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.
Assuming that you can walk straight from university into a well paying job. Otherwise you're sitting on a pile of debt that you have no way to pay back.
And even if you can, nobody wants to start their adult life sitting on a mountain of debt.
If I buy a massive house and I'm not sure if I can pay it back can I just do this?
If you think it will help.
I don't think that you're analogy a good one.
Australia, as country, isn't really affected by your decision to own a big house, a modest house, rent, or live in your parents basement.
It is beneficial that we encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their abilities. These kids are (ideally) going to go on to be the adults who contribute to society.
If people are making decisions based on whether or not they can afford to study nobody wins except the kids of rich parents who can afford a place that they wouldn't have been able to earn on a level playing field.
And if you look at the Scandinavian countries that do this now, it's not really a case of students being burdens on tax payers. They get their education for free, then they (again, ideally) go on to more skilled, and higher paying jobs than they would have otherwise. In turn, they pay more tax for the duration of their working lives.
This isn't really that different to the idea of HECS/HELP. Except of course that nobody gets lumped with a mountain of debt that they can't afford. And that the people who get places in university course are more likely to be those who deserve to be there, not the ones who can afford it.
FWIW I would totally be for people only being able to do 1 undergrad degree on HECS. People who don't know what they want, need to figure it out before, rather than after.
Dunno how many there actually are of them though, I suspect not many.
FWIW I would totally be for people only being able to do 1 undergrad degree on HECS. People who don't know what they want, need to figure it out before, rather than after.
Dunno how many there actually are of them though, I suspect not many.
Re-training is becoming pretty important to those 30+. I don't think that's a smart move. Fix the subsidy models, sure, but the country gains from people changing tracks. If you want a flexible workforce you need flexible training options.
Also, it would affect me directly over the next few years, so screw your idea :)
It is beneficial that we encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their abilities. These kids are (ideally) going to go on to be the adults who contribute to society.
ralphwiggumno.gif
I'm led to believe many countries that offer free higher education also have a high rate of qualified people immediately leaving that country for higher paying jobs elsewhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.
It is beneficial that we encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their abilities. These kids are (ideally) going to go on to be the adults who contribute to society.
ralphwiggumno.gif
I'm led to believe many countries that offer free higher education also have a high rate of qualified people immediately leaving that country for higher paying jobs elsewhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.
I don't know; haven't heard that before. Wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I'm certainly taking advantage of my education at the moment by working over here.
If someone does have the statistics, I'd be interested to see how long they stay away for. My guess is that most of them return inside of a decade.
It is beneficial that we encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their abilities. These kids are (ideally) going to go on to be the adults who contribute to society.
ralphwiggumno.gif
I'm led to believe many countries that offer free higher education also have a high rate of qualified people immediately leaving that country for higher paying jobs elsewhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.
I don't know; haven't heard that before. Wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I'm certainly taking advantage of my education at the moment by working over here.
If someone does have the statistics, I'd be interested to see how long they stay away for. My guess is that most of them return inside of a decade.
Aren't we that far from being one of the most highly paid workforces in the world anyway?
Most of the multinational companies keep telling us this.
The cost of university, either by HECS or by private fee, precludes most people from taking it on.
Even when I went to university finally in 2001 as a 25yo, I was paying for myself. Wouldn't have got in any other way. The $30000 I spent for a failed course after 2.5 years would have gone a long way back then..including being a decent deposit on a house.
However, to become a Librarian as I wanted to back then, i would have needed to do a Bachelor's Degree and then a Master's degree to get there. This is despite the fact I had spent the period 1994-1998 studying at TAFE to be a Library Technician. Incredibly, I couldn't even get RPL for that effort in the course.
I regret that period in my life. I really do.
So are you asking me to subsidise you to fail a course?
No i am saying the move to private fee courses, which is growing by the minute, actually precludes people from going to uni when they are able to.
We should be encouraging people to study - not placing barriers in front of them to do so.
The only people who support this move, are the vice chancellors. I wonder how many of them are members and donors to the Liberal party.
The majority of people hate the idea.
Heck in 24 hours, Labor has already had more than 20000 people sign it's petition to fight the changes proposed. Not entirely insignificant.
It is beneficial that we encourage the best and brightest to make the most of their abilities. These kids are (ideally) going to go on to be the adults who contribute to society.
ralphwiggumno.gif
I'm led to believe many countries that offer free higher education also have a high rate of qualified people immediately leaving that country for higher paying jobs elsewhere. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.
I don't know; haven't heard that before. Wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I'm certainly taking advantage of my education at the moment by working over here.
If someone does have the statistics, I'd be interested to see how long they stay away for. My guess is that most of them return inside of a decade.
I'm actually lost with what you are all arguing about.
Students are selfish hippies?
Liberals are evil?
Both are true, but I still don't know what you are all for or against.
Anyway, let the top 8 Unis have their fees deregulated. The Ivy League wannabes can fap themselves and the rest of us can get on with life. There are much friendlier places on the planet than those top 8 Unis.
I'm sure we could all grudgingly accept 50% student/50% government funded model, but deregulating the entire sector will probably force the student's percentage of funding up over the years ahead. It's risky. If fee deregulation is introduced, there is no way I would support government loans with higher than CPI interest rates.
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.
Because you farking idiot, we need engineers and scientists, and there are jobs for them, but the pay will just cover interest on a HECS bill
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.
Because you farking idiot, we need engineers and scientists, and there are jobs for them, but the pay will just cover interest on a HECS bill
If there is a shortage of an in demand job then the pay will rise accordingly.
That the pay doesn't even cover a HECS bill with interest would indicate that:
a) there isn't much demand OR
B) there is a plethora of supply.
FWIW most engineers I know seem to be able to pay the rent.
"noone is going to pay 200K to do a degree where there are limited jobs"
Its a deregulated market - if there are no people coming out of uni, there are more jobs! TWO, if there is noone doing the uni courses, they will drop the price to encourage people to attend?
Yes, there will be discrepancies between universities and courses, but to say that all universities will double in price, seems to be a ridiculous statement. I imagine that there will need to be constraints on how many international students can attend however, as that might price out local people quickly.
"noone is going to pay 200K to do a degree where there are limited jobs"
Its a deregulated market - if there are no people coming out of uni, there are more jobs! TWO, if there is noone doing the uni courses, they will drop the price to encourage people to attend?
Yes, there will be discrepancies between universities and courses, but to say that all universities will double in price, seems to be a ridiculous statement. I imagine that there will need to be constraints on how many international students can attend however, as that might price out local people quickly.
The issue is the change in who university is attractive to. The people going to uni should be those with aptitude and ability, not just those with the means or support networks that make the risk imposed by the debts incurred less of an issue.
"noone is going to pay 200K to do a degree where there are limited jobs"
Its a deregulated market - if there are no people coming out of uni, there are more jobs! TWO, if there is noone doing the uni courses, they will drop the price to encourage people to attend?
Yes, there will be discrepancies between universities and courses, but to say that all universities will double in price, seems to be a ridiculous statement. I imagine that there will need to be constraints on how many international students can attend however, as that might price out local people quickly.
This is a pretty big issue, without exaggeration 90% of my course is comprised of international students. Brb no spots for locals.
"noone is going to pay 200K to do a degree where there are limited jobs"
Its a deregulated market - if there are no people coming out of uni, there are more jobs! TWO, if there is noone doing the uni courses, they will drop the price to encourage people to attend?
Yes, there will be discrepancies between universities and courses, but to say that all universities will double in price, seems to be a ridiculous statement. I imagine that there will need to be constraints on how many international students can attend however, as that might price out local people quickly.
This is a pretty big issue, without exaggeration 90% of my course is comprised of international students. Brb no spots for locals.
