Protest (2 Viewers)

[Azamakumar]

don't you know who he is?

fucking lol.





And iirc csu wasn't $100 back in its day.

 

[CurlyRuby]

abolishing full fee's makes things worse for the average student. Do you not understand that full fee students money helps make ends meet at universities..

Go die in a hole please.


I don't understand how anyone can justify people paying their way into uni when deserving students are missing out because of them.

 

[withoutaface]

Go die in a hole please.


I don't understand how anyone can justify people paying their way into uni when deserving students are missing out because of them.

DFEE students create more HECS places.

I don't understand how anybody can justify abolishing DFEE places when doing so would:
1. Give non-citizens (i.e. international students) an option not open to citizens.
2. Destroy a funding stream for the university which really isn't hurting anyone except self righteous left wing arseholes.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

And those who want to get into uni but don't because the rich folk get in ahead of them.

Shame i missed you have been hoping to run into you at usyd... I was one of the libs that was running past towards railway square to do some more pro-vsu protesting.

You mean one of those guys that the police told to piss off? LOL!

 

[CurlyRuby]

And those who want to get into uni but don't because the rich folk get in ahead of them.

Amen.

 

[withoutaface]

And those who want to get into uni but don't because the rich folk get in ahead of them.

Thanks for completely ignoring my point. If the places for rich folk weren't there they wouldn't get in anyway (and perhaps there'd be even more people who wouldn't get in due to the funding shortfall), so that argument's totally illogical.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

yeah, because the DFEE places totally take up invisible desk space at uni's dont they eh?

 

[stazi]

no stazi.. if you go off to singapore (i.e. leave Australia) you dont have to pay off your hecs! So don't worry about it!!! Also stazi you wern't at the FMAA drinks tonight :<.

When I return, I'll have to though - they'll deduct from my income in Australia, after I move back. However, if I pay in advance, I'll get the discount for early payment

 

[withoutaface]

yeah, because the DFEE places totally take up invisible desk space at uni's dont they eh?

Yeah and what happens when they disappear and the university can't afford to maintain as many teaching areas, or hire as many staff?

 

[Evan11]

don't you know who he is?

no, who?

 

[withoutaface]

no, who?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9hFqKCSXaY&feature=related

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yeah and what happens when they disappear and the university can't afford to maintain as many teaching areas, or hire as many staff?

http://www.alp.org.au/media/0507/riedut100.php

Secondly, it is our long standing aspiration and policy objective to phase out full-fee paying domestic students. That remains our long term aspiration. The phase out can only be done of course over the longer term. You can’t do it snap shut and I’ve been in discussions with the Universities and the sector about the financial implications. There are also equity considerations, and Kevin made it clear yesterday, and I’ve made it clear over my period as Shadow Education Minister, that people can expect to see a detailed election commitment between now and the election.

So our policy aspiration remains a phase out, but we’re not going to be silly about it. We’re going to have a sensible conversation with interested parties and craft out a sensible election commitment.

While nothing is certain, it appears that the implication is that the universities won't be left without funding once DFEE places are (rightfully) phased out.

Thank God we live in an era of a responsible Australian government, eh?

Furthermore:

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/gillard_to_abolish_full_fee_paying_courses_137262

"We would sit down university-by-university and talk to them about a compact for them which would be about funding matters and particularly about compensation."

"I'd want to make sure Australian students had good opportunities, we're not looking to increase places for overseas students at the expense of Australian students."

"What obviously we want to do is move away from Liberal Party policy where you could pay to get in and people of merit were sort of pushed to the wayside because they couldn't make the fees."

And:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23398676-12332,00.html

A PROCESS for funding reform outlined by federal Education Minister Julia Gillard confirms 2010 as the first year in which universities are likely to see significant new money from the Rudd Government.

Labor's compacts would be the new long-term funding vehicle for universities, Ms Gillard said in an interview with the HES this week. She said the funding agreements for individual universities, known as compacts, would be informed by the review of Australian higher education chaired by Denise Bradley.

The review is due to deliver its findings at the end of this year.

Until then, funding discussions with universities will be confined to the more utilitarian question of how to implement Labor's election promises in higher education, such as the phasing out of domestic full fee places from 2009, rebuilding student services, new scholarships and fee relief for maths and science students.

"We are referring to compacts as the long-term post review funding instrument, so they will be informed by what happens in the review," Ms Gillard said.

"For the pre-review period, what we are really doing is having a conversation with universities about funding arrangements so we can deliver our election promises."

When announcing the review last week, Ms Gillard said there would soon be consultations with universities on the shape of the compacts. Negotiations for individual compacts would occur in 2009 for implementation in 2010, she said.

During last year's election campaign and since, Labor raised expectations of substantial new spending on higher education. Ms Gillard said last week that Australian university financing was "chaotic, compromised and unsustainable", and "the moment is now for us to start seriously investing in human capital at all levels, including higher education".

This would suggest that she will go to cabinet's expenditure review committee in January 2009, informed by the Bradley review's findings, to ask for new money for universities. If that submission were successful, new money would be announced in the 2009 budget and start flowing the following year.

Ms Gillard refused to be drawn on whether Labor had set up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average as the benchmark by which its own spending on universities would be judged.

Labor has made frequent use of OECD statistics on public investment in higher education to criticise the Howard government's record.

She said her statements and those of the Prime Minister showed that Labor was genuinely concerned university funding but added that before the review, she was not "going to talk in the language of percentages".

"We will have the review, meet and consider these questions, and then we will get the outcomes and respond to that."

Ms Gillard defended Labor's approach against the call by Universities Australia chairman Richard Larkins for more urgent action. Professor Larkins said universities faced an urgent problem from next year just in meeting rising costs.

Ms Gillard said she understood that universities were bearing the consequences of more than a decade of neglect, but Labor wanted a review first as it had been a very long time since there had been a thorough-going look at whole-of-system issues, including vision, funding, diversity and equity.

In her first big speech on higher education, delivered to an Australian Financial Review conference last Thursday, Ms Gillard dramatically switched the official rhetoric on universities from the Howard era and sought to underline their relevance to ordinary Australians. She described universities as "treasured and respected places of learning" with "a great public purpose" to be "at the heart of our efforts to create a more productive and prosperous society and a more equitable society".

The speech was warmly received, though its impact might have been diminished because Gillard had spoken in a similar vein to a Universities Australia breakfast meeting of vice-chancellors the previous day.

But this week some in the sector have questioned the value of "diversity for diversity's sake". Group of Eight executive director Mike Gallagher said compacts would be a backward step if they did not shore up the long-term public function of universities, such as continuity of scholarship in areas where student demand was weak and the provision of services to enterprises and communities that fell outside the teaching and research functions.

Ms Gillard also defended the review committee against the charge that it lacked people of deep experience in university administration or that the two committee members who did have recent direct university affiliations were associated with post-Dawkins, non-Go8 institutions. (One committee member, Bill Scales, is chancellor of Swinburne University; and emeritus professor Bradley was formerly vice-chancellor of the University of South Australia.)

The Education Minister told the HES the Government had deliberately chosen an "eminent persons" approach rather than a representative committee.

She also said it would be unfair to the committee members and the depth of their experience to suggest that they could view universities only through the prism of the particular institutions that appeared in their current biographies.

Lastly,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/12/11/1197135463249.html

UNIVERSITY graduates who go overseas for longer than six months should have to pay the minimum HECS repayment every year while they are away, according to the architect of the deferred loans scheme, Bruce Chapman.

The nation's HECS debt is tipped to approach $15 billion this year, with the Education Department last year estimating that more than a quarter would not be repaid.

As student debt is collected through taxation, there is now no requirement to repay loans while working overseas.

Professor Chapman, the architect of the system of deferring payment until graduates reach the workforce that was introduced in 1989, said this could be fixed easily.

"The first way to fix the overseas problem is write on the bottom of HECS contracts that in the event that you are going overseas for six months or more, you are obligated by law to pay the minimum HECS," Professor Chapman said.

He said while this repayment would not be linked to income, it was not much money and most graduates going overseas to travel or work could afford to pay.

"Other people argue there should be tax agreements with other countries, but the transaction costs are very high," Professor Chapman, a professor of public policy at Australian National University, told a discussion on higher education fees yesterday.

He also suggested that the problem of older people not repaying HECs could be resolved by recovering loans from deceased estates and said upfront fees for TAFE courses should be replaced with HECS-style loans.

His comments came as Education Minister Julia Gillard refused to guarantee the number of university places would not fall when Labor abolished domestic full-fee degrees.

Labor has vowed to honour its long-standing promise to abolish full-fee domestic degrees and says it will compensate universities with 11,000 extra HECS places.

Asked on ABC if she could guarantee the number of university places would not fall, Ms Gillard said university places were constantly changing.

She said Labor's policy was based on the principle that Australian students should get into university on the basis of merit, not capacity to pay.

"What we've said to the universities … is we would sit down, university by university, and talk to them about a compact for them, which would be about funding matters and particularly about compensation."

But Andrew Norton, a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, said only 2.5% of Australian students were now paying full fees and the long-term impacts on universities would be minimal.

However, he said Labor needed to ensure that faculties which did not make money — such as veterinary science, medicine and dentistry — were given the right financial incentives to enrol Australian students so they were not forced to rely on full-fee-paying international students.

Mr Norton said the labour market was already tight in areas like veterinary science and dentistry and it was important to retain as many graduates as possible in Australia.

So through that mish mash of articles, it looks like DFEE places are on the way out, Labor has said that they'll replace them with HECS places, and in the worst possible case total university places will temporarily (I suppose) fall.

OH NOES!

 

[withoutaface]

While nothing is certain, it appears that the implication is that the universities won't be left without funding once DFEE places are (rightfully) phased out.

Thank God we live in an era of a responsible Australian government, eh?

So instead of slugging the students with the fees, the burden is put on the taxpayers? Fucking genius, why didn't we think of this earlier?

If you want to bump up HECS places to be as high as the current number of HECS + DFEE students that's understandable, but there's still no real reason to abolish DFEE places which could exist as an extra funding mechanism for the universities and an additional avenue for school leavers to pursue, without hurting anyone.

 

[Evan11]

total university places will temporarily (I suppose) fall.

OH NOES!

yes but there will be "equality" and aparently thats all that matters...narrow minded bastards!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

So instead of slugging the students with the fees, the burden is put on the taxpayers? Fucking genius, why didn't we think of this earlier?

Well, someone did think it up years ago. It's called the taxation system. The only people who have problems with universal healthcare, education, security and welfare are crazy ass right wingers like yourself!

If you want to bump up HECS places to be as high as the current number of HECS + DFEE students that's understandable, but there's still no real reason to abolish DFEE places which could exist as an extra funding mechanism for the universities and an additional avenue for school leavers to pursue, without hurting anyone.

I would agree entirely, if it were a permanent thing. However, the general stance of the ALP doesn't seem to be one of moving universities back in time, like Howard did, so I'm relatively confident that things will even out in time.

 

[withoutaface]

Well, someone did think it up years ago. It's called the taxation system. The only people who have problems with universal healthcare, education, security and welfare are crazy ass right wingers like yourself!

University education falls into one of two categories:
1. Degrees which generate enough future income for the student that it would offset them funding the degree themselves.
2. Intellectual wankery which benefits nobody but the student themselves, in which case there should be no public funding whatsoever.

I believe that education up until year 12 should be publicly funded, but beyond that it's bullshit.

 

[stazi]

we already pay one of the highest tax rates in the world. would you like to contribute even more of your income to fund our education system? no government will ever want to increase tax rates so significantly. so, a large % of the funds that go towards services such as healthcare, transport, security and welfare will need to go towards funding our universities. All of a sudden, 18-23 year olds are getting free education, whilst those in need have worse access.

Also, keep in mind, that in order to attract the best lecturers and researchers, universities in Oz need to be able to pay them good salaries (particularly when they can easily go overseas to teach). If the univeristies lose out on full fee payments, how do they pay their lecturers? They need to pay them with money that is currently available, and not available in 20 years when people's HECS debts are repaid.

Similarly, how do they pay for infrastructure + technology within universities? Surely that will also suffer.

Yes, what would happen is the Aussie university system becoming difficult to maintain financially, and the overall standard of education dropping

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Allowing full fee will always be better because no matter how much funding you have, you can always get more if you have some full fee students. It is not rational to get rid of them and is just born out of some illogical notion of 'justice'. This pops up all the time..

Experiments have been done where they give someone $100 and tell him to offer a share to his partner, if his partner accepts he gets whatever % share he managed to get his partner to agree to. The result is usually that anything less than a 80/30 split will usually lead to the partner not accepting the deal and neither of them get money... which is stupid, the partner is basically throwing away $30.

 

[stazi]

even with productive degrees, they pay for themselves through the future incomes graduates are able to gain compared to non grads. why should the government pay for this?

free tertiary education also creates a disinsentive to work hard, because if you fail, hey, it doesn't cost you anything.

exactly, it becomes communism, like how it was in Russia: people would get the same income regardless of how hard they worked. You could be an alcoholic sleeping at work, and still earn the same as someone who worked all the time.

 

[stazi]

Allowing full fee will always be better because no matter how much funding you have, you can always get more if you have some full fee students. It is not rational to get rid of them and is just born out of some illogical notion of 'justice'. This pops up all the time..

Experiments have been done where they give someone $100 and tell him to offer a share to his partner, if his partner accepts he gets whatever % share he managed to get his partner to agree to. The result is usually that anything less than a 80/30 split will usually lead to the partner not accepting the deal and neither of them get money... which is stupid, the partner is basically throwing away $30.

lol...80+30 = $110