SEAS Debate

[slothpomba]

Forget about what problems (about entitlement, etc) there are for a second, what exactly needs to be done to fix them? That's the important bit.

It doesn't matter how many fucking sacrifices they could have made, they wouldn't have been able to afford private school for me.

On a little tangent for a second, as ninwa hints at, if your parents are able to "sacrifice" 20k for your schooling on a regular basis, they can't be in a horrible position. For a family on $50,000 of income a year, sacrificing $20,000 simply is impossible. I'm not saying plenty of people don't make sacrifices in one way or another to send their kid to a supposedly "good" school but if you're even able to fork out $20,000 without not eating or not having electricity, you really aren't near the bottom of the heap. A lot of families can't even make the so called "sacrifice".

[Mao]

Forget about what problems (about entitlement, etc) there are for a second, what exactly needs to be done to fix them? That's the important bit

The abuse of SEAS is not an isolated case in systems designed to aid the disadvantages. Youth allowance, FTB and a range of other government aids are abused, and many people qualify for these aids when they are not at any disadvantage (many of my friends included). That is not to say these government aids should be abolished, there are many disadvantaged people in need for these aids, but the criteria for these systems must be overhauled.

Say, for example, the financial independence clause for youth allowance. One way to gain this is by earning $X in a year, with the intention to support students who live out of home, studies full time, and have to support themselves by employment because parental support is not available. However, many students qualify while still living at home, supported by parents, and were not under hardship to start with.

The fix for SEAS lies in a fix for YA, FTB and etc.

I like what Gillard has done for YA, which is to remove the earn $X/18 months clause in YA, and force the applicant to show that he/she must move away from home.

You also correctly pointed out several pages back that FTB is seriously abused at the moment.


If I had to redesign SEAS, I would give a ranking to SEAS applicants such that the $$ of welfare they receive modifies the ranking of a SEAS applicant. This is flawed in the sense that it's hard to quantify exactly how disadvantaged someone really is, and the $$ of welfare is not the perfect indicator. However, this at least reduces the abuse from families who are receiving $1 from FTB being considered as equally disadvantaged as a family receiving $500 from FTB.

[Mao]

On a little tangent for a second, as ninwa hints at, if your parents are able to "sacrifice" 20k for your schooling on a regular basis, they can't be in a horrible position. For a family on $50,000 of income a year, sacrificing $20,000 simply is impossible. I'm not saying plenty of people don't make sacrifices in one way or another to send their kid to a supposedly "good" school but if you're even able to fork out $20,000 without not eating or not having electricity, you really aren't near the bottom of the heap. A lot of families can't even make the so called "sacrifice".

I would like to go on a slight tangent as well. People place different values on different things. For example, I care a lot about music, and I will happily spend $1000 on some speakers, whereas most people won't. Some people place high value on education, some people don't place as high a value. Some people do wish to pay more money to receive a better education, and I believe they have a right to spend it.

These schools would naturally be better resourced, and will attract better teachers via higher salaries. The question is then, is it fair that these schools exist? On one hand, so long as there are people willing to spend money, there will be a natural disadvantage suffered by everyone else. On the other hand, is it fair to restrict how people choose to spend their money?

What ideal should we aim for?
- The highest achieving students should go to university, no matter by what means they reached there
- All students should have the same starting point, the most able person by his/her own abilities should go to university

[lala1911]

Forget about what problems (about entitlement, etc) there are for a second, what exactly needs to be done to fix them? That's the important bit.

On a little tangent for a second, as ninwa hints at, if your parents are able to "sacrifice" 20k for your schooling on a regular basis, they can't be in a horrible position. For a family on $50,000 of income a year, sacrificing $20,000 simply is impossible. I'm not saying plenty of people don't make sacrifices in one way or another to send their kid to a supposedly "good" school but if you're even able to fork out $20,000 without not eating or not having electricity, you really aren't near the bottom of the heap. A lot of families can't even make the so called "sacrifice".

Not all students families at private schools are actually wealthy. I can actually imagine many of them extending their already gigantic home loans to be able to provide their kids with the best education possible.

[Sachi_K.]

While it is fair to disagree with him, Nina's comment that he is a dickhead, takes the issue to a personal level. He like the rest of us is entitled to his opinion, consequently he too should be permitted the freedom to air his opinion, without personal attacks such as the one by Nina. Furthermore, by criticising him on a personal level, one is attacking the very fabric of the SEAS program, equality and freedom. As a result although opposing views may exist, this is similar to any prominent issues today, thus rather than vilify him, people can put forward some arguements with susbtance.

[Sach1_K]

No input to the actual topic. But the person sending the message above is just a person blocked by Nina using another ip and account.  Please distinguish between me and that guy.
Thanks
Sach1_K

[deleted]

Well I said I wasn't going to post anymore but I can't resist, Mao's explanation just summed up the entire thread's arguments.

The abuse of SEAS is not an isolated case in systems designed to aid the disadvantages. Youth allowance, FTB and a range of other government aids are abused, and many people qualify for these aids when they are not at any disadvantage (many of my friends included). That is not to say these government aids should be abolished, there are many disadvantaged people in need for these aids, but the criteria for these systems must be overhauled.

Say, for example, the financial independence clause for youth allowance. One way to gain this is by earning $X in a year, with the intention to support students who live out of home, studies full time, and have to support themselves by employment because parental support is not available. However, many students qualify while still living at home, supported by parents, and were not under hardship to start with.

The fix for SEAS lies in a fix for YA, FTB and etc.

I like what Gillard has done for YA, which is to remove the earn $X/18 months clause in YA, and force the applicant to show that he/she must move away from home.

You also correctly pointed out several pages back that FTB is seriously abused at the moment.


If I had to redesign SEAS, I would give a ranking to SEAS applicants such that the $$ of welfare they receive modifies the ranking of a SEAS applicant. This is flawed in the sense that it's hard to quantify exactly how disadvantaged someone really is, and the $$ of welfare is not the perfect indicator. However, this at least reduces the abuse from families who are receiving $1 from FTB being considered as equally disadvantaged as a family receiving $500 from FTB.

I would like to go on a slight tangent as well. People place different values on different things. For example, I care a lot about music, and I will happily spend $1000 on some speakers, whereas most people won't. Some people place high value on education, some people don't place as high a value. Some people do wish to pay more money to receive a better education, and I believe they have a right to spend it.

These schools would naturally be better resourced, and will attract better teachers via higher salaries. The question is then, is it fair that these schools exist? On one hand, so long as there are people willing to spend money, there will be a natural disadvantage suffered by everyone else. On the other hand, is it fair to restrict how people choose to spend their money?

What ideal should we aim for?
- The highest achieving students should go to university, no matter by what means they reached there
- All students should have the same starting point, the most able person by his/her own abilities should go to university

I really hope I'll be able to write with the same clarity as you one day lmao.

While it is fair to disagree with him, Nina's comment that he is a dickhead, takes the issue to a personal level. He like the rest of us is entitled to his opinion, consequently he too should be permitted the freedom to air his opinion, without personal attacks such as the one by Nina. Furthermore, by criticising him on a personal level, one is attacking the very fabric of the SEAS program, equality and freedom. As a result although opposing views may exist, this is similar to any prominent issues today, thus rather than vilify him, people can put forward some arguements with susbtance.

It's okay, 'personal attacks' on the internet aren't really personal attacks in my opinion... Unless it's on Facebook or something. But to me, this 'nina' chick is just someone with a female name stating her opinion on the issue like I was, which is all good! Even if it did appear aggressive, it's the internet, it allows people the power to aggravate others without having to really do anything.

[bentennason]

EDIT: Oops didn't read what Mao said so I guess this would be in addition to his first opinion on the SEAS system

To apply for a financial disadvantaged background, it states that parent/guardian income has to be below a certain amount of money ($X) per annum. However, that's only for income that the government has been made AWARE of.
Therefore it would be possible for someone whose parents earn amounts greater than $X but would be still eligible to apply under the financial disadvantage category.
So how do you separate the legitimate from the dishonest?

Just my 2 cents on the topic.