ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: chikopapi on April 27, 2008, 07:13:34 pm
-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597730-7583,00.html
...This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Full-fees should be allowed. Now its gonna be even HARDER to get into Uni because everyone will have to be going for the Commonwealth Assistance score. I had even made preparations for If I didnt get a good enough enter and where I might have to pay full-feee...
Urgh...Labor Government... >:(
-
...This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Full-fees should be allowed. Now its gonna be even HARDER to get into Uni because everyone will have to be going for the Commonwealth Assistance score. I had even made preparations for If I didnt get a good enough enter and where I might have to pay full-feee...
Urgh...Labor Government... >:(
Exactly. It is a classic case of "if I can't have it, you can't have it."
It is one thing to say that education shouldn't be decided by money as much as it is by merit (offering CSP places), but it is a completely different thing to say that people who can afford education should not be allowed to purchase it just because there are poor people who can't afford education.
-
Its also bad for us 08'ers because enter scores are gonna get fucked around with if this comes in.
-
OMFG...
LABOR != GOOD
-
This is a complete and utter joke. But I doubt it'll go through this year (well at least I hope).
-
This is a complete and utter joke. But I doubt it'll go through this year (well at least I hope).
Would you take DFee Commerce @ Melbourne over CSP Commerce @ Monash??? :o
-
What's DFee?
He certainly should have that choice, but under a Rudd regime, graduate VCE students could lose that right.
-
Time for sensible, comprehensive, well-thought-out reforms that let more Aussies go to Aussie universities.
Pity very little of it could be found in that author's piece.
I am curious as to the number of places that will decrease at University, to me at least, it seems that the Government will just pick up funding for the current Full Fee places...
-
What's DFee?
He certainly should have that choice, but under a Rudd regime, graduate VCE students could lose that right.
I think he meant FFee not DFee... :)
-
No. There is such thing called DFee, it's Deferred Fee Place. And yeah, I would TEHHEEEEE :D :D
-
...But I doubt it'll go through this year (well at least I hope).
That makes me feel a whole lot better
-
There seems to a huge chunk of xenophobia in that article. That's not to say that I agree with Rudd's policy of banning undegrad fee places.
-
I don't see a problem with converting full fee to CSP. University acceptance should be meritocratic, and if the government that the citizens elected is willing to pick up the tab, then go for it. They're not removing the places. They're simply converting them to CSP. I really don't see why that's such a problem. As for that article, what a racist bitch.
I agree that the protests were a bit questionable re: the chinese embassy helping to set them up, but, it's their inalienable right. :-/
-
There was nothing said about converting them to CSP. It will simply result in a loss of places that could have resulted if full fee was allowed.
-
As far as I could surmise from that article, they're being converted:
"Aussie parents shouldn't be able to pay up to get their kids into unis when those kids may not quite have made the grade, coming in with entrance scores a few points lower than the official commonwealth-funded places. In the interests of so-called equality, Canberra will pick up the tab for the money that some middle-class Aussie parents were prepared to pay anyway.
Estimates range from about $300 million to as high as $700 million a year extra that the federal Government will have to pay to our universities to compensate them for this change of policy - dropping domestic fee-paying places - which it says will operate from as early as next year.
"
I.E. $300-700M to convert full-fee to CSP.
-
As long as there are the same amount of places, there's no problem. If it means that there is a reduction of places overall, then it's making things worse. The idea of CSP, after all, is about providing access to uni.
-
As long as there are the same amount of places, there's no problem. If it means that there is a reduction of places overall, then it's making things worse. The idea of CSP, after all, is about providing access to uni.
Agree, but I'm not too sure what the effects of the changes will be.
-
Personally, I like the idea of abolishing full fee places. Each year, many VCE students try really hard and just miss out on a place. Yet people who pay full fee get a place when they often haven't put in as much effort. Unfair much?
Secondly, I don't mean for this to sound racist, but many of the foreign university students here struggle to understand English, and as a result, they are unable to find employment. Yet people who just missed out because they didn't/couldn't pay full fee miss out all together...
-
Secondly, I don't mean for this to sound racist, but many of the foreign university students here struggle to understand English, and as a result, they are unable to find employment. Yet people who just missed out because they didn't/couldn't pay full fee miss out all together...
I think this only relates to Australian Full-fee places.
-
Personally, I like the idea of abolishing full fee places. Each year, many VCE students try really hard and just miss out on a place. Yet people who pay full fee get a place when they often haven't put in as much effort. Unfair much?
Secondly, I don't mean for this to sound racist, but many of the foreign university students here struggle to understand English, and as a result, they are unable to find employment. Yet people who just missed out because they didn't/couldn't pay full fee miss out all together...
so much for free markets.... So people who can afford full-fee can't pay for a place. Wow.
-
Personally, I like the idea of abolishing full fee places. Each year, many VCE students try really hard and just miss out on a place. Yet people who pay full fee get a place when they often haven't put in as much effort. Unfair much?
So? The people who pay-full also miss out by just a bit. Eg. The Commonwealth supported enter for Law at Melb Uni is something like 99.3, for Full-Fee its like 97. They still have to work just as hard.
-
Personally, I like the idea of abolishing full fee places. Each year, many VCE students try really hard and just miss out on a place. Yet people who pay full fee get a place when they often haven't put in as much effort. Unfair much?
So? The people who pay-full also miss out by just a bit. Eg. The Commonwealth supported enter for Law at Melb Uni is something like 99.3, for Full-Fee its like 97. They still have to work just as hard.
I think you mean Monash. Undergraduate law has been phased out at melb uni
are fee paying places really fair
imagine this... someone desperately wanted to do law at monash, and studied hard all year, they achieved a enter of 99.... meanwhile someone else who had a rich background got 94.5 (enter needed for fullfee law at monash) ... but he got the place
fair? I think not
cutting the que...just cause you have got extra money... i dont think its really fair
-
Personally, I like the idea of abolishing full fee places. Each year, many VCE students try really hard and just miss out on a place. Yet people who pay full fee get a place when they often haven't put in as much effort. Unfair much?
So? The people who pay-full also miss out by just a bit. Eg. The Commonwealth supported enter for Law at Melb Uni is something like 99.3, for Full-Fee its like 97. They still have to work just as hard.
I think you mean Monash. Undergraduate law has been phased out at melb uni
are fee paying places really fair
imagine this... someone desperately wanted to do law at monash, and studied hard all year, they achieved a enter of 99.... meanwhile someone else who had a rich background got 94.5 (enter needed for fullfee law at monash) ... but he got the place
fair? I think not
cutting the que...just cause you have got extra money... i dont think its really fair
you are sounding as if education is a right rather than privelage
CSP is commonwealth-supported-place, meaning tax-payer's money.
if we were to abolish full-fee places, that generate as much as 25% of universities revenues, and the government plans to reinburse this, where do you think this money will come from?
one of those places is by cutting carer's benefits. is that more fair?
we should be thanking full-fee payers
so rather than rallying for equality, probably at the price of lower quality of education (this is probably inevitable, the government has been cutting funds to universities for a while now, and this is the next step), is that a good outcome for anyone?
-
Quote from: Mao on Today at 06:03:21 PM
"you are sounding as if education is a right rather than privelage"
well I actually believe education is both a right and a privilege
Quote from: Mao on Today at 06:03:21 PM
"CSP is commonwealth-supported-place, meaning tax-payer's money.
if we were to abolish full-fee places, that generate as much as 25% of universities revenues, and the government plans to reinburse this, where do you think this money will come from?"
sure taxpayers money will be taken.... but really, education is priceless, surely we can spare this to educate our future generations (especially when $2.2 billion was spent on forces to iraq last year)... it would surely relieve individuals who cannot afford fee places
Quote from: Mao on Today at 06:03:21 PM
"so rather than rallying for equality, probably at the price of lower quality of education (this is probably inevitable, the government has been cutting funds to universities for a while now, and this is the next step), is that a good outcome for anyone?"
How exactly will the education quality will decrease, if the Government is cutting funds then its already decreasing now isn't it? If fee places are cut, funding won't be cut, it will all be reinbursed by the government so I don't really see how that effects education quality
PS sorry about my bad quoting... I CBF doing it the proper way :D :uglystupid2:
-
Quote from: Mao on Today at 06:03:21 PM
"you are sounding as if education is a right rather than privelage"
well I actually believe education is both a right and a privilege
in some countries it is a privilage not many people can afford. we certainly cannot assume that EVERYONE is entitled to it, especially tertiary education.
Quote from: Mao on Today at 06:03:21 PM
"CSP is commonwealth-supported-place, meaning tax-payer's money.
if we were to abolish full-fee places, that generate as much as 25% of universities revenues, and the government plans to reinburse this, where do you think this money will come from?"
sure taxpayers money will be taken.... but really, education is priceless, surely we can spare this to educate our future generations (especially when $2.2 billion was spent on forces to iraq last year)... it would surely relieve individuals who cannot afford fee places
my point has not been addressed
if that extra money comes partially from carer's benefits, what makes education more valuable than another person's quality of life?
by abolishing full-fees, you are also denying the right of some people, who have the assets, to chase their dreams. If someone is short of the score by 1 ENTER, for example, why should they be denied to purchase their education (treating it as a privilege)?
Quote from: Mao on Today at 06:03:21 PM
"so rather than rallying for equality, probably at the price of lower quality of education (this is probably inevitable, the government has been cutting funds to universities for a while now, and this is the next step), is that a good outcome for anyone?"
How exactly will the education quality will decrease, if the Government is cutting funds then its already decreasing now isn't it? If fee places are cut, funding won't be cut, it will all be reinbursed by the government so I don't really see how that effects education quality
I highly doubt the government will continue subsidising this huge loss of revenue in the tertiary-education sector for a long time.
it is a pipe-dream to think that everyone will be willing to pay those extra millions just so some people can have a so-called "equality" (a full-length discussion on equality vs inequality http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,2185.0.html)
also, on full-fee places, there is something called "FEE-HELP", just like HECS used in CSP, so normal people CAN afford tertiary education, just that they have to be prepared to pay for it later on.
-
Well i've talked to an advisor to Glyn Davis and they still have no idea how they are going to be compensated.
A lot of people have been engaging in false dilemmas i.e. talking about "converting" fee places into CSO, and how fee paying students "cut the queue". This sort of talk misses the point. It doesn't justify a ban. You can have both full-fee places and the government subsidize more CSP places.
Furthermore, with the introduction of FEE-HELP loans, the arguments against fee-places on the basis of 'meritocracy' fall to bits.
-
Well i've talked to an advisor to Glyn Davis and they still have no idea how they are going to be compensated.
Secondly, a lot of people have been engaging in false dilemmas, most of the talk about conversion, and "cutting the queue" misses the point.
It doesn't justify a ban. You can have both full-fee places and the government subsidize more CSP places.
I don't think I understand what you say
are you saying that arguments here are bad or that its not actually going to happen the way we think it's going to happen? =S
*confused*
-
The arguments here don't justify the conclusion and i don't believe that any person here knows what's going to happen after the ban. The government and policy advisor to Glyn Davis doesn't even know what's going to happen.
-
they shouldnt ban it...
its a bad idea, BAD~ =(
(but on the bright side, if it does happen, clearly-in will be slightly lower if the number of places are still kept the same?)
thats a pretty big if tho...
-
Some of the arguments come from a real misunderstanding of how the whole system actually operates.
-
If you are going to ban undergrad full-fee places then according to the arguments made here you should ban it for international undergrad fee places too.
-
they shouldnt ban it...
its a bad idea, BAD~ =(
(but on the bright side, if it does happen, clearly-in will be slightly lower if the number of places are still kept the same?)
thats a pretty big if tho...
If this scenario was true you would reasonably expect top end courses (eg Medicine and Law at the more prestigious Universities) to experience less of a decrease in Clearly-In's than you would expect for courses where demand was weak.
-
Given FEE-HELP loans nowadays, the distinction between FEE and CSP places really blurs, and CSP places become de facto Commonwealth Scholarships if you like.
There was another thread as well about Rudd banning fee-help loans, does anyone have the link to it?
-
this one?
HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP
The creator of Australia’s HECS system says it is due for an overhaul, with loans for students going to private institutions costing taxpayers more in lost interest earnings than those who go to public universities.
Professor Bruce Chapman says the nation’s income contingent loans system has changed significantly since it was introduced in 1989, the main difference being that it is now available to a large number and range of private sector institutions.
http://www.campusreview.com.au/pages/story-details.php?idArticle=3334
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/student-debts-out-of-control/2008/01/14/1200159363436.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23054956-25918,00.html
http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/10/23/is-there-an-implicit-subsidy-in-the-hecs-debt/
-
nah i remember i was debating it on a thread here somewhere
-
Agree wth Brendan, only a few DFEE courses are completely inaccessible for the average earner, due to the FEE-HELP system. It's an unnecessary move that will rob the universities of an important source of income. DFEE spots for true 3 and even 4 year bachelor degrees are available to any student who bothers to research their tertiary education options properly.
Funnily enough, due to a combination UMAT/ENTER/Interview for Med, there is likely to be a increase in competitiveness for spots
-
So? The people who pay-full also miss out by just a bit. Eg. The Commonwealth supported enter for Law at Melb Uni is something like 99.3, for Full-Fee its like 97. They still have to work just as hard.
Oh, so 99.3 = 97 now? The difference is probably a touch bigger than you think. Once you're that high up the scale, that difference between those two ENTERs is about 15 aggregate points
if we were to abolish full-fee places, that generate as much as 25% of universities revenues, and the government plans to reinburse this, where do you think this money will come from?
one of those places is by cutting carer's benefits. is that more fair?
we should be thanking full-fee payers
We could argue forever about the national budget/which areas deserve what money/etc. But we won't. Remember, many countries offer university for free, and still, they have better universities (and sometimes better health systems) than Australia.
Also, do you think money taken from carers will be the sole outcome of abolishing full-fee places? Surely you don't agree 101% with the budget. Maybe money taken from carers is due to money handed out to jobless people, etc?
-
Remember, many countries offer university for free, and still, they have better universities (and sometimes better health systems) than Australia.
You mean, at the tax-payers expense =P
-
Free!!? Who do you think pays? The tooth-fairy?
-
Free!!? Who do you think pays? The tooth-fairy?
If only.
Yes, obviously at the tax-payers' expense. But I'm pretty sure you'd end up having to pay a lot less in total fees.
-
Increasing taxes is a disincentive for workers to work. It massively distorts the economy and a lot of dead-weight loss is produced. It is a mistake to believe that education is somehow valued more so than the widespread costs of a taxation regime, because in the economy there will always exist comparative advantages and scarcity of resources. That is, some people will be better off doing something else rather than being educated, and it is not fair (or efficient) to force them to foot the bill for others. A system of free exchange of goods and services will achieve the most efficient allocation of these resources, while a centrally-funded education system will certainly cause society more harm than good.
Sure, there are arguments that education is a public good, but this is really only significant at the primary and secondary level. Tertiary education is mostly an individual value-add process, and does not serve society as significantly as primary education does (social cohesion, communication, etc.). Hence, it is not justified to make tertiary education free at the expense of the taxpayers. Perhaps it should be subsidised somewhat, but it certainly should not be made "free".
-
In terms of equity, I know of no other programs that so clearly involve taxing the poor to help the well-to-do as government subsidies to higher education. They involve taxing the residents of Broadmeadows to send the children from Toorak to university.
Let me hasten to note that I recognize that most college students do not come from wealthy families, that higher education offers many children from poor families an opportunity to improve their lot.
But that situation does not alter the facts about who benefits and who pays. Students at institutions of higher education come disproportionately from families in the middleand upper-income classes. Equally important, students from lower-income classes are highly likely to end up in the middleand upper-income classes--certainly, far more likely to do so than their counterparts who do not get the benefit of a higher education, yet pay taxes to finance the benefits to their more fortunate contemporaries.
It is eminently desirable that every young man and woman, regardless of his or her parents' income, social position, residence or race, have the opportunity to get a higher education, provided that he or she is willing to pay for it--either currently or out of the higher income the schooling will enable him or her to earn. There is a strong case for providing income contingent loans (think HELP loans) sufficient to assure opportunity to all.
However, there is no case for subsidizing persons who get a higher education at the expense of those who do not.
In this area, those of us who are in the middleand upper-income classes have conned the poor into subsidizing us on a grand scale--yet we not only have no decent shame, we boast to the treetops of our selflessness and public-spiritedness.
-
they have better universities (and sometimes better health systems) than Australia.
Um, our health care has nothing to do with this. Australia has universal health care... it is completely dissimilar to our university system. It is free for those who can't afford it (public patients), and those who have sufficent funds and would like special treatment (shorter waiting lists etc) can obtain private health insurance. Australia actually has one of the best health care systems in the world. There as flaws, however you'd be hard pressed to find one system which is much better. (I should know, I did my IB extended essay on the characteristics of health care systems in various countries! :P)
I may edit this post later... tired. lol
-
why?
There are kids in med on full fee spots with higher enter scores than me (CSP)
The money those fees bring in is a major source of revenue
This is an estimate: there are about 80 students per year at monash who pay around 38K for a Full fee place
So thats 400 (across 5 years) students paying $15.2m
Thats one course at one univeristy, the potential loss to univeristies could be massive
-
they have better universities (and sometimes better health systems) than Australia.
Um, our health care has nothing to do with this. Australia has universal health care... it is completely dissimilar to our university system. It is free for those who can't afford it (public patients), and those who have sufficent funds and would like special treatment (shorter waiting lists etc) can obtain private health insurance. Australia actually has one of the best health care systems in the world. There as flaws, however you'd be hard pressed to find one system which is much better. (I should know, I did my IB extended essay on the characteristics of health care systems in various countries! :P)
I mentioned the health system because someone mentioned that abolishing full-fee places takes money away from carers. I wasn't comparing universities to the health system. By the way, I am aware the actual system here is quite good, there's just an insane lack of nurses, etc.
-
they have better universities (and sometimes better health systems) than Australia.
Um, our health care has nothing to do with this. Australia has universal health care... it is completely dissimilar to our university system. It is free for those who can't afford it (public patients), and those who have sufficent funds and would like special treatment (shorter waiting lists etc) can obtain private health insurance. Australia actually has one of the best health care systems in the world. There as flaws, however you'd be hard pressed to find one system which is much better. (I should know, I did my IB extended essay on the characteristics of health care systems in various countries! :P)
I mentioned the health system because someone mentioned that abolishing full-fee places takes money away from carers. I was comparing universities to the health system. By the way, I am aware the actual system here is quite good, there's just an insane lack of nurses, etc.
and that insane analogy still does not validate taking tax-payers money, regardless of where they came from (in this case, I have mentioned carer's benefit before) so that full-fees places can abolished over small margins on the ideal of equality (if that is actually something we should embrace).
-
I think that for medicine there should be no full-fee places available though- that doesn't seem right.
Why is medicine so important?
-
they have better universities (and sometimes better health systems) than Australia.
Um, our health care has nothing to do with this. Australia has universal health care... it is completely dissimilar to our university system. It is free for those who can't afford it (public patients), and those who have sufficent funds and would like special treatment (shorter waiting lists etc) can obtain private health insurance. Australia actually has one of the best health care systems in the world. There as flaws, however you'd be hard pressed to find one system which is much better. (I should know, I did my IB extended essay on the characteristics of health care systems in various countries! :P)
I mentioned the health system because someone mentioned that abolishing full-fee places takes money away from carers. I was comparing universities to the health system. By the way, I am aware the actual system here is quite good, there's just an insane lack of nurses, etc.
and that insane analogy still does not validate taking tax-payers money, regardless of where they came from (in this case, I have mentioned carer's benefit before) so that full-fees places can abolished over small margins on the ideal of equality (if that is actually something we should embrace).
Ah, I meant for it to say "I wasn't comparing..." Typo. It was not meant to be an analogy. Sorry for misleading you there...
Again I would like to mention that there are definitely other areas that taxpayer money shouldn't be given to. Universities are not one of these areas. How about we talk about how the dole encourages people not to work. Or how people have babies just so they can spend the baby bonus on themselves, and don't care about their child. Do these areas deserve the money? It's a mistake to say "abolishing full fee places is taking money from carers."
-
In terms of equity, I know of no other programs that so clearly involve taxing the poor to help the well-to-do as government subsidies to higher education. They involve taxing the residents of Broadmeadows to send the children from Toorak to university.
Let me hasten to note that I recognize that most college students do not come from wealthy families, that higher education offers many children from poor families an opportunity to improve their lot.
But that situation does not alter the facts about who benefits and who pays. Students at institutions of higher education come disproportionately from families in the middleand upper-income classes. Equally important, students from lower-income classes are highly likely to end up in the middleand upper-income classes--certainly, far more likely to do so than their counterparts who do not get the benefit of a higher education, yet pay taxes to finance the benefits to their more fortunate contemporaries.
It is eminently desirable that every young man and woman, regardless of his or her parents' income, social position, residence or race, have the opportunity to get a higher education, provided that he or she is willing to pay for it--either currently or out of the higher income the schooling will enable him or her to earn. There is a strong case for providing income contingent loans (think HELP loans) sufficient to assure opportunity to all.
However, there is no case for subsidizing persons who get a higher education at the expense of those who do not.
In this area, those of us who are in the middleand upper-income classes have conned the poor into subsidizing us on a grand scale--yet we not only have no decent shame, we boast to the treetops of our selflessness and public-spiritedness.
This eye-opening post should not be ignored due to petty quibbling about trivial and irrelevant matters.
-
This eye-opening post should not be ignored due to petty quibbling about trivial and irrelevant matters.
Care to enlighten me about what is eye-opening?
-
Who would have thought that well-intentioned people who wish to provide a free education, to promote equality, actually serve the rich? Unintentional or not, the consequences are dire.
-
This eye-opening post should not be ignored due to petty quibbling about trivial and irrelevant matters.
Care to enlighten me about what is eye-opening?
I was going to ask a similar question... I'm not sure I understood the OP's point. :-[
"Students at institutions of higher education come disproportionately from families in the middleand upper-income classes."
To me, this sounds like an argument for abolishment. If university students mainly come from rich families, wouldn't this imply they are buying their way in, taking places of people who can't buy their way in?
-
This eye-opening post should not be ignored due to petty quibbling about trivial and irrelevant matters.
Care to enlighten me about what is eye-opening?
I was going to ask a similar question... I'm not sure I understood the OP's point. :-[
"Students at institutions of higher education come disproportionately from families in the middleand upper-income classes."
To me, this sounds like an argument for abolishment. If university students mainly come from rich families, wouldn't this imply they are buying their way in, taking places of people who can't buy their way in?
'wut.'
Circular logic much?
If rich people are earning their way in (as in, by marks), why restrict them by removing places that they weren't getting into anyway...?
A common misconception has been addressed too many times, yet it's still ignored. The number of full fee places does not change the number of CSP places.. Write that down in big letters...full fee does not affect CSP. It's merely a perception of inequality, 'they're buying their way in'. Removing said places will only reduce the net amount of places, thus opportunities for people to study. It does NOT affect anyone who's in a CSP place *at all*.
Besides, VCE isn't always a good indicator of university performance (hence the benefit of lateral entry into CSP), but I digress.
The CSP system does need an overhaul, I'll admit that much. But full fee places should not fall in favour of CSP. Why not offer both and give people a choice? Study hard, and you'll pay less. Miss out on a CSP place, but still able to take a fee place if you want/able (with the option of moving into a CSP place if you prove your worth). On the slightly off-topic of health, we should treat Uni education like our dual public-private medical system - we know it works well.
-
I don't see exactly how abolishing CSPs would be good for equality. Lower income earners who may not benefit directly do subsidise university through taxation, but they pay a lower proportion of their salary in tax than people who earn higher wages and also have the option of university open to them if they wish to take it and work to get into a position where their income could be higher and I do believe that even tertiary education could be seen as a merit good, especially now that a degree plays a much more crucial role in one's employability than ever before. Sure, there is probably a disproportionate ratio of higher income earners and lower income earners represented at university, but having full fee places only helps lower income kids if their place is funded by them. If instead the government replaced the funding universities received by full fee students and opened up more CSP places, that would mean that a greater proportion of lower income earners who couldn't afford full fee get access to uni and that university entrance is based primarily on merit (as it should be). Granted, some of these people may be higher income earners who would have otherwise paid full fee are getting a subsidised place, but if they have shown that they deserve that place over others then that isn't the equivalent to stabbing equality's jugular.
-
I don't see exactly how abolishing CSPs would be good for equality. Lower income earners who may not benefit directly do subsidise university through taxation, but they pay a lower proportion of their salary in tax than people who earn higher wages and also have the option of university open to them if they wish to take it and work to get into a position where their income could be higher and I do believe that even tertiary education could be seen as a merit good, especially now that a degree plays a much more crucial role in one's employability than ever before. Sure, there is probably a disproportionate ratio of higher income earners and lower income earners represented at university, but having full fee places only helps lower income kids if their place is funded by them. If instead the government replaced the funding universities received by full fee students and opened up more CSP places, that would mean that a greater proportion of lower income earners who couldn't afford full fee get access to uni and that university entrance is based primarily on merit (as it should be). Granted, some of these people may be higher income earners who would have otherwise paid full fee are getting a subsidised place, but if they have shown that they deserve that place over others then that isn't the equivalent to stabbing equality's jugular.
what! they're not abolishing CSP, they're killing full fee places...
-
I don't see exactly how abolishing CSPs would be good for equality. Lower income earners who may not benefit directly do subsidise university through taxation, but they pay a lower proportion of their salary in tax than people who earn higher wages and also have the option of university open to them if they wish to take it and work to get into a position where their income could be higher and I do believe that even tertiary education could be seen as a merit good, especially now that a degree plays a much more crucial role in one's employability than ever before. Sure, there is probably a disproportionate ratio of higher income earners and lower income earners represented at university, but having full fee places only helps lower income kids if their place is funded by them. If instead the government replaced the funding universities received by full fee students and opened up more CSP places, that would mean that a greater proportion of lower income earners who couldn't afford full fee get access to uni and that university entrance is based primarily on merit (as it should be). Granted, some of these people may be higher income earners who would have otherwise paid full fee are getting a subsidised place, but if they have shown that they deserve that place over others then that isn't the equivalent to stabbing equality's jugular.
what! they're not abolishing CSP, they're killing full fee places...
If they killed off CSP, a lot of people would be screwed.
-
I don't see exactly how abolishing CSPs would be good for equality. Lower income earners who may not benefit directly do subsidise university through taxation, but they pay a lower proportion of their salary in tax than people who earn higher wages and also have the option of university open to them if they wish to take it and work to get into a position where their income could be higher and I do believe that even tertiary education could be seen as a merit good, especially now that a degree plays a much more crucial role in one's employability than ever before. Sure, there is probably a disproportionate ratio of higher income earners and lower income earners represented at university, but having full fee places only helps lower income kids if their place is funded by them. If instead the government replaced the funding universities received by full fee students and opened up more CSP places, that would mean that a greater proportion of lower income earners who couldn't afford full fee get access to uni and that university entrance is based primarily on merit (as it should be). Granted, some of these people may be higher income earners who would have otherwise paid full fee are getting a subsidised place, but if they have shown that they deserve that place over others then that isn't the equivalent to stabbing equality's jugular.
what! they're not abolishing CSP, they're killing full fee places...
If they killed off CSP, a lot of people would be screwed.
if they abolished CSP but still maintained FEE-HELP, it just means people have more to repay after finishing their course.
but that's not going to happen.
-
I didn't say they were abolishing CSPs, I'm saying that CSPs shouldn't be abolished (in response to the people who say that they should be). I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
-
I don't see exactly how abolishing CSPs would be good for equality. Lower income earners who may not benefit directly do subsidise university through taxation, but they pay a lower proportion of their salary in tax than people who earn higher wages and also have the option of university open to them if they wish to take it and work to get into a position where their income could be higher and I do believe that even tertiary education could be seen as a merit good, especially now that a degree plays a much more crucial role in one's employability than ever before. Sure, there is probably a disproportionate ratio of higher income earners and lower income earners represented at university, but having full fee places only helps lower income kids if their place is funded by them. If instead the government replaced the funding universities received by full fee students and opened up more CSP places, that would mean that a greater proportion of lower income earners who couldn't afford full fee get access to uni and that university entrance is based primarily on merit (as it should be). Granted, some of these people may be higher income earners who would have otherwise paid full fee are getting a subsidised place, but if they have shown that they deserve that place over others then that isn't the equivalent to stabbing equality's jugular.
what! they're not abolishing CSP, they're killing full fee places...
If they killed off CSP, a lot of people would be screwed.
It would be like USA!!! :( :( NOOOOOOOO STFU. lol
At least there would be lower ENTERs 8-)
-
on second thought, after properly reading this again:
why should the education system be based on merit (and treated as a right) for everyone? People should have a choice if they want to invest in their future given that they have the chance.
The number of places of full-fee, as excalibur has pointed out, does NOT affect CSP, so why take away the choices of those people who have not proven to be "as" merit-worthy as CSP-attenders?
why can the government not just grant more CSP?
even when equality is an ideal, it should not be done at the cost of taking away choice from those who have the capabilities of supporting their own education rather than depending on tax-payers.
-
I don't see exactly how abolishing CSPs would be good for equality. Lower income earners who may not benefit directly do subsidise university through taxation, but they pay a lower proportion of their salary in tax than people who earn higher wages and also have the option of university open to them if they wish to take it and work to get into a position where their income could be higher and I do believe that even tertiary education could be seen as a merit good, especially now that a degree plays a much more crucial role in one's employability than ever before. Sure, there is probably a disproportionate ratio of higher income earners and lower income earners represented at university, but having full fee places only helps lower income kids if their place is funded by them. If instead the government replaced the funding universities received by full fee students and opened up more CSP places, that would mean that a greater proportion of lower income earners who couldn't afford full fee get access to uni and that university entrance is based primarily on merit (as it should be). Granted, some of these people may be higher income earners who would have otherwise paid full fee are getting a subsidised place, but if they have shown that they deserve that place over others then that isn't the equivalent to stabbing equality's jugular.
what! they're not abolishing CSP, they're killing full fee places...
If they killed off CSP, a lot of people would be screwed.
if they abolished CSP but still maintained FEE-HELP, it just means people have more to repay after finishing their course.
but that's not going to happen.
on second thought, after properly reading this again:
why should the education system be based on merit (and treated as a right) for everyone? People should have a choice if they want to invest in their future given that they have the chance.
The number of places of full-fee, as excalibur has pointed out, does NOT affect CSP, so why take away the choices of those people who have not proven to be "as" merit-worthy as CSP-attenders?
why can the government not just grant more CSP?
If you view it in the sense that those Full Fee places will be transferred to CSP places then the number of places for Full Fee (ie. zero) obviously does affect the number of CSP places (ie. an increase).
Opportunity Cost Mao, they can not do everything. They can choose to provide more of one service at the expense of another and in this case it is at the expense of Full fee places. Not to say that I agree with it but their is quite obviously a relationship between the number of CSP places and the number of full fee places if the Fed. Govs proposition is to transfer those FF places to CSP places.
-
Yeah. Is there a quota on how many students a university can teach in one course? If so, it's kind of irrelevant as to whether those places are made up of full fee or CSPs because there's a limit anyway.
-
There are kids in med on full fee spots with higher enter scores than me (CSP)
sorry to interrupt.
but how does that work?
how can you have a lower ENTER and be on a CSP, yet others have a higher enter and pay full fee?
-
If you view it in the sense that those Full Fee places will be transferred to CSP places then the number of places for Full Fee (ie. zero) obviously does affect the number of CSP places (ie. an increase).
Opportunity Cost Mao, they can not do everything. They can choose to provide more of one service at the expense of another and in this case it is at the expense of Full fee places. Not to say that I agree with it but their is quite obviously a relationship between the number of CSP places and the number of full fee places if the Fed. Govs proposition is to transfer those FF places to CSP places.
you havent addressed my point
the motivation behind this is nothing more than an idealised sense of equality that people blindly chases.
THAT very thing is at the cost of destroying opportunities and choices of people (remembering FEE-HELP)
so instead of "subsidising" full-fee places with tax-payers money, why can they not just increase the number of CSPs? That will increase the number of opportunities as opposed to destroying some.
-
why should the education system be based on merit (and treated as a right) for everyone? People should have a choice if they want to invest in their future given that they have the chance.
The thing is, people want the Government-sponsored education system to be based on merit.
If the rich want to establish private universities, they can, and nobody will object as long as the Government doesn't fund them.
-
why should the education system be based on merit (and treated as a right) for everyone? People should have a choice if they want to invest in their future given that they have the chance.
The thing is, people want the Government-sponsored education system to be based on merit.
If the rich want to establish private universities, they can, and nobody will object as long as the Government doesn't fund them.
but it IS based on merit
thats why full-fee places exist, NOT commonwealth-supported.
-
1. Why should the Commonwealth government be imposing quotas in the first place?
A lot of debate seem to be like this:
How many times should you beat your wife in a day?
A: twice
B: no, 3 times!
Me: Why should you beat your wife in the first place?
2. You could subsidize more CSP places and allow universities to have undergrad fee places at the same time, why ban it for?
3. Why must the Cth Govt. subsidize universities as opposed to students?
4. What about international fee students? They be banned too?
According to most of the arguments made here Bond Unviersity should be banned too,
Most of the arguments made here don't justify the conclusion that undergrad fee places should be banned.
-
but it IS based on merit
thats why full-fee places exist, NOT commonwealth-supported.
Please tell me how a full-fee place that does not have the same entry requirements as a CS place equates to a system based on merit?
-
According to most of the arguments made here Bond Unviersity should be banned too,
It is certainly an argument against any government funding. The same can apply to private schools.
-
There are kids in med on full fee spots with higher enter scores than me (CSP)
sorry to interrupt.
but how does that work?
how can you have a lower ENTER and be on a CSP, yet others have a higher enter and pay full fee?
BA22 is doing medicine, and the entry considerations into medicine are interview, ENTER and UMAT. (Not just ENTER score)
BA22 may have recieved a lower ENTER, however he may have done well on the interview and/or UMAT in comparison to the students with a higher ENTER who are doing fee-paying.
-
"The number of Fee-places does directly affect the number of CSP, as there are limits to how many students we can physically allow into a course (depending on: seat numbers in lecturer theatres, facilities and the number of lecturers we have available for a particular subject). These fee-places would be converted to CSP if the government reimbursed the university for lost revenue.”
-My boyfriend's mum who works at La Trobe University
(She's asked not to be identified.)
-
But that assumes that:
1. the quantity supplied is constant and can never change.
2. the money from fee-places can't be used to fund investment in expanding suppl
If that's true then the argument for banning fee places must also apply to international fee places too. They should be banned too.
-
If that's true then the argument for banning fee places must also apply to international fee places too. They should be banned too.
Yep, exchange students would be allowed, but not full-fee paying international students.
-
If that's true then the argument for banning fee places must also apply to international fee places too. They should be banned too.
Nah they can come because they are fun and their culture can sometimes lead to strange events occurring =P
...
jokes
-
But that assumes that:
1. the quantity supplied is constant and can never change.
2. the money from fee-places can't be used to fund investment in expanding suppl
If that's true then the argument for banning fee places must also apply to international fee places too. They should be banned too.
She didn't state her opinion on the matter, but she thought she'd enlighten you with the facts. Individuals here stated the number of fee places does not directly affect CSP, and unfortunately they were misinformed.
In response:
1) That is not true. It can change according to development and the number of staff members available to teach a course, however most years it is the status quo.
2) Um, not all revenue collected from fee-paying places is invested directly into the department. The university allocates money to each department (obviously it’s variable) depending on their requirements in a particular given year. If the Rudd-Labor government subsidised the lost revenue from fee places, the university would still be able to give the department the same framework of fees and thus the places would be converted to CSP as they would be able to sustain their resources and adequately pay the teaching staff. (I think that’s what you meant…)
On the international issue –
This is a completely separate debate. International places are expensive, however they still take into account your university entrance rank. The reason why the fees are higher is due to the fact that the government does not subsidise the places for international students and so the university has to charge more and put the cost onto the student. They are still a necessity, however perhaps the Rudd-Labor government would like to consider subsidising these places, too.
Hope that made sense. May edit it later and such.
-
If the Rudd-Labor government subsidised the lost revenue from fee places, the university would still be able to give the department the same framework of fees and thus the places would be converted to CSP as they would be able to sustain their resources and adequately pay the teaching staff.
But you haven't addressed the question of why can't you have both.
Why must it be that you must ban fee places?
Why can't you allow universities to have the the freedom to offer fee places and subsidize more CSP places.
CSP Places are allocated by the Commonwealth Govt using quotas. Yes that's right the system is run like the Soviet Union.
On the international issue –
This is a completely separate debate. International places are expensive, however they still take into account your university entrance rank.
And domestic fee-places don't look at your ENTER?
not all revenue collected from fee-paying places is invested directly into the department.
Why must it be necessary for them to be?
It is simply absurd to suggest that there is simply a fixed number of spots at a university, and that no matter what happens to demand, and no matter how much people are willing to pay, that supply cannot and will not change.
Even then, this debate is a lot like "How many times should you beat your wife?"
I do not believe that the Government should be meddling with the affairs of individual universities to such an extent as they currently are.
By all means, provide income-contingent-loans (HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP) but at the same time, there is no justification for the Government dictating to universities whom they can and cannot admit, what courses they can and cannot provide, etc.
-
Woah Brendan that was a late reply :P
To be honest, I only skimmed over what you wrote, but I do believe I didn't express my opinion, I just stated facts that were passed on from a reliable source, something that this thread was lacking.
Personally I believe students should have a choice as to whether they want to do fee-paying or not anyway.
Lol, "Even then, this debate is a lot like "How many times should you beat your wife?""
I'm pretty sure beating one's wife is completely dissimilar to whether fee paying places at Australian Universities should exist... but hey.
-
CSP Places are allocated by the Commonwealth Govt using quotas. Yes that's right the system is run like the Soviet Union.
Everything done by the Soviet Union is considered to be evil, wrong, but most of all un-Australian...
-
It is simply absurd to suggest that there is simply a fixed number of spots at a university, and that no matter what happens to demand, and no matter how much people are willing to pay, that supply cannot and will not change.
I don't believe I ever suggested that? Actually, I don't believe I stated even half the things you wrote. The government doesn't allocate CSP places, the god damn university does according to funding and such. Sorry I didn't go into great depth on the matter
1) That is not true. It can change according to development and the number of staff members available to teach a course, however most years it is the status quo.
-
I don't believe I ever suggested that? Actually, I don't believe I stated even half the things you wrote.
Well it was either you or someone else or your bf's mum. One or the other.
Secondly, i am simply displaying where the logic of many people's arguments particularly that of your bf's mum takes you.