view. I, on the other hand, am right down the middle. Yes, I know the meaning of "tu quoque", I read the little sticky guide on this page too. Don't get too up yourself, my friend.

 

[volition]

Thanks for the lesson on debating. *scrunches up post, throws in waste paper basket* IF you do come from a wealthy family, it DOES lower the validity of your own argument, because you're being influenced by factors that aren't contributing to a fair point of view. I, on the other hand, am right down the middle. Yes, I know the meaning of "tu quoque", I read the little sticky guide on this page too. Don't get too up yourself, my friend.

I'm not being up myself at all, it's you being up yourself that brought you to say that my personal situation was "incredibly relevant".

Coming from a wealthy family wouldn't lower the validity of my argument. It doesn't matter if I'm the son of Kerry Packer, or if I'm some kid off the streets. You claim to understand this having read the sticky, but you're still trying to make that argument, so surely you see why I'm confused to see you write that you DO understand it.

 

[volition]

Nebuchanezzar, I'd just like to add that with all your talk of the 'champagne glass of wealth', it counts upon the idea that university is necessary to lead an acceptable life. I think that a privatisation of the system would mean university degrees are made less relevant, I think we'd see more apprenticeships. As in, more white-collar job apprenticeships than we have now.

We'd see people learning more relevant things because they'd be in a real job learning how to do stuff, not sitting in class at uni. Eg. Journalism used to be done by apprenticeship, until universities usurped that training. The quality of our journalists hasn't even really been increased by universities so I don't see a point. Making everybody get a degree(something to set them apart from the others) means nobody has a degree if you know what I mean. Heaps of things could be done via apprenticeships.

This isn't to say that everything could be done via apprenticeship, we might still have med schools or whatever, but at least we'd save some money.

I reckon using more apprenticeships would also make it easier to switch occupations, which can only be a good thing for us, with the increased labour mobility and efficiency.

Increased education is almost like a zero-sum game, jobs are likely to be filled whether we have Bachelor's degrees or PHD's. It could even be bad because the ones with PHD's might end up demanding higher wages where their qualifications aren't in sync with the job requirements.

So the main point here is: university isn't that good, we can do things in less expensive ways.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Nebuchanezzar, I'd just like to add that with all your talk of the 'champagne glass of wealth', it counts upon the idea that university is necessary to lead an acceptable life. I think that a privatisation of the system would mean university degrees are made less relevant, I think we'd see more apprenticeships. As in, more white-collar job apprenticeships than we have now.

We'd see people learning more relevant things because they'd be in a real job learning how to do stuff, not sitting in class at uni. Eg. Journalism used to be done by apprenticeship, until universities usurped that training. The quality of our journalists hasn't even really been increased by universities so I don't see a point. Making everybody get a degree(something to set them apart from the others) means nobody has a degree if you know what I mean. Heaps of things could be done via apprenticeships.

That depends on a few things.

a) That these apprenticeships are easy to get into, and provide employment prospects equal to that which university offers
b) That they won't favour the wealthy, or those within a certain geographic area
c) That those who still want to go to university, could do so anyway.

Quite frankly, I don't understand how your proposal depends on the privatisation of schooling. Does it at all, or can it be acheived currently?

I certainly think less people should be going to university, and that some occupations (particularly within the commerce/economics fields) might be better served by entering into "apprenticeships" within their field. Of course, there are still professions that depend on a university education that would still be plagued by the current, evidenced problems relating to wealth and university admissions. It's far easier for a rich kid, who was priviliged from the start due to inherited wealth to become say, a teacher, than for a poor kid who may have better skills who went to a public skill. Most certainly, a few will get in, but the disproportionality of geographic areas relative to university admissions paints a picture that says that even if your plans were put into place, those who still wanted to go to university would still be influenced by their inherited wealth. THAT, is my beef.

While we're on this subject, I think that more people going to university is a great thing. Universities (the good ones at least) are regarded as places where knowledge is built, and where your thoughts on life take shape. If we weed people out of universities and put them into training that shapes them to become a silent member of the working class, we're decreasing our enlightenment collectively. Once more, many minds working together are far more beneficial than a select few. Many enlightened, university educated minds who also happen to learn service skills (whether that be in medicine, accounting or teaching) are certainly better than people who are taken right out of school at put into jobs.

So I guess my main point is that your suggestion, isn't one that I like. It seems far too elitist for my liking, and elitism, ESPECIALLY elitism which is based upon wealth (rather than intelligence, athleticism etc.) isn't really a good thing.

 

[volition]

That depends on a few things.
a) That these apprenticeships are easy to get into, and provide employment prospects equal to that which university offers
b) That they won't favour the wealthy, or those within a certain geographic area
c) That those who still want to go to university, could do so anyway.

A – Yeah most likely, seeing those jobs are likely to be filled anyway, it probably doesn’t matter that much that people go to uni first or not, firms still need workers so it’s pretty likely they’d be willing to provide white-collar apprenticeships. This change would happen partially BECAUSE less people are able to afford university as well as because of the new 'irrelevancy' of uni so firms would have to be willing to take the kids on to get workers.

B – Imo, these apprenticeships would be even BETTER at discriminating based on skill rather than discriminating based on wealth. To get offered an apprenticeship/job you have to do an interview and sell yourself to an employer, where money doesn’t really help you that much. On the other hand, money DOES help you get into uni.

Given there are way more firms than unis, it’d be easier for this system to allow people who don’t live near a uni to get some kind of training and experience. So this helps in the geographic sense too.

C – Given that we have more apprenticeship type positions available, there won’t be such a need for university degrees, they would be rendered somewhat irrelevant. So the only people who go to uni would be the ones who are ready and willing to pay for it, the rest can get jobs. As university becomes irrelevant though, it’s not a bad thing that more people go into jobs, they’ll be being productive (our economy will be better for it, with less people taking time out to go to uni), learning AND earning money for themselves!

Quite frankly, I don't understand how your proposal depends on the privatisation of schooling. Does it at all, or can it be achieved currently?

I actually raised the whole thing because you were talking about how vital you thought uni(and therefore getting into uni in the first place) was to people being prosperous, and I’m saying that we could just render the university system less relevant and get people into jobs and let them prosper that way instead.

This way, how rich you are matters LESS, and it’s more about your skill and how you present yourself to the employer.

While we're on this subject, I think that more people going to university is a great thing. Universities (the good ones at least) are regarded as places where knowledge is built, and where your thoughts on life take shape. If we weed people out of universities and put them into training that shapes them to become a silent member of the working class, we're decreasing our enlightenment collectively. Once more, many minds working together are far more beneficial than a select few. Many enlightened, university educated minds who also happen to learn service skills (whether that be in medicine, accounting or teaching) are certainly better than people who are taken right out of school and put into jobs.

I don’t really think this stuff is relevant anyway. Becoming a member of the labour force does not in any way make you ‘silent’(look at the number of bloggers, look at the number of people who write letters to the editor, look at all the protests that happen these days, surely these people didn't ALL go to uni), and as for ‘your thoughts on life’(a pretty vague statement I have to say), you don’t need to go to university to develop ‘thoughts on life’. Do you really think the “gen ed” courses(I go to UNSW, supposedly one of the better universities in Sydney) I have to do help me to develop my ‘thoughts on life’ ? They’re a couple of bludge subjects for god’s sake, nobody learns anything good in them! And certainly nothing you couldn’t have already learned if you wanted to learn it outside of school/uni.

Other than gen eds, all that UNSW'ers learn is the technical stuff related to their degree. So why is it that going to university helps us really learn anything broader than technical skills? If it is social skills and ideas you want kids to learn, people are more than capable of joining clubs (like young liberals or labor or sports clubs or whatever takes your fancy) to ‘develop their thoughts in life’.

I think you're really clutching at straws with this argument.

So I guess my main point is that your suggestion, isn't one that I like. It seems far too elitist for my liking, and elitism, ESPECIALLY elitism which is based upon wealth (rather than intelligence, athleticism etc.) isn't really a good thing.

It is somewhat elitist, but it is based on skills not wealth. If you have a problem with better skilled people getting paid more, I'd like to hear why.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Nebuchanezzar: Man of contradictions

I certainly think less people should be going to university

I think that more people going to university is a great thing.

and get a load of this elitism

Universities (the good ones at least) are regarded as places where knowledge is built

Well some of us go to regional universities because we're from working class backgrounds and can only afford to go to the nearest one.

WHERE'S YOUR EGALITARIANISM NOW? WHERE'S YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE POOR? WHERE'S YOUR DESIRE FOR UNIVERSAL EDUCATION FOR ALL?

WHEN WILL THE LIES STOP?

 

[volition]

^^ lol Captain Gh3y.

Oh yeah and another potential explanation for why people don't want to pay but are willing to vote for more education funding, is the existence of high time preferencing. (get benefit now/soon, as opposed to saving)

But I'd have to say the main one is probably that people don't think they will be the ones to foot the bill. Just think how many parents there are whose kids are getting school funding, heaps of people with a kid would vote for more education funding.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Nebuchanezzar: Man of contradictions

What I was basically trying to get across (which you evidently did not pick up on, in taking quotes out of context) is that while it's great to have everyone educated 'n' such [quote 2], if it's not nessecary to waste a few years of your life then you shouldn't have to go there [quote 1], and you should certainly be able to get into a job more quickly through these apprenticeships. Basically, everyone should be entitled to a university education if they want, but there's no reason to forcefully send people through there that might not need it.

Way to go though, bro. Keep those sentence comparisons coming while completely ignoring everything else that was said.

Well some of us go to regional universities because we're from working class backgrounds and can only afford to go to the nearest one.

My message was referring to current events, not to the way that I'd want them to be.

----

Volition:

So, I uh, think we're on the same page mostly with this apprenticeship business. Except for:

C – Given that we have more apprenticeship type positions available, there won’t be such a need for university degrees, they would be rendered somewhat irrelevant. So the only people who go to uni would be the ones who are ready and willing to pay for it, the rest can get jobs. As university becomes irrelevant though, it’s not a bad thing that more people go into jobs, they’ll be being productive (our economy will be better for it, with less people taking time out to go to uni), learning AND earning money for themselves!

Whoa, I think that getting rid of universities all together is a bit of a nutty idea. They still serve a vital purpose in the community, if not anything else then for a research purpose. Perhaps what would be best, is for a middle ground type scenario. As I said before, certain people will have to go through university anyway. They're quite convinient, in that a tonne of people go there to get a common education. From that, I think that it's still important that science, arts, medicine, engineering and education majors (probably others that I'm forgetting) and such all still go through university, as it'd still be the most efficient way to get all those people up to line. Post graduate degrees and such, in addition to the research component would still allow universities to serve their current purpose. Of course, this would rely on government funding, something that you've clearly made evident that you totally do not support.

I actually raised the whole thing because you were talking about how vital you thought uni(and therefore getting into uni in the first place) was to people being prosperous, and I’m saying that we could just render the university system less relevant and get people into jobs and let them prosper that way instead.

Yes, because we were talking about the current situation. Now we've moved onto a totally different subject. At the moment, all of my complaints are still terribly relevant.

I don’t really think this stuff is relevant anyway. Becoming a member of the labour force does not in any way make you ‘silent’(look at the number of bloggers, look at the number of people who write letters to the editor, look at all the protests that happen these days, surely these people didn't ALL go to uni), and as for ‘your thoughts on life’(a pretty vague statement I have to say), you don’t need to go to university to develop ‘thoughts on life’. Do you really think the “gen ed” courses(I go to UNSW, supposedly one of the better universities in Sydney) I have to do help me to develop my ‘thoughts on life’ ? They’re a couple of bludge subjects for god’s sake, nobody learns anything good in them! And certainly nothing you couldn’t have already learned if you wanted to learn it outside of school/uni.

I think that getting involved, taking random courses on politics, government, arts and humanities and such promote life skills and thought, yes. If you, in your constant wishes to have everyone prepare for a job, carry out the job and then die, see no reason for such a feature of university, then that's fine. Maybe you need to take more gen ed courses? I also happen to think UNSW is a poor educational institution. That could be another reason.

 

[_dhj_]

I havn't read through the whole thread but generally I agree with Nebuchanezzar's views on tertiary education.

Personally I believe universities should be about the education. You go to uni at least partially for the sake of pursuing knowledge per se and not merely for the sake of obtaining what is required for entering some white collar profession. The key fact is that universities foster an environment for pursuing knowledge, a forum for sharing knowledge and furthering research. It's not purely a part of the 'production line', but an institutional means to expand the mind.

 

[volition]

Whoa, I think that getting rid of universities all together is a bit of a nutty idea. They still serve a vital purpose in the community...

I don’t mean to get rid of them altogether.

I think that getting involved, taking random courses on politics, government, arts and humanities and such promote life skills and thought, yes. If you, in your constant wishes to have everyone prepare for a job, carry out the job and then die, see no reason for such a feature of university, then that's fine.

There’s nothing preventing people from doing their own learning or getting involved in clubs outside of uni.

Oh yeah, and I think it’s a bit harsh of you to suggest that I want people to carry out their job and then just die. No need to misrepresent what I’m saying, the point is that they have more freedom of choice and a better standard of living in a more efficient economy.

Oh, and a parting shot:

I also happen to think UNSW is a poor educational institution. That could be another reason.

There we have it, proof of state subsidisation of poor educational institutions (at least, in your eyes).

Should everybody be made to pay for ‘poor quality educational institutions’ against their will? The answer is no. Do you think there’s really room for a poor quality educational institution in a free market? I don't think there is. (Now this isn’t to say that I actually do think UNSW is bad, just a thought based on the idea that you think it’s bad)

 

[volition]

I havn't read through the whole thread but generally I agree with Nebuchanezzar's views on tertiary education.

Personally I believe universities should be about the education. You go to uni at least partially for the sake of pursuing knowledge per se and not merely for the sake of obtaining what is required for entering some white collar profession. The key fact is that universities foster an environment for pursuing knowledge, a forum for sharing knowledge and furthering research. It's not purely a part of the 'production line', but an institutional means to expand the mind.

I have no problem with them existing to 'expand the mind' then, so long as students are the ones footing the bill. But I do think this weakens your utilitarian argument that it makes us all better off (the positive externality is stronger if they're only at uni to get better skills for jobs).

Anyway, I believe that average joe should not be made to pay for the 'expansion of some random kids mind', life is hard enough as it is.

 

[_dhj_]

I have no problem with them existing to 'expand the mind' then, so long as students are the ones footing the bill. But I do think this weakens your utilitarian argument that it makes us all better off (the positive externality is stronger if they're only at uni to get better skills for jobs).

Anyway, I believe that average joe should not be made to pay for the 'expansion of some random kids mind', life is hard enough as it is.

I respect that view, but real advances in society are made by those who seek to expand the mind and not those who are merely 'doing their job'. These individual advances don't have to be great leaps forward, and can take place in any field. They are what takes society forward as a whole.

 

[volition]

I respect that view, but real advances in society are made by those who seek to expand the mind and not those who are merely 'doing their job'. These individual advances don't have to be great leaps forward, and can take place in any field. They are what takes society forward as a whole.

Well I don't really know what you mean when you refer to real advances, and I'd appreciate it if you told me why you think they can only happen inside/as a result of state subsidised university.

 

[_dhj_]

Well I don't really know what you mean when you refer to real advances, and I'd appreciate it if you told me why you think they can only happen inside/as a result of state subsidised university.

By 'real advances' i was referring to innovations that create positive flow on results to the rest of a particular industry or society at large. Investment into that sort of innovation will always be undersupplied by market forces because they only take into account the benefit the individual firm will experience as a result of the innovation. I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on how effective or how much a state subsidised university can fix the undersupply. The main thing is that it's easy to identify the undersupply in principle and see how that undersupply is a significant and not merely a trivial one.

 

[withoutaface]

Yes

no

Whoa, dude, he's out of control!

EDIT: To make a worthwhile contribution, I agree with the concept of performance pay, but I think it's clear from this thread that the sematics of how it is determined aren't quite 'there' yet.

 

[volition]

By 'real advances' i was referring to innovations that create positive flow on results to the rest of a particular industry or society at large. Investment into that sort of innovation will always be undersupplied by market forces because they only take into account the benefit the individual firm will experience as a result of the innovation. I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on how effective or how much a state subsidised university can fix the undersupply. The main thing is that it's easy to identify the undersupply in principle and see how that undersupply is a significant and not merely a trivial one.

What kind of investment is there that only benefits the industry and not the individual firm? Have you got any examples?