ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: costargh on November 03, 2008, 12:08:50 am
-
Unis poised for fee bonanza
November 3, 2008
HUNDREDS of millions of dollars will flow onto university campuses next year under a Rudd Government plan to restore student services gutted by Howard government laws banning compulsory student union fees.
Youth Minister Kate Ellis will today announce changes that will allow universities from July next year to charge a compulsory annual fee of up to $250 per student to fund sporting facilities, child care, counselling and other student services.
The cap, which will be indexed each year, will ensure the fee does not reach the levels it did before the coalition's voluntary student unionism laws were introduced in 2006, when some universities were charging as much as $600 per student.
In another measure to ensure the fee does not create a barrier to access for poorer students, the Government will create a HECS-style income-contingent loan system to allow students to defer payment of the fee.
Universities will not be required to collect a fee and can choose to set it at a lower level. But with the nation's equivalent full-time enrolments standing at about 1 million, the scheme could net as much as $250 million a year, more than replacing the $170 million stripped out of the system by the Howard-era laws, which led to a 30% cut in student organisation staff.
In a further boost, the Government will broaden the objectives of the Capital Development Pool to allow it to pay for refurbishments of neglected facilities.
Under the scheme, all universities will be required to provide a basic level of student support services and adhere to national protocols on representation and advocacy as a condition of their Commonwealth funding — regardless of whether they choose to levy a compulsory fee.
These standards are still to be determined, but they are expected to prevent the compulsory fee from being spent on political campaigns.
Ms Ellis stressed the policy was not a return to compulsory student unionism, and it would remain illegal for a university to force a student to be a member of a student organisation.
The new system, which follows a review of the impact of student unionism, was widely welcomed.
"I think the Government has given us a lifeline," said Peter Boyle, president of the student representative council at La Trobe University.
Angus McFarland, president of the National Union of Students, said the Labor policy was a "win-win" for students.
"We're very happy and relieved that we have a clear path forward to not only restore student services and representation but actually guaranteeing them … and there's not going to be any forced upfront cost," he said. But he said universities should be required to pass the fees on to student organisations rather than using the money to provide services themselves.
"Students should be the ones to decide what the money is spent on, not bureaucrats in Canberra or bureaucrats in universities," he said.
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations cautiously welcomed the change but said the fee should be levied for and on behalf of student organisations rather than being controlled by universities.
"Universities will charge a fee and will siphon that revenue off to do with as they see fit if they're not compelled to account for it transparently," president Nigel Palmer said.
University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis praised the policy, which he said the university would move to introduce in semester two next year.
Glenn Withers, chief executive of Universities Australia, which represents 38 of the nation's universities, said it was broadly supportive of the move but expressed disappointment that the Government was not providing any of its own money.
Opposition education spokes man Christopher Pyne said the coalition would examine the proposal closely but would not support "any slide back towards compulsory student unionism".
http://www.theage.com.au/national/unis-poised-for-fee-bonanza-20081102-5gaj.html?page=-1
WTF
-
uhhh....
abolishing full-fee places
compulsory union
internet censorship
why do i see the word "CHINESE" written all over his forehead....?
-
dirty dirty dirty socialist
-
I wish the government would force people to purchase my goods and services too. What do you reckon I should call it to maximise my chances of government sponsorship? Student Goods and Services Committee (really just a milk bar)?
-
"Youth Minister Kate Ellis will today announce changes that will allow universities from July next year to charge a compulsory annual fee of up to $250 per student to fund sporting facilities, child care, counselling and other student services."
"Ms Ellis stressed the policy was not a return to compulsory student unionism, and it would remain illegal for a university to force a student to be a member of a student organisation."
So we have a right to not be in a student organisation, but we don't have the right to choose whether we pay?
-
unrelated, but here's some lul
(http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp208/maox0001/motivationals/1224488235952.jpg)
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
"Students should be the ones to decide what the money is spent on, not bureaucrats in Canberra or bureaucrats in universities,"
And bureaucrats in Student Unions, that caused the collapse of the Melbourne University Student Union in 2004, is somehow better than university management?
-
somebody assassinate him.
-
The article reports that students will able to put it on their HECS
-
it almost seems as though they waited until classes were over to avoid protests, clever
-
it almost seems as though they waited until classes were over to avoid protests, clever
Very good observation.
-
I actually have a sticker lying around that reads "Don't blame me, I voted Liberal"
-
I actually have a sticker lying around that reads "Don't blame me, I voted Liberal"
Ahaha! I want one! GOD I hate kevin rudd with a freaking passion. We'll end up as China's little minion under the lead of a politicized 'perfect' stepford-wife type socialist who looks out for his 'working families'
die.
-
don't blame me, i voted for kudos.
-
it almost seems as though they waited until classes were over to avoid protests, clever
are more students in favour than not? [I know "majority rules" is a severly flawed principal]
-
The article reports that students will able to put it on their HECS
Oh, well that makes everything better, doesn't it? :o
-
It means students will have even less reason (and ability) to protest and care about it, but there will be hidden costs on the taxpayer.
-
At ANU, union fees are paid for each student by the university. I think that's pretty cool. The reasoning behind it was that with voluntary student unionism, students had unequal academic representation, which apparently caused some problems. The provision of childcare is also really important, being a parent should not keep you from accessing education. However, like union fees, I think universities can pay for it themselves. Just like many places of businesses offer free child-care, so can universities. After all, in the end, they're profiting a great deal from students being there.
I think the changes took place because the student unions were very vocal on this issue, and I think the government thought that this was the sentiment of all students. But clearly, if it were, union membership would be much higher than it is.
I think the whole 'China 2' thing is hyperbolic, though I don't approve of some of Rudd's policies (specifically Internet censorship which frustrates me to no end). Rudd is surprisingly socially conservative for a Labor PM, but he's no dictator communist.
-
I like the way they spin it though:
"You don't have to be in the union! You just have to pay for it."
-
Just in from The Oz
Students' $250 fee for uni services
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24591830-12332,00.html
Compulsory $250 university student fee faces Senate fight
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24593032-12332,00.html
Liberals tell Barnaby Joyce to toe line over voluntary unionism
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24595307-12332,00.html
-
I like the spin too "Youth Minister Kate Ellis announced the moves late last night, saying the Howard government had stripped at least $170million out of the universities by imposing voluntary student unionism on services."
More like Student Unions stopped stripping $170 million from students during 07-08.
"Driven by ideological obsession, the previous Liberal government went too far, and students have been paying the price ever since the implementation of VSU in 2006," Ms Ellis said in a statement yesterday.
This just smacks of absolute stupidity. Students/taxpayers will literally be paying the price because of the change. At least during VSU they had some effective choice on whether to pay.
The National Union of Students welcomed the move, confirming student services, including sporting clubs, have deteriorated since voluntary student unionism was introduced in 2005 by the Howard government.
Even the most ignorant would realize that the only reason that such services would "deteriorate" is because simply no one wanted to use them in first place. It wasn't because of Howard, it was because of the students themselves voting with their feet .
-
at least now the unions will shut the fuck up about VSU.
-
anyone *else* wanna try their hand at writing a letter to the paper? :)
-
go read the herald sun
-
Don't blame me, I didn't vote
-
Uni fee plan 'like a pig with lipstick'
http://news.theage.com.au/national/uni-fee-plan-like-a-pig-with-lipstick-20081103-5gdm.html
-
**********************************************************************
This is a message from Monash Students Association - Clayton.
Monash University provides this email service but takes no responsibility
for the content or accuracy of this information.
**********************************************************************
In this email:
1. End of VSU
2. After Exams Party (AXP)- Thursday 13th November
3. Culture Card Photography Competition-closes 25th of November.
1. End of VSU
In 2005 the Federal Liberal government introduced legislation which
banned
the collection of fees from students to provide services, representation
and advocacy on campuses. This included all non-academic expenditure.
Many
believed that this legislation was introduced as part of a campaign to
prevent criticism of the government at that time.
The result of this legislation at Monash was to see broad increases in
parking fees, ID card replacement fees, and a whole range of other
auxiliary fees at Monash, alongside a reduction in advocacy,
representation
and student services across all campuses.
Yesterday, the Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis and the Federal Labor
Government announced their intention to end the Howard government policy,
which over the last three years forced Universities to either not fund
student services, increase fees (like parking fees or student id
replacement fees) or to shift money out of teaching and learning to cover
services, advocacy and representation.
A significant difference between amenities fees prior to 2005 and in the
future, will be the option to defer the fees, in a program similar to
HECS.
This proposal came from the National Union of Students and Monash Student
Association representatives in recognition of the hardship that upfront
fees place on students.
Monash Student Association has been at the lead of the fight to reinstate
support, advocacy and representation to ensure that you have the best and
fairest experience at University, good luck in your final exams, if you
haven't finished already and enjoy the summer break if we don't see you
at
the After Exams Party.
It was a complete waste of $55 this year (probably used about $10 of its value lawl), there is NO way I am supporting them again. Please don't force me :(:(
-
what was the $55 for / what did it cover?
-
It made my MSS membership cheaper. That was about it o_o
-
This isn't a reintroduction of VSU. The provision of student services suffered dramatically due to Howard's introduction of VSU so obviously there was a need to somehow revive them. Instead of making student unionism compulsory, Rudd's introducing this...the fees will NOT be going to student unions, but rather the individual university - which will be expected to provide student services.
And also, the fee is not going to be $250 for the majority of students - that's just the maximum it can be.
I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this, it's a good thing for students!
-
If my $55 went (almost) nowhere, what on earth would $250 get me.
I already pay fees to the individual university (to get a degree), why should I need to pay for things I don't/won't use.
-
^Same reason we have to pay taxes for roads, libraries, hospitals and other things we may never use. Of course it's ultimately up to you whether or not you utilise the services - the point is that they're made available for those who need them.
-
I suppose its like paying your ambulance membership, you may never use it but when you do there are no charges and any fees you have paid over the years go into the service to improve it making it better for you when your in need :)
-
There's a difference to paying for a service you think you may need in future, and being forced to pay that fee.
I still am of the belief that a voluntary student union fee is the best solution, but to allow students to pay for this through their HELP loan.
-
This isn't a reintroduction of VSU. The provision of student services suffered dramatically due to Howard's introduction of VSU so obviously there was a need to somehow revive them. Instead of making student unionism compulsory, Rudd's introducing this...the fees will NOT be going to student unions, but rather the individual university - which will be expected to provide student services.
And also, the fee is not going to be $250 for the majority of students - that's just the maximum it can be.
I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this, it's a good thing for students!
If it was really such a good thing, then voluntary student unionism would be no problem. I'd voluntarily pay for it.
Excuse me, I think I know what I want to purchase, and I should have the right to spend my money freely. Don't go around imposing onto others what you think is good for them.
-
^Same reason we have to pay taxes for roads, libraries, hospitals and other things we may never use. Of course it's ultimately up to you whether or not you utilise the services - the point is that they're made available for those who need them.
And what is that reason exactly? You do realise that just because we do it, it doesn't make it justified.
There is an immense amount of moral hazard involved in having public insurance on things like healthcare, for example.
-
This isn't a reintroduction of VSU. The provision of student services suffered dramatically due to Howard's introduction of VSU so obviously there was a need to somehow revive them. Instead of making student unionism compulsory, Rudd's introducing this...the fees will NOT be going to student unions, but rather the individual university - which will be expected to provide student services.
And also, the fee is not going to be $250 for the majority of students - that's just the maximum it can be.
I can't believe people are getting so worked up about this, it's a good thing for students!
It's just a re-branding. Just like Rudd rebraded Workchoice as "Individual Transitional Employment Agreements"
-
^Same reason we have to pay taxes for roads, libraries, hospitals and other things we may never use. Of course it's ultimately up to you whether or not you utilise the services - the point is that they're made available for those who need them.
And what is that reason exactly? You do realise that just because we do it, it doesn't make it justified.
There is an immense amount of moral hazard involved in having public insurance on things like healthcare, for example.
The reason is to provide a high standard of living for all Australians and not just those who can afford it. Personally when I enter the workforce I'll be happy to pay taxes to ensure the most vulnerable members of society can get basic healthcare and assistance. Fair enough if you disagree, but this is essentially the basis of many healthy and successful liberal democracies worldwide.
-
Actually, the basis of many healthy and successful liberal democracies is a liberalised and deregulated marketplace. A nice example is the USA, where they have a horrible healthcare and education system, because it tries to imitate the policies used in the socialist democracies of Europe. On the other hand, their more liberalised industries are very successful.
I have no problem with helping out the vulnerable members of society, but charity is an act of an individual, not one of coercion.
-
But the United States is the only developed nation which doesn't provide universal healthcare to its citizens...how is that an imitation of Europe's social democracies (which have some of highest rates of living standards and productivity in the world)?
The USA has a largely market-driven healthcare system, and as you've said, their system is horrible. Clearly, this is an area in which government intervention is appropriate.
As for the charity comment, unfortunately people aren't intrinsically altruistic. Suggesting that if the market were left free from government intervention people would willingly choose to donate to charity or other social causes is flawed, because people are selfish. If this were the case, the consequence would be widespread inequality and disadvantage which is undesirable for an economy.
-
Well then, if no one wants to donate, then why should the government be promoting a cause that steals from those who earned it, to give to those who didn't?
The USA does not have a market-driven system for healthcare or education. The USA has great innovation in healthcare because research is market-based. Their tertiary education is excellent, but it is their lower-end services that fail because of the presence of government - public schooling, for example.
Markets work best when you pay for what you use.
-
Also, this bill does nothing like what you propose. It will not be subsidised by taxpayers, it is just a forced cost onto you. It essentially says: I don't care whether you want this or not, you're going to buy it. This is very unlike socialised healthcare and education, which is paid for by the taxpayer, and not paid for in full by your own cash.
-
Well then, if no one wants to donate, then why should the government be promoting a cause that steals from those who earned it, to give to those who didn't?
Because there are both economic and social costs associated with high income inequality. I think anyone would agree that it is detrimental to a society to have a massive gap between the rich and poor, which comes to exist when markets are left free from government intervention. For example, when the 'Chicago Boys' took reign of the Chilean economy between 1973 and 1989 average wages plummeted, the minimum wage plummeted and the standard of living steadily decreased and the poverty rate saw a massive increase. Another example is New Zealand, which in the 80s and 90s also saw large scale deregulation (although not to the extent of Chile). Again, there was a massive increase in poverty and economic growth stagnated, despite the rest of the world's economy growing steadily.
As you know from studying economics, markets sometimes fail due to the existence of externalities. That's why the government needs to intervene in issues such as healthcare, education and other social issues to ensure a high standard of living for people. Remember, the economy exists in order to benefit the people - not the other way around.
Also, this bill does nothing like what you propose. It will not be subsidised by taxpayers, it is just a forced cost onto you. It essentially says: I don't care whether you want this or not, you're going to buy it. This is very unlike socialised healthcare and education, which is paid for by the taxpayer, and not paid for in full by your own cash.
I never proposed that the system is subsidised by taxpayers. I was just pointing out that even though there will of course be people who don't utilise the services, the simple existence of the services will fundamentally benefit the majority of students. My example was that just as some people don't use libraries (but still pay taxes), some people will not use student services.
It's certainly an interesting argument. Maybe we should make a thread about government intervention in the economy?
-
There are many of those threads.
Oh so many.
-
What I meant to say was: arguing that the government should subsidise particular goods and services (such as healthcare and education) is a totally different argument to saying the government should force people to purchase particular goods and services. The latter is totally indefensible. The former, I acknowledge, is defensible to some degree.
Externalities need to be fixed with much less distorting government practices. The public school system could be invigorated by a voucher system, and the decommissioning or relaxation of the Department of Education's regulations. There are certainly grounds for government intervention, just not the type that is employed in most countries today.
-
At a conceptual level, there are four possible outcomes of VSU payment:
- a person will pay, no matter what
- a person would pay, but can't be bothered
- a person would pay, but can't afford it
- a person won't pay
Like I've suggested, instead of satisfying certain groups, why not seek a common ground? A system where you could choose to contribute, but where the government / university provides a 'lubricant' of sorts. When you reduce the opportunity costs by simply providing a check-box: 'do you wish to pay your union membership through your HELP loan', you satisfy the middle two groups. The fact you can pay at all will satisfy the first and that you can choose not to pay will satisfy the last.
Ideology is can be a good way to guide decision making at a high level, but when it really counts, you really do have to be pragmatic about it. And, in reality, each sector is going to have its quirks that will cause policies by a person spitting out ideology fail at least some of the time.
-
Because there are both economic and social costs associated with high income inequality. I think anyone would agree that it is detrimental to a society to have a massive gap between the rich and poor, which comes to exist when markets are left free from government intervention. For example, when the 'Chicago Boys' took reign of the Chilean economy between 1973 and 1989 average wages plummeted, the minimum wage plummeted and the standard of living steadily decreased and the poverty rate saw a massive increase. Another example is New Zealand, which in the 80s and 90s also saw large scale deregulation (although not to the extent of Chile). Again, there was a massive increase in poverty and economic growth stagnated, despite the rest of the world's economy growing steadily.
"The deregulation of government-owned enterprises in the 1980s and 1990s reduced government's role in the economy and permitted the retirement of some public debt, but simultaneously massively increased the necessity for greater welfare spending and has led to considerably higher rates of unemployment than were standard in New Zealand in earlier decades. However, unemployment in New Zealand is again low, hovering around 3.5% to 4%."
The welfare state, commissioned by governments, sets up externalities which supposedly need to be fixed by more government intervention. Natural externalities ought to be fixed, artificial externalities need to be stopped. Also, when government gets out of the way, it's no surprise that some short term losses need to be faced, as firms need to restructure and orientate themselves towards a more efficient framework.
I cannot find anything about the Chilean deregulation, except that it was a military government. Not much property rights there, I imagine.
-
^Pinochet and his military government were indeed supporters of property rights. His government was backed by Milton Friedman, who was essentially an economic adviser to the authoritarian regime.
-
^Pinochet and his military government were indeed supporters of property rights.
Bullshit. Pinochet forced poor people off their land and leased it to the Rich for a 100 years for virtually nothing.
-
Actually, I did more research, and Pinochet's economic reforms are said to be a success. Of course you pay in short-term costs, for restructuring and re-orientation towards efficiency as mentioned with the case of New Zealand.
This does not mean I advocate Pinochet's human rights record though. They are different stories.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
The unsmoothness of the ride can be attributed to non-free-market policies such as a fixed exchange rate:
"In his Memoirs ("Two Lucky People", 1998), Milton Friedman directed blame towards De Castro and the fixed exchange rate, claiming that it was contrary to the free market model."
-
Yeh. But in a quest for economic success is it 'right' to kick inefficient farmers off THEIR land and lease it to those who are Rich and have the potential for efficient production?
I don't advocate this form of imposing on rights of individuals in a quest for economic success.
-
Yeh. But in a quest for economic success is it 'right' to kick inefficient farmers off THEIR land and lease it to those who are Rich and have the potential for efficient production?
I don't advocate this form of imposing on rights of individuals in a quest for economic success.
No, inefficient farmers would voluntarily sell up (since they're not making anymore business, and are being offered a value that's worth more than how much they value the land, since they can't use it as well as the next owner). I'm not sure of the details of this military government, but a free-market system would have dealt with this in that manner.
No, I'm not condoning Pinochet's human rights record. Look, it's either: it wasn't free market, so that's a futile example, or: it was, and hey it worked pretty well (after a hiccup involving fixed exchange rates).
-
I think anyone would agree that it is detrimental to a society to have a massive gap between the rich and poor,
You could increase equality by making everyone equally poor. Suppose there were some policy that would make the rich poorer without affecting the income of anyone else, by definition this would reduce the "gap", but would you want the Government to flip this switch?
-
recognition of the hardship that upfront
fees place on students.
That is so BS, they sure didn't recognize that when VSU was being introduced.
-
I think anyone would agree that it is detrimental to a society to have a massive gap between the rich and poor,
You could increase equality by making everyone equally poor. Suppose there were some policy that would make the rich poorer without affecting the income of anyone else, by definition this would reduce the "gap", but would you want the Government to flip this switch?
No. To put it simply, I was highlighting the fact that having lots of poor people and a few rich people in an economy is a bad thing. That is, without consumer spending (which relies on normal people), an economy will fall apart because people aren't buying things, which is bad for everyone. Effectively maintaining a certain level of equity is good for an economy.
-
No.
Why not? You are reducing inequality.
-
I'd question whether those 'student services' were that essential, especially if so few people signed up for VSU: e.g. "sporting facilities, child care, counselling and other student services"
Counseling, fair enough. Child care, debatable; does it have to be at the uni and not a childcare centre?
Sporting facilities. lul.
If the uni wants to retain bragging rights for having no.1 [insert sport] uni team they can pay for that themselves. Or if their justification is that it adds to the 'atmosphere' of the uni... well they can pay for that too. I'm going to uni to get a degree; if I wanted to use sporting facilities I'd do that in my own time.
'Other' student services? Such as?
I'm going to go against this one too since I assume it doesn't include free lapdances.
The crap, which will be indexed each year,
fixed
-
What's so special about sporting facilities anyway that it must be effectively underwritten by the taxpayer?
-
Remember, the economy exists in order to benefit the people - not the other way around.
I certainly agree with that, and freer markets improve the ability of economies to do this.
Look at how the sharemarket is going down in reaction to Obama, a typical high-spending Democrat. First year macroeconomics might have you think that high spending is good for the economy, but government spending is also funded by some kind of taxation.
Economies are much better stimulated by lowering taxes (and to keep a balanced budget, lowering government spending). Let the people spend their own money, they use it the best, and that helps the economy provide the most useful services to society. After all, the economy is supposed to serve society, not the other way around.
-
"Remember, the economy exists in order to benefit the people - not the other way around."
Hello!? What is an economy, but many millions of people interacting daily? Your statement is nonsense.
-
...
Is this you mark: http://andrewnorton.info/2008/11/the-return-of-the-amenities-fee/#comment-57089
-
Prof Sinclair Davidson, and Andrew Norton debate VSU: http://andrewnorton.info/2008/11/who-should-decide-how-campus-services-are-delivered/#comments
-
Wow, I can't believe I support Rudd. Thank you Brendan for showing me why Rudd is a dirty socialist, because he supports benefits for Students. Oh man your right, we should go back to the good old days with Howard giving more money to private schools per student then public universities, and more Federal funds to private schools even though they only educate 35% of Australia's students.
Free Market all the way! It has worked really well thus far!
-
Wow, I can't believe I support Rudd. Thank you Brendan for showing me why Rudd is a dirty socialist, because he supports benefits for Students. Oh man your right, we should go back to the good old days with Howard giving more money to private schools per student then public universities, and more Federal funds to private schools even though they only educate 35% of Australia's students.
Free Market all the way! It has worked really well thus far!
Giving money to private schools, or public schools, is not free market. It shows how narrow your sights are set when you think that if I attack Rudd, I am supporting Howard (or Liberal).
-
Wow, I can't believe I support Rudd. Thank you Brendan for showing me why Rudd is a dirty socialist, because he supports benefits for Students.
Also, if they were really so beneficial to students, then Kevin Rudd wouldn't need to force us to pay for these services. We would do it out of our own voluntary action, just like how I would voluntarily pay for a gym membership, for example, if I wish to utilise that service.
-
Look, I am a school student so I am not saying this from personal experience. However, many university students claim that student culture has been damaged since the introduction of optional fees. Student Unions aren't just representative bodies, they are place in which students can come together for music, sports and other services. It also has made it harder for Students to have their voices heard in the community. Action is harder to manage without a strong union voice. I think Campus life is important, and it's needs funding to exist. (Many student newspapers have been forced to accept private advertising in their magazine just to exist).
I beleive campus culture contributes to the whole experience of University much more then the markes you recieve. I understand the argument of the right to choose the services we pay for. However, I think its important that all University students are given the benefits of these services without having to pay for each one individiually. These fees are a small price to pay for the benefits they provide for students.
-
Look, I am a school student so I am not saying this from personal experience. However, many university students claim that student culture has been damaged since the introduction of optional fees. Student Unions aren't just representative bodies, they are place in which students can come together for music, sports and other services. It also has made it harder for Students to have their voices heard in the community. Action is harder to manage without a strong union voice. I think Campus life is important, and it's needs funding to exist. (Many student newspapers have been forced to accept private advertising in their magazine just to exist).
I beleive campus culture contributes to the whole experience of University much more then the markes you recieve. I understand the argument of the right to choose the services we pay for. However, I think its important that all University students are given the benefits of these services without having to pay for each one individiually. These fees are a small price to pay for the benefits they provide for students.
That accusation is an exaggerated one that only far-left university students espouse. The hundreds of neutral and apathetic, as well as the libertarian and right-wing university students have not expressed any suffering from the so-called 'loss' of these student services. Ask the many university students who still hang out on this site. Campus culture is not so much afforded by the student union, but by whoever groups they hang out with, and whatever activities they wish to partake in. Students are happy to pay for the events that they believe are worthwhile paying for, while the events that appeal to no one will suffer the wrath of the marketplace, and rightfully so, as they are unable to fulfill the desires of the student body.
If students want to participate, they can. Of course it benefits some people, but those who benefit should pay. The reason why I believe this is because the cost will always be there, it's just a matter of who should pay. However, a decision should ultimately rest on whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The best test for this is to use the marketplace. It is easy for a student union to make errors in this evaluation, but if you leave the decision to each individual student making their own decision based on their own values and preferences, then the events and services must tailor the needs of the student body, or else they would not receive any business!
To argue that VSU has destroyed student services is not only a false belief, but it actually is the opposite. Instead, now we have student services that must cater to the student body, rather than the will of the bureaucrats in charge of the union.
And so what if newspapers rely on private advertisment? That is an efficient way to do things. The newspapers benefit from the funding (more importantly, the students who subsidised it benefit the most), and the private advertisers benefit. Is there something wrong with this?
-
Action is harder to manage without a strong union voice. I think Campus life is important, and it's needs funding to exist. (Many student newspapers have been forced to accept private advertising in their magazine just to exist).
I beleive campus culture contributes to the whole experience of University much more then the markes you recieve. I understand the argument of the right to choose the services we pay for. However, I think its important that all University students are given the benefits of these services without having to pay for each one individiually. These fees are a small price to pay for the benefits they provide for students.
You want it, you pay for it. Simple. Don't make me to pay for it. Secondly, if these benefits were so good and plentiful, then you have nothing to worry about... unless of course the benefits aren't all that plentiful...
more Federal funds to private schools even though they only educate 35% of Australia's students.
Oh it's interesting you completely ignore STATE funding, but then again they are just only responsible for all STATE schools. Why have you ignored state funding? Because of the simple inconvenient fact that:
If you actually work look at TOTAL government funding, a government school student receives more taxpayer funds than a private school student.
You are not the first person to do this. This is one of those "technically true, but misleading" statements that the government education lobby/AEU trots out all the time.
Howard giving more money to private schools per student then public universities,
Then i suppose you would also oppose giving more money to government schools per student than public universities
-
hahahahah Jrose is a total idiot
-
because I hold a different view from you?
-
I dont understand some of the points you make
why would I need to pay $250 to gain a student culture? can't I make friends for free? or to have a life do I need to get pissed at the uni bar every week, because most of what I see is them organising events to take place there/in the campus centre.
I have no interest in what the current student association does and I do not wish to be forced to pay for something I don't support. as others have said, if people found it worth it then they'd support it voluntarily.
Any uni services I need/have used are run independent of the student association anyway.
-
[quote author=coblin link=topic=6837.msg92330#msg92330
And so what if newspapers rely on private advertisment? That is an efficient way to do things. The newspapers benefit from the funding (more importantly, the students who subsidised it benefit the most), and the private advertisers benefit. Is there something wrong with this?
[/quote]
There actually was a problem with that at Melbourne Uni in 2007, I think. In order to fund union events they needed to sell advertising space somewhere. One of the advertisements was sexist or degrading in some way, which made them want to take the advertisement down. But, because the union relied so much on this company, they basically had to compromise their ethics and keep the advertisements. Sexist advertising? Blame VSU!
Not that I care all that much. Before I went to uni, I thought that being a member of the student union would be fun and necessary. Now I know that it's nothing of the sort and the union is full of wankers who just want their CV to look good. In essence, they don't really give a shit about student representation and promote little else but the culture of alcoholism. If they did care, maybe it would be a different story, I don't know. But they just don't.
-
There actually was a problem with that at Melbourne Uni in 2007, I think. In order to fund union events they needed to sell advertising space somewhere. One of the advertisements was sexist or degrading in some way, which made them want to take the advertisement down. But, because the union relied so much on this company, they basically had to compromise their ethics and keep the advertisements. Sexist advertising? Blame VSU!
Well that's the price you pay. The point is that these events do not come without a cost. It is just a matter of who pays them. Is it more effective for the users to pay? Or is it more effective for an advertising agency to pay (and the people who attend to tolerate the advertising)? What we have hopefully already established is that it shouldn't be bystanders that pay.
-
Yeh I was just kind of stirring shit up, I don't agree with VSU but I don't really care that much. Besides, I realise this forum is for people to advertise and gloat about their enter score and how intelligent they are. At least no one is advertising something embarrasing, like I don't know,
liking High School Musical.
-
at least he's brave enough to advertise it :P
-
Yeh I was just kind of stirring shit up, I don't agree with VSU but I don't really care that much. Besides, I realise this forum is for people to advertise and gloat about their enter score and how intelligent they are. At least no one is advertising something embarrasing, like I don't know,
liking High School Musical.
I dont like HSM
I LOVE IT FUCKER
-
I dont like HSM
I LOVE IT FUCKER
[/quote]
cmon Costargh, get your head in the game
-
There is a good argument VSU, but it is hardly ever made.
The typical and flawed argument against VSU made by those like Jrose stem from the fact that VSU gives students what they want rather than what Jrose (and the NUS) thinks they ought to want. He knows this, otherwise there would be nothing to worry about.
-
There is a good argument VSU, but it is hardly ever made.
The typical and flawed argument against VSU made by those like Jrose stem from the fact that VSU gives students what they want rather than what Jrose (and the NUS) thinks they ought to want. He knows this, otherwise there would be nothing to worry about.
Did you mean to say "There is a good argument against VSU"? If so, what is it?
-
There is a good argument VSU, but it is hardly ever made.
The typical and flawed argument against VSU made by those like Jrose stem from the fact that VSU gives students what they want rather than what Jrose (and the NUS) thinks they ought to want. He knows this, otherwise there would be nothing to worry about.
Did you mean to say "There is a good argument against VSU"? If so, what is it?
http://www.cis.org.au/issue_analysis/ia62/IA62.pdf
http://andrewnorton.info/category/higher-education/
I think the crucial question to ask is:
Why should taxpayers be subsidizing either explicitly or implicitly (people not paying their HECS and that they receive an interest subsidy i.e. the govt could have lent out money at commercial interest rates rather than lend it at 0 real interest rate) higher education?
-
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8161
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then chances are it probably is a duck.
No matter how much the Rudd Government tries to deny it, the recently announced plan to allow universities to impose a compulsory amenities fee of up to $250 on students is an attempt to sneak compulsory student unionism in through the backdoor. Perhaps they are hoping that if they can just do it quietly enough nobody will notice that this breaks the promise made before the last election that no such tax would be introduced.
The fact that a student won’t be forced to formally join their university’s student union will be of little comfort when they see their hard-earned $250 handed over to the union to spend on services they may not want or need, or in support of political causes they may not agree with. The imposition of a compulsory union fee infringes a student’s right to freedom of association just as surely as compulsory union membership.
Advertisement
It is also disingenuous to claim, on the one hand, that the new fees will not be used for political purposes but to acknowledge, at the same time, that the money can be used to fund student representation. It is simply not possible to draw a clear dividing line between the two. The attempt to impose a “non-political services only” limit under the voluntary student representation model introduced in Victoria in 1993 showed only that student politicians have a prodigious talent for finding ways to neatly side-step these types of restrictions in their rush to continue channelling money towards their pet political projects.
The line between “political purposes” and “student representation” is, at best, a blurry one. An acceptable “student representation” use of this new compulsory fee would surely be to pay campus affiliation fees to the National Union of Students which is, after all, the “peak representative body of all tertiary students in Australia”? The myth of a clear dividing line is, however, laid bare by a quick glance at the NUS web-site, which openly claims that “activism is at the heart of student representation”.
The NSW State President expands on this, letting us know that “the NUS runs many different campaigns at the cutting edge of progressive social change in Australia”, including “actively campaigning against global warming”, “campaigning with active womyn’s [sic] groups” and “NUS queer campaigns”.
Such political activism is true to form and comes as no surprise. Student unions across the country have a track record of spending student money on favoured political causes, with examples including funding being provided to the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Communist Party of Malaya or, more recently, $10,000 being spent on a referendum seeking to have a university campus declared a “refugee safe haven”.
Why should students be forced to give money to political causes they may not support and that make no direct contribution to the quality of their education?
Of course, many of the activities provided by student unions do directly benefit students. The $163,459 that the UWA Student Guild spent last year on social activities such as O-Day, O-Camp, and bringing bands on to campus, no doubt made for a great campus atmosphere. I’m sure that students also appreciated the discount drinks in the Uni Tavern and the VIP entries to various hip n’ happenin’ clubs around town. I’m just not sure why the student busy studying in the university library or the student working in a part-time job to pay his own way through university should be forced to pay for the cheap drinks enjoyed by other students.
Voluntary student unionism has the advantage of making student unions more responsive to the needs of their members. If student unions know they can bank on receiving compulsory amenities fees year in and year out what incentive is there for them to actually listen to students and respond to student needs? No matter how badly they perform they’ll still receive the money.
On the other hand, a system based on voluntary contributions requires them to work to attract membership and to convince students that they represent good value for money. Voluntary student unionism means that student unions can’t just take students, or their money, for granted.
It is important to remember that voluntary student unionism doesn’t stop students from joining a student union or from financially supporting the services that student unions provide. It just lets students make that choice for themselves.
As much as the Rudd Government may try to dress it up and hide its true nature, the plan for a compulsory amenities fee is a plan to take that choice away from students. It is the re-introduction of compulsory student unionism in everything other than name.
-
Student Unions angry over fee proposal
http://www.theage.com.au/national/students-angry-over-fee-proposal-20090220-8cqe.html
"Unis get the fee, students get the services but student unions get screwed," - National Union of Students president David Barrow
No surprise here really, that Student Unions care first and foremost about themselves rather than students.
-
wait, so there are now compulsory fees again?! I don't have the money to pay that =S
-
I already paid $90 for my student union membership this year. I don't wanna pay up to $250!!
-
No surprise here really, that Student Unions care first and foremost about themselves rather than students.
I think that is a rather illogical conclusion to arrive at based on that article alone, see further:
"Despite his disappointment, Mr Barrow urged the Senate to pass the laws, which he said would secure services that were now being paid for out of university teaching and learning budgets, and which could be cut as institutions tightened their belts in the economic downturn."
He's disappointed that the student unions are getting left out (rightly so, he represents them) but he's still saying to pass it because it will help students...
:-/
-
But whose interests is he most concerned with first and foremost? Who is his no.1 priority? Student Unions.
No surprise here really, that Student Unions care first and foremost about themselves rather than students.
-
Did you know Rudd is the first chinese prime minister of australia?