Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
So we bill them after they turn 14 and can leave school? After all, they have made a choice to stay.
Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
If I want to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant or Plumber I don't 'choose' to go to school I have to go to school
Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
If I want to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant or Plumber I don't 'choose' to go to school I have to go to school
I was saying my kids don't choose to go to primary/high school.
Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants can pay for the higher education they receive.
Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
So we bill them after they turn 14 and can leave school? After all, they have made a choice to stay.
I thought it was 15?
Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
If I want to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant or Plumber I don't 'choose' to go to school I have to go to school
I was saying my kids don't choose to go to primary/high school.
Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants can pay for the higher education they receive.
But you chose to have kids.
What's that joke? I'm happy to subsidise other peoples kids as long as I get to watch the creation......
When I started University the only way you could get there was to have rich parents or win a scholarship or teaching studentship. So in 1971, many of my "friends" at University were ex-private school kids as very few of my former mates had the chance. I got a teaching studentship, went to Uni Melb did a science degree and then had to teach for three years. By then Gough had abolished Uni fees so many more people got the chance on merit.
The Daytripper and others argument that University is an investment that you have to pay for, wears a bit thin with me. If it costs over $200,000 at commercial interest charges to get a BSc in future, and it is hard to get a job in science, then on this logic, why would you do it.
So where will our scientists, engineers, teachers and all the rest of those jobs that need university training and are critical for our society to grow and function.
All education should be free of fees. It is hard enough to feed and clothe yourself while studying full-time.
And it is not a matter of who you would vote for, education is critical to our future and for some to be whimsical about it is disturbing.
Correct. I started and operate a reasonably successful business without incurring any education costs. Not sure why I should subsidise someone else's.
You didn't go to Uni (subsidised), high school (subsidised, private or public), primary school (subsidised, private or public) or kindie/childcare (subsidised) ?
No wonder you were such a big Reimdogs fan.
No, yes, yes, no.
I didn't realise attending kindergarten resulted in a huge earning potential for those that graduate.
Plus they have to go to school. People choose to go to uni.
If I want to be a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant or Plumber I don't 'choose' to go to school I have to go to school
I was saying my kids don't choose to go to primary/high school.
Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants can pay for the higher education they receive.
But you chose to have kids.
I sure did.
Your point?
No.
Correct. I started and operate a reasonably successful business without incurring any education costs. Not sure why I should subsidise someone else's.
Is this the same argument as 'I don't have kids so why should I subsidise their education?'
No kids tax break?
My kids won't walk out of high school into a $100k/year job.
LOL +super orrrrrr?
can you point me in the direction of these 100K grad jobs?
If you don't think that this model is absolutely ■■■■■■, just check out how bad the higher education system is over here in the states.
Make the degrees free, award places based on merit, tax the earnings.
No, yes, yes, no.
I didn't realise attending kindergarten resulted in a huge earning potential for those that graduate.
So you took the facilities available, are you paying back HECS on that? No? BLUDGER.
Uni students get a public loan, and actually pay that back as FEE HELP, as well as taxes (and on average they contribute more taxes to start with, so it actually makes the Gov't money over the long term).
The actual debate/question here is whether students should pay back a fee limited to X thousand dollars, or whatever-the-hell-the-Uni-feels-like-charging-today thousand dollars. I'm all for regulation. And I'd bump back the funding closer to what it was a few years ago. Between the funding cuts and the VISA changes for foreign students a lot of Unis are down tens of millions.
When I started University the only way you could get there was to have rich parents or win a scholarship or teaching studentship. So in 1971, many of my "friends" at University were ex-private school kids as very few of my former mates had the chance. I got a teaching studentship, went to Uni Melb did a science degree and then had to teach for three years. By then Gough had abolished Uni fees so many more people got the chance on merit.
The Daytripper and others argument that University is an investment that you have to pay for, wears a bit thin with me. If it costs over $200,000 at commercial interest charges to get a BSc in future, and it is hard to get a job in science, then on this logic, why would you do it.
So where will our scientists, engineers, teachers and all the rest of those jobs that need university training and are critical for our society to grow and function.
All education should be free of fees. It is hard enough to feed and clothe yourself while studying full-time.
And it is not a matter of who you would vote for, education is critical to our future and for some to be whimsical about it is disturbing.
Well why would you do a 200K degree if there was no job at the end of it?
When I started University the only way you could get there was to have rich parents or win a scholarship or teaching studentship. So in 1971, many of my "friends" at University were ex-private school kids as very few of my former mates had the chance. I got a teaching studentship, went to Uni Melb did a science degree and then had to teach for three years. By then Gough had abolished Uni fees so many more people got the chance on merit.
The Daytripper and others argument that University is an investment that you have to pay for, wears a bit thin with me. If it costs over $200,000 at commercial interest charges to get a BSc in future, and it is hard to get a job in science, then on this logic, why would you do it.
So where will our scientists, engineers, teachers and all the rest of those jobs that need university training and are critical for our society to grow and function.
All education should be free of fees. It is hard enough to feed and clothe yourself while studying full-time.
And it is not a matter of who you would vote for, education is critical to our future and for some to be whimsical about it is disturbing.
Well why would you do a 200K degree if there was no job at the end of it?
LOL. Idiot.
When I started University the only way you could get there was to have rich parents or win a scholarship or teaching studentship. So in 1971, many of my "friends" at University were ex-private school kids as very few of my former mates had the chance. I got a teaching studentship, went to Uni Melb did a science degree and then had to teach for three years. By then Gough had abolished Uni fees so many more people got the chance on merit.
The Daytripper and others argument that University is an investment that you have to pay for, wears a bit thin with me. If it costs over $200,000 at commercial interest charges to get a BSc in future, and it is hard to get a job in science, then on this logic, why would you do it.
So where will our scientists, engineers, teachers and all the rest of those jobs that need university training and are critical for our society to grow and function.
All education should be free of fees. It is hard enough to feed and clothe yourself while studying full-time.
And it is not a matter of who you would vote for, education is critical to our future and for some to be whimsical about it is disturbing.
Well why would you do a 200K degree if there was no job at the end of it?
That's his point. Nobody will.
I'm not sure where people are getting this idea that only the wealthy will be able to attend university.
HECS will still apply so basically if you qualify you can still go to university.
And then when you graduate you can start paying back the loan given to you by the Australian people that enabled you to get the job that you wanted.
When I started University the only way you could get there was to have rich parents or win a scholarship or teaching studentship. So in 1971, many of my "friends" at University were ex-private school kids as very few of my former mates had the chance. I got a teaching studentship, went to Uni Melb did a science degree and then had to teach for three years. By then Gough had abolished Uni fees so many more people got the chance on merit.
The Daytripper and others argument that University is an investment that you have to pay for, wears a bit thin with me. If it costs over $200,000 at commercial interest charges to get a BSc in future, and it is hard to get a job in science, then on this logic, why would you do it.
So where will our scientists, engineers, teachers and all the rest of those jobs that need university training and are critical for our society to grow and function.
All education should be free of fees. It is hard enough to feed and clothe yourself while studying full-time.
And it is not a matter of who you would vote for, education is critical to our future and for some to be whimsical about it is disturbing.
Well why would you do a 200K degree if there was no job at the end of it?
LOL. Idiot.
Well why would you?
Put the bong away for a minute and try and answer the question.
When I started University the only way you could get there was to have rich parents or win a scholarship or teaching studentship. So in 1971, many of my "friends" at University were ex-private school kids as very few of my former mates had the chance. I got a teaching studentship, went to Uni Melb did a science degree and then had to teach for three years. By then Gough had abolished Uni fees so many more people got the chance on merit.
The Daytripper and others argument that University is an investment that you have to pay for, wears a bit thin with me. If it costs over $200,000 at commercial interest charges to get a BSc in future, and it is hard to get a job in science, then on this logic, why would you do it.
So where will our scientists, engineers, teachers and all the rest of those jobs that need university training and are critical for our society to grow and function.
All education should be free of fees. It is hard enough to feed and clothe yourself while studying full-time.
And it is not a matter of who you would vote for, education is critical to our future and for some to be whimsical about it is disturbing.
Well why would you do a 200K degree if there was no job at the end of it?
That's his point. Nobody will.
That's good isn't it. :unsure:
Why do we want people going to uni for 5 years with a degree that won;t get them a job?
Nonsensical.
I can only assume that $100,000 figure is calculate by accounting for an arts student who spends 5 years doing every subject under the sun to determine what they want to major in.
It's not far off for people doing two degrees.
Melbourne Uni recently moved to the American model where basically you need to do an undergrad then a post grad (3 years each) to get anything.
And of course you can only get into their post grads if you meet the pre-requisites of doing a Melbourne Uni undergrad.
And, of course, the price went up, not sure what the post-grads go for but I wouldn't be surprised if it was getting close to $100k.
Yaaaaay for de-regulation.