University Cuts

[Mao]

How is the fact they provide merit based scholarships relevant? The Ivy League reaffirms the idea that you're the best and you deserve it/deserve to enjoy the things that other social classes don't have access to because you made it to the top. The fact you got to go there, means you're now part of the elite. It's not a healthy attitude to reinforce. When 40% of students at Colombia can afford to pay the 62 grand a year without needing to even apply for financial aid, I'd suggest that's indicative of an educational system that is supporting the 1% and is unhealthy. Sure, other students get in and they get to play with the big boys, but you wonder just why the children of the American elite keep going to these universities. I think the culture they've created in America is poisonous and is bad for their society.

Merit-based scholarships are awarded to anyone who qualifies on the basis of academic merit. I don't see how that is related to social classes at all. It does perhaps have something to do with someone's mental capabilities, but why should people who aren't as academically qualified be allowed entry?

> When 40% of students at Colombia can afford to pay the 62 grand a year without needing to even apply for financial aid,
Can you show me if any of these 40% of students don't deserve to be there? Just because they are wealthy doesn't imply that they are necessarily underserving or that they have bought their way into it. I'm not surprised at that 40% figure, because wealth is generally earnt by intelligence and hard-work. A family background like this would definitely help towards producing successful children. If they have qualified to admission based on their academic merit, why is it bad that they go to these expensive universities?

I do envy them, but just because I cannot afford to go to the Ivies does not mean I will claim others should not receive the best money can buy.

If they go private, sure. As long as they're still footing the bill, of course they do and they have every right to block more full fee places.

I don't understand this logic. If the number of CSP places remain constant, but universities are allowed full-fee places again, this doesn't harm anyone's chances of getting in. In addition, universities have more funding to do research, hire more tutors and generally improve the quality of education. The increase in number of students may mean a reduction in accessibility to lecturers, but the additional tutors will make up for that. Who is the loser on this deal?

[Hancock]

Probably those that have to foot the full-fee bill. Although I agree in the benefits of the privatisation of Melbourne Uni, would this lead to lower standards given that there will be two "CLEARLY IN" ATARs, one for CSP and one for FF?

[simpak]

Probably those that have to foot the full-fee bill. Although I agree in the benefits of the privatisation of Melbourne Uni, would this lead to lower standards given that there will be two "CLEARLY IN" ATARs, one for CSP and one for FF?

Well considering ATARs are just demand based I can't see that it would be entirely bad.  I mean, it takes a high ATAR to get in to Melbourne Uni at the moment but that doesn't mean somebody with an ATAR five or ten points lower (who accepts a full fee place) couldn't take the degree and succeed.  You might even recall that...a lot of people have those scores, and graduate from Melbourne Uni with a degree, and go on to employment.  They're SEAS students!

The full-fee bill wouldn't be enforced, it would be optional.  If I don't want to pay for full-fee grad medicine I don't have to receive an offer for it.  Similarly, I would imagine someone can opt in or out of full fee offers should they be reintroduced for undergraduate degrees.

[Mao]

And you know what led to the big Labor spike? World War fucking Two. Which proved, by the way, that deficit spending is awesome. And if WWII was not a sufficient reason to pile up debt, I don't know what is. Hell, even the Tories in Britain did it. And the current Labor spike? GFC. Also a pretty bloody good reason. Interestingly enough, countries which went down the stimulus/Keynesian path are doing much better than the stupid austerity followers...

I presented data, not to the end that shows Labor caused debt spikes, but that a Coalition government has a habit of paying off debt. Find one place where I claim that the incurrence of debt was avoidable. You should reconsider your strawman.

We have debt, we should get rid of it.

That they entrench class division and inequalities by limiting educations to those wealthy enough to afford it. Tertiary admissions should be based on academic merit only.

Russ's figure suggests 60% of Colombia's students receive financial aid. How is that 'limiting' education to the wealthy, when a majority receives financial aid?

Yes, and in that thread we also showed you that pretty much any financial credit rating institution in the world regards the Australian economy as pretty much the best in the world, and our debt position as being extremely comfortable. But of course, you chose to ignore that.

Yes, I do choose to ignore that. For a few reasons:
1. We are not in a good position to face another economic crisis (such as the looming eurozone crisis)
2. Unlike other nations with large populations, which can mostly sustain off its internal economies (e.g. China, US), Australia doesn't have that luxury. Japan is a good case study for when things goes wrong for an economy that depends on international economies.
3. Our economy is tiny compared to other financial powerhouses. We may be doing well right now, but in a crisis, the Australian economy has very little sway on the global outlook.

The Australian economy is vulnerable. Other larger OECD countries, such as America, may consider our financial situation as very comfortable, but in absolute numbers we have a minuscule buffer. Australia absolutely cannot afford a false sense of security.

[Professor Polonsky]

I presented data, not to the end that shows Labor caused debt spikes, but that a Coalition government has a habit of paying off debt. Find one place where I claim that the incurrence of debt was avoidable. You should reconsider your strawman.

We have debt, we should get rid of it.

Mostly because the Coalition had the luck of being in government during the boom part of boom-and-bust (alternatively the 'bull' market). It's nice when you can pay off debt, but as long as it's stable surpluses aren't that important.

Russ's figure suggests 60% of Colombia's students receive financial aid. How is that 'limiting' education to the wealthy, when a majority receives financial aid?

Because those 40% are taking up spots for people who are far better than them. Being 60% (sort of, since even those who receive scholarships are assessed on things beyond just merit) okay is not enough. Education is not goods to be bought.

Yes, I do choose to ignore that. For a few reasons:
1. We are not in a good position to face another economic crisis (such as the looming eurozone crisis)
2. Unlike other nations with large populations, which can mostly sustain off its internal economies (e.g. China, US), Australia doesn't have that luxury. Japan is a good case study for when things goes wrong for an economy that depends on international economies.
3. Our economy is tiny compared to other financial powerhouses. We may be doing well right now, but in a crisis, the Australian economy has very little sway on the global outlook.

The Australian economy is vulnerable. Other larger OECD countries, such as America, may consider our financial situation as very comfortable, but in absolute numbers we have a minuscule buffer. Australia absolutely cannot afford a false sense of security.

Mao knows better than economists, Mao knows all

1. A Eurozone crisis will not affect us any more severely than anyone else, and I'm willing to bet there is none coming anyway. Even if there is, our miniscule debt is not what will make the difference.
2. Japan is hardly a small country But yes, globalism seriously sucks. Being dependent on other countries really sucks. I completely agree with you there. That's why we need protectionism again, apply tariffs, limit our international trade. Scrap all free trade agreements except the ones with our strategic allies.
3. Sure. Hence why holding a debt won't matter at all for us, at the end of the day.
[/quote]

[Mao]

Because those 40% are taking up spots for people who are far better than them. Being 60% (sort of, since even those who receive scholarships are assessed on things beyond just merit) okay is not enough. Education is not goods to be bought.

Can you show me any statistic that the 40% of people who are there are academically less able than other students who received offers, but could not enrol due to cost?

Note the difference between a rejection by the college and a rejection by the student. These colleges make offers initially based on merit. The people who fall victim to the cost are those who received offers, but cannot enrol.

Mao knows better than economists, Mao knows all

1. A Eurozone crisis will not affect us any more severely than anyone else, and I'm willing to bet there is none coming anyway. Even if there is, our miniscule debt is not what will make the difference.
2. Japan is hardly a small country But yes, globalism seriously sucks. Being dependent on other countries really sucks. I completely agree with you there. That's why we need protectionism again, apply tariffs, limit our international trade. Scrap all free trade agreements except the ones with our strategic allies.
3. Sure. Hence why holding a debt won't matter at all for us, at the end of the day.

You can look up references here if you want: http://tomjconley.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/yeah-naah-reflections-of-current.html

Here are a few more articles on the vulnerabilities:
- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/experts-divided-over-australias-economic-outlook/4151770
- http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/economy-vulnerable-to-recession-jpmorgan/story-e6frg926-1226243970620
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578275140451413764.html

Re: miniscule, our debt and revenue are miniscule compared to other nations, but they are not compared to our own revenue, especially when the rest of the economy is vulnerable. The interests don't pay themselves. We obviously won't run into dangers of default, we will be able to obtain loans and bail-outs if that is the case, but we will be in a much better position to handle an economic downturn should we not have debt.

We did survive the GFC quite well, though we will disagree on whose achievement it really was. Regardless, we have been in a position to reach budget surplus in the past few years, but the government chose not to, and instead opted for projects such as NBN and the laptop scheme. NBN in particular, a fibre-to-the-node rollout would have been much cheaper, and would not have prevented fibre-to-the-home installations in the future when we can comfortably afford it. These are examples of why I disagree with the Labor management of the economy.

We could have paid off some debt already, but we chose to borrow even more when the International outlook is uncertain. This is especially risky when we are so dependent on other economics.

[Mao]

More fuel for my fire: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/labors-story-on-debt-misses-one-crucial-point/story-fnbkvnk7-1226613585777

[slothpomba]

I was originally furious (see rageful facebook posts) about these but it honestly is not THAT bad.

10% Discount? I'm glad it's going. It's a silly financial choice. The loan is interest free. If you put your 10,000 worth of fees you would have paid upfront in a 4.66% interest account, you'll do much better than paying off your fees. Pretty much anything is a better financial choice than immediately paying off your fees.

"If students pay upfront they get a 10 per cent discount. The government pays the value of the discount to the student‟s university. In these cases, the governments share of total contributions is larger than shown in this table." Page 52

So, you end up paying more (via lost interest, time, not spending your money now, etc) and the government pays more. It's a silly discount to have. I agree with MJRomeo81, it's the best loan you'll ever receive.

Paying back startup scholarships? I don't even get one and this was the bit i was equally (or even moreso) outraged about compared with the last. Think about it though, startup scholarships aren't a welfare payment for living per se. It's not like they're making you pay back youth allowance or something. You only get it if you're enrolled in higher education, for the purposes of studying higher education. It's dubious whether all that $1000 goes towards textbooks but hey, thats the idea. It might as well go on your HECs anyway, since it is pretty much attached to you going to university and the money is for university purposes.

"Efficiency Dividend"? This is just newspeak for cuts. It pretty much means they'll have to find savings somewhere. I'm unsure if they're actual cuts or they just won't be increasing the payments in line with inflation, budget growth, etc. This is the worst bit. Economics is the science of maximising good or utility given scarce resources. Money and tax revenue (Australia actually has rather low taxes) is a scarce and finite resource. We have to share out the money to get the most good. The correlation between SES status and ATAR is quite shocking. The entrenched disadvantaged is shocking. The strong correlation between your parents level of education and/or profession and the one you will go into is also shocking. All these things are already determined for you. A kid in these situations is much more likely to not go to uni than a kid not in these situations. The dice were rolled before you were born and in a country like this, that should be a shame.

High-schools are worth investing in. Am i happy they're robbing peter to pay paul and taking it out of the universities? Nope. I think it really will maximise good though.

[Russ]

On the topic of Ivy League admissions being fair and balanced and unbiased with respect to non academic factors and not being detrimental to American society;

This article was published a couple of months ago and has been inflammatory ever since. The opening few paragraphs addresses exactly the social divide I find so distasteful.

Of course there is also the fact that being related to someone who has studied at an Ivy League school gives you an advantage in admissions. Definitely a merit based application process -.-



The reference there (Golden) is a fairly critical read (he also wrote a bunch of articles on this for the Wall Street Journal and won a Pulitzer for it)

e, and before someone says "oh but maybe the children of these families are more driven/educated/etc. and thus they deserve it more", that's part of the problem. This isn't some Randian paradise -.-

[alondouek]

An email from Ed Byrne, Vice-Chancellor of Monash:

Dear students,

The announcement made by the Commonwealth Government at the weekend has come as a surprise to us all.

The decision that $2.3 billion will be stripped from university funding is deeply concerning, both in the immediate term and for our long-term planning. We are currently assessing how these cuts will impact upon Monash.

The decision includes an ‘efficiency dividend’ of 2 per cent for 2014 and a further 1.25 per cent for 2015, for a cumulative 3.25 per cent ($900m across the sector). As well, the Government has capped the “self-education” tax deduction available to people paying for their university tuition where it is linked to the requirements of their job, to a maximum of $2000. This change may also have a negative revenue impact on Monash.

Additionally, the Government has announced funding reductions to the sector including the conversion of student start-up scholarship to HECS loan ($1.2b); and removal of the 10 per cent up-front payment HECS discount ($228.5m). When taken together these sum to the biggest funding reduction to the Australian university sector since 1996. At this stage, we estimate reduced funding of around $50 million over the next two years, with the cuts to then be sustained indefinitely.

These cuts come at a tight time for the sector. Although the current Government has increased overall funding by uncapping undergraduate places, the fee per student has not been fully indexed. In effect we have less income per domestic student than when the Government came to power. Even the Government’s own Higher Education Base Funding Review found that higher education was substantially under-funded. International student numbers, our main source of revenue growth in recent years, are beginning to show signs of recovery, but they remain stressed. Although the Government has increased its investment in infrastructure, the projects it has funded have required significant co-contributions from universities themselves. For these reasons, increases in funding have not translated into an improvement in the University’s financial position.

The cuts also come on top of the $1 billion loss to the sector (which was announced late last year) through the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook process. This presents us with some very real challenges. Dealing with this over the next few years will be a difficult test for us all. Given that we are already experiencing tightening of our financial resources, this is an additional pressure that we cannot simply absorb and we will have to consider a range of expenditure reduction options. We are very mindful that the announcement has a significant effect on students and their ability to afford a university education. We will assess how we may be able to assist you as you navigate your way through the Government’s changes to financial support.

The University recognises the importance of adequate funding for schools, but there is no good reason that funding should come at the expense of universities. Indeed, students need to have strong universities awaiting them when they graduate.

I will continue to keep you updated on this issue and will provide information on decisions made and strategies implemented to ensure we navigate our way through this unwelcome and significant challenge.

Professor Ed Byrne, AO
Vice-Chancellor and President,
Monash University

Thoughts?

[simpak]

Yeah my Neuroscience lecturer went on a rant about it today being like "I don't have time to reply to your emails because I get no funding for this subject".  Okay!

Even still...are Monash trying to turn you all against Labor?

[Tomw2]

Merit-based scholarships are awarded to anyone who qualifies on the basis of academic merit. I don't see how that is related to social classes at all. It does perhaps have something to do with someone's mental capabilities, but why should people who aren't as academically qualified be allowed entry?

The definition of academically qualified and merit is not so straightforward when a whole lot of things other than numbers are taken into account. 'Holistic' admissions processes murky the waters somewhat in that regard.

Furthermore, meritocracy is a myth when social mobility is not facilitated.

[Lolly]

Gonski reform is campaigning at a local school near me at Wednesday.  I thought about attending, but now I'm not even sure if I should.

[lala1911]

Yeah my Neuroscience lecturer went on a rant about it today being like "I don't have time to reply to your emails because I get no funding for this subject".  Okay!

Even still...are Monash trying to turn you all against Labor?

But time is free 

[simpak]

But time is free 

His argument actually made no sense, he is the least enthusiastic lecturer ever.  Today (I didn't go but in the recording) he was like "now we will watch this video so I can stop talking for a while, it works out for both of us" and other pessimistic remarks.