University Cuts

[Russ]

I hate the Ivy culture and would rather Australian universities cut costs than import that rubbish here

e, I suppose I should add that I see it as a consequence of the fee paying system, I approve of the graduate model of education and the methods they use over there.

[alondouek]

I hate the Ivy culture and would rather Australian universities cut costs than import that rubbish here

As someone completely oblivious of the Ivy League and anything to do with it; what do you mean by this?

[Russ]

They promote elitism/classism and are out of touch with reality

[alondouek]

As in, economic elitism? Because as I understand it (poorly), they appear to have the right to be elitist academically

[Russ]

Do they really have the right to be academically elitist? What do you mean by that? They're certainly capable of providing a higher lever of education but I would be really careful about saying they have the right to be elitist.

They promote social inequality/elitism, which is really my biggest problem with them. The people who study there know they're the best and they spend half a decade getting that notion reinforced. There are plenty of articles and editorials that have been written about this and you can easily have a google for "Ivy League elitism" etc.

There was a big uproar recently about girls studying there being told to "find husbands from your university because they're the ones you want to marry", which is a joke.

The Ivy League system of elite colleges is a key element in the system of exclusion and privilege that helps perpetuate both the power of the American elite and its comforting delusion that because elite status is based on ‘merit’ it is therefore legitimate.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/07/elites-close-ranks-around-ivy-league-intermarriage/ (on the marriage thing)

[Mao]

Do you really want to get into this debate again? this this and this

Coalition supporters sure are good at burying their heads in the sand.

I have criticised the IMF report on what they think about the Howard spendings in this post: Re: Is Julia gillard being targeted due to her gender?
On the basis of that, I am not going to believe every assessment they make. I don't hold the IMF to very high regards, they don't have a spotless record, and I do not recognise them as the absolute authority on the world's economic outlook.

That is not to say I can make that assessment myself, but our debt level has surged well past the Hawke/Keating era. This is very much cause for concern.

[Mao]

Do they really have the right to be academically elitist? What do you mean by that? They're certainly capable of providing a higher lever of education but I would be really careful about saying they have the right to be elitist.

What are you suggesting? Their students receive a better education, many of them are more capable in certain jobs/management positions, yet they cannot boast the fact that they are the highest achieving individuals?

Can we have a clear definition of elitism here please? If you wish to attack the exclusivity of elitism, all the Ivies offer a silly number of merit-based scholarships. Some of the graduates from there are douches, but surely that's not cause enough to entirely dismiss the idea that rich, private universities has shown to provide the highest level of university education.

I think the abolishment of full-fee paying places was a terrible decision. Australia only has a few lowly ranked private universities at the moment, so a discussion about price regulation right now wouldn't have much impact. However, should UoM have another crack at making Melbourne University Private, I don't think the Government has any right to regulate its pricings.

[alondouek]

Do they really have the right to be academically elitist? What do you mean by that? They're certainly capable of providing a higher lever of education but I would be really careful about saying they have the right to be elitist.

By 'elitist', I was referring more to their high-standard of education and reputation as a strong places of learning. I don't know anything about entry requirements for these universities (colleges?), but I can definitely acknowledge that there'd be a problem if most places are taken up by rich people paying their way into and through the institution. However, I strongly doubt that's the case, otherwise these places wouldn't rank so highly in world university rankings.

[Mao]

By 'elitist', I was referring more to their high-standard of education and reputation as a strong places of learning. I don't know anything about entry requirements for these universities (colleges?), but I can definitely acknowledge that there'd be a problem if most places are taken up by rich people paying their way into and through the institution. However, I strongly doubt that's the case, otherwise these places wouldn't rank so highly in world university rankings.

If I recall correctly, Ivy League admission does not take into account your financial situation or if you are disadvantaged, they assess based on merit only. Once you have been through their selection process (amongst the toughest in the world), the rich kids who can afford to pay are in, while the rest compete for scholarships. It's a lot tougher to enrol if you don't have the money. However, the offers are based on merit, and while it's not the most egalitarian admission system, there are no undeserving students in the Ivies.

[simpak]

Re the article above:

Well fuck me sideways, that's not good news. Looks like the Go8 want to charge heaps like the Ivies.

In the 2010 policy it was outlined that any reintroduction of Full Fee Domestic places under a Coalition government would require that CSP places be kept at the same level or increased, not decreased in favour of.

[alondouek]

If I recall correctly, Ivy League admission does not take into account your financial situation or if you are disadvantaged, they assess based on merit only. Once you have been through their selection process (amongst the toughest in the world), the rich kids who can afford to pay are in, while the rest compete for scholarships. It's a lot tougher to enrol if you don't have the money. However, the offers are based on merit, and while it's not the most egalitarian admission system, there are no undeserving students in the Ivies.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a system like that in Australia, given the need for our universities to cater for large numbers of international - as well as local - students.

[simpak]

If I recall correctly, Ivy League admission does not take into account your financial situation or if you are disadvantaged, they assess based on merit only. Once you have been through their selection process (amongst the toughest in the world), the rich kids who can afford to pay are in, while the rest compete for scholarships. It's a lot tougher to enrol if you don't have the money. However, the offers are based on merit, and while it's not the most egalitarian admission system, there are no undeserving students in the Ivies.

Many of the people I went to university with at an Ivy were not rich, they came from normal families and received financial aid which is awarded based on financial disadvantage rather than merit etc (http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/costs-financial-aid).  Of course all of them did very well on the SATs and in high school but we would expect nothing less for our own universities.

That said, you can read this article on Tiffany Trump's experience as a freshman at Penn right here! http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/meet-tiffany-trump-124151244.html

[Russ]

What are you suggesting? Their students receive a better education, many of them are more capable in certain jobs/management positions, yet they cannot boast the fact that they are the highest achieving individuals?

Being recognized as a world leader in education/producing better graduates is not the "elitism" I meant.

Can we have a clear definition of elitism here please?

That attending an Ivy League school makes you intrinsically better and more deserving than somebody who attends a non T1 school.

If you wish to attack the exclusivity of elitism, all the Ivies offer a silly number of merit-based scholarships. Some of the graduates from there are douches, but surely that's not cause enough to entirely dismiss the idea that rich, private universities has shown to provide the highest level of university education.

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.

I think the abolishment of full-fee paying places was a terrible decision. Australia only has a few lowly ranked private universities at the moment, so a discussion about price regulation right now wouldn't have much impact. However, should UoM have another crack at making Melbourne University Private, I don't think the Government has any right to regulate its pricings.

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.

[Mao]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think I'd be comfortable with a system like that in Australia, given the need for our universities to cater for large numbers of international - as well as local - students.

I disagree. The existence of private universities is not a replacement for public universities. Some public universities are hugely successful, examples in the US to contrast the Ivies are Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan State, Georgia Tech, etc.

Our Go8 are all public universities. However, there is no reason why we cannot allow both. UoM tried (and failed) to create Melbourne University Private, but only lost $20m in the process, and may very well attempt again. When they do choose to go at it again, I don't see what right a government has in regulate its prices.

Anyways, this is all tangential on the real issue, which is that universities funding has been cut, but universities have not been allowed another avenue to regain the losses. If full fee paying places were re-introduced in addendum to the current number of CSPs, at least universities would have a chance to make up its funding loss. The current decision is simply that universities should downsize yet again. This is especially hard on research departments that have been losing people since the combination of the 08'GFC and the abolishment of full fee places.

[Professor Polonsky]

(Image removed from quote.)

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...

What is wrong with the Ivies? The standard of education there (alongside their equivalent on the West coast) is still by far the best in the world.

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.

I hate the Ivy culture and would rather Australian universities cut costs than import that rubbish here

Right, just like how my credit card balance is the last thing I'd look at when I'm assessing my personal finances.

Last time I checked there was a subtle difference between personal finances and macroeconomics.

I have criticised the IMF report on what they think about the Howard spendings in this post: Re: Is Julia gillard being targeted due to her gender?

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.

On the basis of that, I am not going to believe every assessment they make. I don't hold the IMF to very high regards, they don't have a spotless record, and I do not recognise them as the absolute authority on the world's economic outlook.

That is not to say I can make that assessment myself, but our debt level has surged well past the Hawke/Keating era. This is very much cause for concern.

Maybe you can choose not to trust the IMF, but when just about every economist in the world disagrees with you, you gotta present a pretty damn more compelling case than "this is a cause for concern"