'Talent and drive, but no money? Forget uni' (The Age) (2 Viewers)

[braindrainedAsh]

The one thing that I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain it to me because I am not an economist by any means, is why we once could offer university for heaps cheaper prices or free, and this was before our intake of international students grew to such high levels.... hence shouldn't universities be better off? Why have governments felt the need to hack away at education budgets so much? And yet they have a surplus budget, and want to make tax cuts? I just don't get it, why does the current government want to tighten the screws so much on public education (and this is not only in the tertiary market either, public schools are also been screwed over lately).

waf, your argument that bob the builder and granny may shouldn't have to contribute to university education is illogical. If we took that approach to tax and deciding what is in the public good etc, then I wouldn't be paying for detention centres, the war in Iraq or a chef at Kirribilli House because I don't think those things are really for the public benefit. The fact is that a componant of our tax goes towards things we may not actually use. But we pay tax because the money is used to create services that are for the public good (much like VSU, but lets not get that fight going again). An educated society is for the public good... the information industries require an educated workforce to function.

 

[erawamai]

The one thing that I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain it to me because I am not an economist by any means, is why we once could offer university for heaps cheaper prices or free

Cheaper prices mean less income for universities. The whole idea of current economic thinking is to roll back public expenditure and expose services that were considered exempt from market forces (because they were public goods) to market forces. Those universities that offer the best will charge more. Those with the most money will be entitled to a better education. This is inline with the PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS of market principles which produces unequal results. Uequal results, remember, are why we call it capitalism. Essentially a proper economic liberal will see nothing wrong with this. Nice crisp theory, like described above, is oh so nice in theory. Just like communism.

This does not mean market principles are bad. I believe in them. I just don't like it when people push them too far by using literal interpretations of those who pushed those theories. You can push market principles too far and do what Maggie Thather did to a few hospitals in the 1980s. Market pricniples and hospitals resulted some very nasty results. Simply market principles do not apply well to certain public goods that are essential to society. Health education and welfare (i mean proper welfare not middle class welfare) are generally not amenable to market principles. Or if they are only to a certain extent.

If the government doesn't have to spend on universities and universities can regulate themselves and compete against eachother (to create more efficient education? whatever that is) then the government saves some money that it can give back to the population (in theory) in tax cuts allowing people more financial freedom to participate in various markets. Which includes education.

Even though it is clear that the education sector needed some reform. I personaly lthink that university education and education in general is amenable to some form of privitisation. However the application of pure market principles to education would be a total and utter disaster.

 

[White Rabbit]

!

I'm being a snob?

What because I am saying DONT GO TO UNIVERSITY IF IT WONT MAKE MONEY FOR YOU.

Plus you stupid tart - you dont start paying hecs back until your income reaches the threshold. Which i think is already greater thant $35 k.

so nurses shouldnt be at uni? is that what you're saying? some of us go to uni, not for the financial rewards, but because we need the degree to start the career.

you are being a snob, so get over yourself.

 

[Xayma]

Cheaper prices mean less income for universities. The whole idea of current economic thinking is to roll back public expenditure and expose services that were considered exempt from market forces (because they were public goods) to market forces. Those universities that offer the best will charge more. Those with the most money will be entitled to a better education. This is inline with the PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS of market principles which produces unequal results. Uequal results, remember, are why we call it capitalism. Essentially a proper economic liberal will see nothing wrong with this. Nice crisp theory, like described above, is oh so nice in theory. Just like communism.

This does not mean market principles are bad. I believe in them. I just don't like it when people push them too far by using literal interpretations of those who pushed those theories. You can push market principles too far and do what Maggie Thather did to a few hospitals in the 1980s. Market pricniples and hospitals resulted some very nasty results. Simply market principles do not apply well to certain public goods that are essential to society. Health education and welfare (i mean proper welfare not middle class welfare) are generally not amenable to market principles. Or if they are only to a certain extent.

If the government doesn't have to spend on universities and universities can regulate themselves and compete against eachother (to create more efficient education? whatever that is) then the government saves some money that it can give back to the population (in theory) in tax cuts allowing people more financial freedom to participate in various markets. Which includes education.

Even though it is clear that the education sector needed some reform. I personaly lthink that university education and education in general is amenable to some form of privitisation. However the application of pure market principles to education would be a total and utter disaster.

The problem there being is that people won't get the education via their merits, but rather whose parents can (or are willing) to pay the most amount of money towards it.

While market forces can be good towards university, there needs to be a way that all university students can afford to go to university if they choose too (this doesn't mean making it free, but systems like HECS).

Privatisation could work, however, we neither have the alumni return that many private universities in the USA have, or the prestige. Oxford and Cambridge in the UK were considering privatisation a little while back (UK is approaching an Australian system of university), but even they had concerns. If they can't pull it off, there wouldn't be a university in Australia which could do it well.

This was an article by BBC news on this issue earlier this week

[size=+1] Australian poor students warning[/size]
Following plans to increase university fees, the Australian education department is reporting a reduction in numbers of disadvantaged students.

In the UK, the government is running a student finance awareness week, in an attempt to tackle fears that higher fees will deter applications.

But in the higher education system in Australia, there has been a fall in poorer and indigenous students.

The report also shows Australia attracting more overseas students.

Last year saw the controversial announcement of increases in student fees of up to 25% - prompting protests by students.

Aboriginal students

Figures released by the Department of Education, Science and Training, published in an annual report, show that the proportion of students from poorer backgrounds had reduced.

There were also reductions in proportions of other groups seen as being disadvantaged in Australia, such as indigenous Aboriginal people and those from rural areas.

About a quarter of the Australian population is identified as being from a background of "low socio-economic status" and this year's figures show that only 14% of the student population are from this group.

This represents a slight fall, at a time when there is an overall trend for a rising number of students - with the total enrolment increasing by 1.6% to 945,000 in 2004. Almost 230,000 of these students are from overseas.

The report highlights the decline in students identified as indigenous - and their substantial under-representation among the student population.

In terms of higher education funding, the report shows Australia is spending a proportion of its gross domestic product (GDP) that is higher than the average for developed OECD countries and the European Union.

Overseas students

But the Australian higher education system is proving successful at recruiting overseas students - which is seen as an increasingly lucrative global market.

There is a higher proportion of overseas students in Australian universities than in any other industrialised country - about one in five of the student population.

The annual report shows that Chinese students are the largest group among overseas students in Australia. More than 80% of overseas students in Australia are from Asia, including Malaysia, Singapore and India.

The recruitment of overseas students has grown by an average annual rate of 14% for the past three years, says the report.

In the UK, higher education faces a major change next year. A drive to increase student numbers will be funded by the introduction of higher tuition fees, which will be offset by a package of support for less well-off students.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/4308950.stm

Published: 2005/10/04 15:18:32 GMT

© BBC MMV

 

[Ghandi10]

If we took that approach to tax and deciding what is in the public good etc, then I wouldn't be paying for detention centres, the war in Iraq or a chef at Kirribilli House

Yep and sport would also be dead.

 

[ujuphleg]

I fail to see the point?

Are you suggesting that what I earn six months after university is what I will earn for the rest of my life?

It seems people are saying

"I went to university, society owes me because I am so brilliant, I shouldn't have to do it tough for a few years to pay back the debt"

Wake up - your 'societal' benefits aren't as fantabulous as you think.

I didn't say that what you earn the first 6 months out is what you earn for the rest of you life. What I did say, is that what you are earning then is that amount, when you have to pay it back.

When did I use the phrase societal benefits? When did I say that one shouldn't do it tough? my point was that students shouldn't have to do it THAT tough, that was all I'm saying.

 

[Generator]

"Talent and Drive" would mean that you would leave UNI with a good degree, good marks, and a high-paying job. People should be thankful that at least the government lends us this money. All you guys are bitching about "living costs" "debt" etc, but its a fact of life. Be a realist, and open your eyes - we've got it good here.

It's good to see that you are willing to just dismiss student poverty as an issue given that it's a 'fact of life'. Try not to ignore the very real issue of student poverty (and a sbstandard welfare system for students), especially when you aren't even a uni student yourself and are clearly ignorant as to the true realities of the situation.

 

[Generator]

ANY student who is serious about his studies has ALL the opportunities in Australia to succeed. AUSTUDY/YOUTH ALLOWANCE,HECS, etc,etc.

It isn't that simple. Yes, any student has the opportunity to succeed, but that isn't to say that many aren't going to be living below the poverty line in the process and that they aren't going to be forced to run the bureaucratic gauntlet in order to claim their often bare to the bone allowances.

Just for the record, there was no need for the uppercase text (and in this case I believe that capitalising parts of your argument detracted from a somewhat valid, if at times blind, point).

 

[MiuMiu]

Im fucking sick of people whinging about uni being expensive!

Fuck, you pay the fees back when you're income reaches a level which will allow you to (and they have recently raised the threshold), and as for other costs associated such as textbooks and transport....all I can say is get off your arse and get a fucking part time job!

This isn't high school anymore, things aren't handed to us. I work an average of 10 hours (which is not that much at all, usually only 2 shifts) a week in retail (ie not that great wages but good enough) during the uni semester and can more than comfortably afford textbooks, transport and other related costs. Hell, Im even saving for an overseas holiday at the same time!

The only thing I don't agree with are union fees, the uni expecting you to come up with $500 in a lump sum--which is why I totally support VSU.

So I guess my point is some people need to realise that this is the real world--when you leave uni will you bitch about the cost of transport to and from your job, and the cost of buying suitable attire to wear to work?

 

[Generator]

If you're living in a shitehole, then DOCS should take care of you. Ultimately, EVERYONE has the opportunities to succeed in Australia. Public Schooling, Government-funded University places, rent/living/study allowances? What more do you want? The lines at centrelink to be shorter? What "bureaucratic gauntlet" is there? How hard is it to get off your arse to go to centrelink? If anything, its this system that makes everyone complacent, and coherantly, expect more.

Tell me, are you even aware of the problems caused by Centrelink, problems that are faced by all, not just students? Are you aware of the nature of eligibility requirements? Are you aware of fluctuating employment circumstances that not only mean that your earnings may vary each week, but that you must inform centrelink or run the risk of committing welfare 'fraud'? The system does not make anyone complacent, and to suggest that it does is just laughable.

I'll ignore the DOCS comment, because I really do not know what that has to do with university students and the standard of living that many face on a daily basis.

Once again, I suggest that you pull your head out of your arse and realise that though support systems exist, they aren't as supportive as you seem to believe.

---

Ms 12, that's great! However, have you realised that not all students are as lucky as you? That not all students are lucky enough to still live at home and be supported to a substantial degree? That not all students have relatively secure jobs that do not unfairly impinge upon their studies?

HECS isn't the issue, it's the cost of living, the everyday cost of living.

 

[Generator]

Grow up, we live in a country that gives us everything we could possibly need, but still you ask for more. I can find a list of developed countries that dont offer anything near the stuff we do. If the systems are fucked, at least they're there for those who really need it.

So inadequacies in the system are to be ignored/suffered merely because such a system doesn't exist in other countries (other countries with different welfare and education systems)?

Once again, I suggest that you try and understand the complexities of the issue as opposed to just making sweeping generalisations from afar.

So generator, would you agree to a system that increased HECS significantly but offered substantial financial support for living expenses?

No, not one that increases HECS significantly. I'm a social democrat, after all, and for that I make no apologies.

 

[MiuMiu]

Yeah look, the bitching in this thread really digusts me.....

As Australians we are given every opportunity to make what we want to of our lives, to reach our potential. Yet there appear to be many people who just want more more more. It is selfish and incredibly greedy.

Suprise, you may have to go and find yourself a job while you are at uni....boo fucking hoo, welcome to being an adult. Its called being well rounded, and learning to live within your means.

A university education, despite popular belief, is a privelage, not a right (need I point out the state of education in less fortunate nations?).

 

[hipsta_jess]

So what about people that attend uni in a rural area (where jobs are almost impossible to come by), have no experience, and have to take months off at a time to go all around the state on prac?

 

[MiuMiu]

I had no experience when I was employed by my current employer.

If you are from a rural area (your family's choice), I would ask why your supposed rights suddenly change when you choose to become a university student? Nothing changes. If you weren't at uni would you still not be struggling to find a job. It is a fact of life that living rural means isolated, there are less employment opportunities...but that has been a personal choice on the part of your family, take it up with them.

As far as prac goes, you know what the course entails before you start it--its not like this is forced upon you.

I have no more sympathy for 'poor old' rural students than I do for city ones.

 

[Generator]

A university education, despite popular belief, is a privelage, not a right (need I point out the state of education in less fortunate nations?).

I disagree. In an Australian context, a post-secondary/tertiary education is a right, albeit one that is largely exercised dependent upon ability and merit (even with a full-fee place you are still required to have an adequate UAI). As far as I'm concerned, you may point out the state of education in other less fortunate nation-states, but I really don't see why we should willing subject ourselves to a lower standard when it comes to our educational rights, especially when such countries strive to become as 'developed' as our own. Yes, we are lucky, and we should always keep that in mind, but that doesn't mean that everyone should just accept their lot if the system isn't up to scratch.

As Australians we are given every opportunity to make what we want to of our lives, to reach our potential. Yet there appear to be many people who just want more more more. It is selfish and incredibly greedy.

Is it really that selfish to complain about an unresponsive and, in many instances, out of touch bureaucracy? Are they really that greedy to complain about inadequate welfare services given the prohibitive costs of living that many students face (be they from the city or country)? As you can no doubt tell, I do not agree with your representation of the issue being one of whinging students wanting more more more. Merely arguing for a more responsive bureaucracy and a level of everyday support that is somewhat appropriate given the circumstances (not just for the students, mind you, but for all on welfare) should not be considered an instance of greed or selfishness. No doubt you do not agree, though.

Edit: I should add that despite the apparent implication, I'm not suggesting that students seek to have the government fully fund their living arrangements while at uni. Rather, I'm suggesting that the bureaucracy and its rules and regulations become more responsive to the circumstances that many students find themselves in when it comes to employment.

 

[hipsta_jess]

So, what, all families should live in/relocate to Sydney/metropolitan areas just so their childrens employment prospects are increased?
Many rural families have lived on family farms for generations. Moving simply isn't an option, there are no 'choices' involved.

 

[MiuMiu]

So, what, all families should live in/relocate to Sydney/metropolitan areas just so their childrens employment prospects are increased?
Many rural families have lived on family farms for generations. Moving simply isn't an option, there are no 'choices' involved.

Last time I checked there wasn't a bachelor of farmhand. If you intend to grow up and look after the farm I don't see why there is an issue about you needing to go to uni.

My point was that you being rural is not the government's problem, its yours. Your family put themselves there, not the government. Take it up with your family--what ever happened to parents saving to educate their children when the time comes.

And I maintain, it is a privilige to be educated.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

If nobody was rural, then Australia's economy would suffer. I get so sick of hearing city people slag off at country people... fuck, a major part of our economy relies on agricultural exports... people live there for a reason, but they don't recieve decent services. Try and find a bank in half the country towns these days... has anyone read any of the latham diaries? There is a few perfect examples of the trend of "downward envy" that he talks about on here, and I think it really is an increasing trend in Australia at the moment, you only have to look at opinions people have about rural and regional Australia. The government, and the country as a whole, needs people to live in rural and regional Australia. Do you think infrastructure would be able to support everyone that lives in the country moving the city? What about the environment? Who would feed the cattle and take them to the slaughterhouse so we can export them to Japan?

The funny thing is you say that living in a rural area is a person's family's fault. Yet you are condeming the individual to that life, and hence it is not a choice. If someone can't afford to move away or get a tertiary education, how is it their fault if they are stuck in rural Australia? It's about as logical a statement as saying "kids whose parents are murderers should also go to jail because the murder was their parent's fault". Children shouldn't suffer for the "sins" of the parent, I thought that was pretty commonly accepted.

I finally got youth allowance after 18 months earlier this year and I am thankful that I recieve it... but the ironic thing is I am actually poorer now- yes I work a lot less, but the way the system works places a lot of restrictions on your earnings. For example, to save money up in the "income bank", you have to not work first.... so you are better off not to work for a period first because otherwise you lose some of your payment if you earn more than the fortnightly earnings threshold, but if you don't work for a while, you can earn over the threshold until your income bank is empty. It is a really strange system that almost punishes you for working a regular amount of hours a week instead of only working in your holidays. Also as anyone who has tried to qualify for it knows, it is an extremely arduous process and so many things can make you ineligible. Also before you start jumping on me because I can see it coming, take note from an earlier post that I also have not criticized the HECS system before you start accusing me of that because I can see it coming... but the fact is the bureaucratic circus it takes to qualify excludes many people who really need it. I find it ironic that people who live privilidged lives are often the one whinging about bludgers... not to personally attack anyone on here, but since finishing school there has not been a single week where I would have only worked 10 hours. I have no problem working 20 hours while at uni... 25 hours.... 30 hours.... but when it gets to 45, that is when it starts to suck. And you have to understand, that if I were at uni in a regional place, getting 30 hours of work a week would be an amazing feat in itself. There are no jobs. I have a friend who recently just got a job after trying for almost 18 months. She had experience, numerous tafe qualifications and a fantastic personality, but there are no jobs. She applied for a job at Muffin Break in Albury and one of the recruiters told her that over 70 people had applied for the one casual position.

And anyone that believes centrelink really does help anyone from a "shithole" has never had to try and deal with the system themselves. They don't just hand out money like candy based on your postcode, and they shouldn't, but a lot of people seem to have the perception that they do.

And I'm sorry, but maybe we should have to state whether or not we live at home or had to move to study, how much we bludge off our parents for our education because I am pretty sure that a clear pattern would begin to emerge with the opinions here.

It seems like a lot of people on here have formed very judgemental opinions without much understanding of the different situations.

 

[loquasagacious]

The idea of HECS is GREAT. It is logical that you should pay for a degree as it benefits you and you undertake it as a choice. It is however impractical for most to fork out $2K+ per semester upfront so we can DEFER it.

Then there's centrelink which gives out money to those who are judged deserving. Oh and guess what this is enough to live on, but not enough to be hugely comfortable on - the idea of which is that you get a job.

Personally speaking I work 20 hours or so a week, this alone provides me with enough money to completely support myself. I recieve no centrelink payment and have moved away from home (and interstate) to study. I do not live a life of luxury and why should I?

Following a logical train here: People are only in university if they can justify the cost eg if what they gain is greater than the cost. Thus anyone who is in uni and whinging about costs just wants it easier on themselves.

As far as paying HECS back, how hard can this be? Lets see I currently earn say $15K pa as a pretty generous estimate, this figure is enough to support me and save abit. Well even if my costs increased when I entered the workplace by say $5K to $15K I would be earning as a rough starting wage $35K which could concievably enable me to pay back a $40K debt in two years if I wanted to.

But lets face it no one does, we make LIFESTYLE choices. YA+RA is enough to live on but many of us would like a better lifestyle than it allows so we alternately bitch for more money or get a job. When we graduate and get real jobs you know what many of us do - we splurge. We get a new car, maybe even a house, we spend more. We decide to live a different LIFESTYLE and yes having to pay back a HECS loan restricts BY A TINY AMMOUNT this lifestyle.

Oh yeah and lets consider another aspect, how much does a new car cost? What about a house? Well lets see you could easily spend $50K on a falcodore and even easier $500K on a house. Without a second thought you'll whack these on a loan of some sort, why then is an education different? Why?

 

[xeuyrawp]

!

I'm being a snob?

What because I am saying DONT GO TO UNIVERSITY IF IT WONT MAKE MONEY FOR YOU.

I'm going to uni, and I doubt it'll make a tonne of money for me, so shut the fuck up, you misdirected cunt.

Some people get more out of uni than a good job, fucktard.