• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

tackling the big issues.... should higher education be user pays only??

littleone said:

It is socialisation and education that changes peoples way of thinking rather then the other way around.
Click to expand...

Not all the population are exposed to sufficient education or the type of free thinking education for people to alter their ways of thinking. Do you think the people that leave highschool after year 10 (here in WA) have had any time to make serious changes to their pattern of thinking. Do you think it's even possible at a year 10 maturity level? I don't believe so.

People are exposed to marketing in almost every aspect of their lives and perhaps it's the development of a consumer society through the marketing and big evil face less corporations (blah blah blah) that have had a greater influence on this generation than what limited education (some get) could ever possibly compete with.

This is shaping up to be a chicken and the egg argument.
 
Duckboy i never doubted the number of professionals on this board.. i was simply commenting that i didnt think many would take the time to respond to this topic. Or come up with something that wasnt a regurgitation of conservative propaganda.

You say "look at where they are now" where do you think they are now? What does that have to do with culture? are you measuring them by their incomes again? Many are still working for a better society, rather then their own personal greed.

"where are they now?" well just as a comparison.. consider where the current generation is perhaps. Our generation has been so focused on their own personal consumption that they are the first generation whos lifespand is actually decreasing.

Mary Poppins: I do believe the adverse effects are being felt, primarily in the re election of someone like john howard who has continually misled the public and has undermined the liberal checks and balances of the parliamentary system. "A drain on the economy for nothing"...the argument i have been continually making is that education is an investment in the future. It is not nothing. An educated population benefits everbody.

I would have thought that a drain on the economy was the recently rumoured 1billion dollars the liberals spent luring prince charles over to open a building. With this kind of money to throw around on visiting royals, one would think the government could afford to toss a little more funding to our country's universities.


muzby said:
its called experience... nothing to do with power...

but yes, sorry, as you were asking me... i'd like fries with that thanks...
Click to expand...

Lastly..muzby i was referring to a foucault theory. What is john howard if not powerful? He is (unfortunatley) the prime minister.

Im not quite sure what you're trying to prove with the "fries with that" comeback. I went to an elite private girls school and my wealthy parents are paying for me to go through uni. I dont need a job. However i really dont think you should look down on people because they arent as lucky in their choice of employment as you.
 
for the record, probably slightly off-topic,

Liberal voters are a pack of wankers ;)

Why should John Howard of gone to university for free but these days prices are through the roof?
 
<3

Originally posted by Duckboy
What i would be concerned about with FREE education is that proportion of uni students with the drive and motivation to learn would be lower. Uni would become far too "easy". This is already a problem, i feel, with the upper socio-economic denomination, where students finish school and "go to uni", simply becasue it is the done thing. they don't know what they want to do. they just exist there for a few years.

^I'm also concerned with the effects a 'free' university education would have on the education system as a whole.

We go to primary school, and most of us go to secondary school because we have to. Because our parents take us there. It's the done thing.
It's expected at least up until the age of around 16 years, when in most states [I don't have the exact figures] it becomes legal to leave.

I didn't love school all the time I was there. I didn't mind it, though.
I went because I had to, and towards the end, because I was hungry for direction and knowledge.

Having a free university learning system makes me suspect students would be thinking of their secondary schooling as extended - - - just whack on the next two to three years [more for medical degrees, etc.] in which to specialise in the field you're interested in. :\

I suspect some students would treat it similarly as VCE [Victoria Certificate Of Education] and those final years of secondary school, where one is meant to have rooted out your calling and be picking subjects which will enable you to progress into your chosen career path - - - so many of my friends picked a career at random to be seen to focus on, just to get their parents off their backs.
What would be the consequence of a generation of university graduates with degrees they didn't really want in the first place?

* * *

In theory, I do believe a free education system is fair and something we should as a society, strive for.

In practice however, I can't help but cringe at all of the mistakes that could be made, and all of the negative effects it could impart on our society and culture. :(
 
In 1961 when John Howard graduated there was around 57672 students enrolled at university. In 1998 there was 457,500 domestic students enrolled at universities. Close to 800% in under 40 years. With that sort of increase and with numbers likely to continue to go up, fees are inevitable.

This report is interesting and looks at a number of problems with a 'free education' but it doesn't make the whole prospect seem impossible, just improbable.
 
Yeah but the economy and population is also much larger man. In any case, the one billion spent on prince charles could have probably helped things.
 
ANOTHER THING! i just finished watching the news and australia is going to have to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants because austrlian residents do NOT have the knowledge and skills that are even required by the workforce.

This is a symptom of underplanning and not enough investment in education. Basically university students who have to purchase their education choose safe/ low risk career paths. This means that there are not enough people choosing to study in specalised areas.
 
littleone said:
Yeah but the economy and population is also much larger man. In any case, the one billion spent on prince charles could have probably helped things.
Click to expand...

Can you give me a source on this, because as with the rest of your post. I believe this is largely based on your unfounded opinions.

Charles' tour to cost our tax payers $1m
 
btw when i say "look at where they are now. are we(they) any better for it???" - I'm asking a question. has that generation benefitted from free university education??

personally - i don't think i could pick a difference in "culture". But i'm really not in a position to know.

I have never measured success by income, although i am sure there are those who do. Success for me is if you feel happy with what you have made of yourself. Exactly what that entails will naturally vary for everyone.

Free education is a nice idea. It is also a massive drain on taxpayers.
My personal view is, that with the current system, university education is within the reach of the vast majority of people. I hear many people say they can't afford to go to university. Many simply assume that they can't without fully looking into it. It's not easy, but you CAN work and go to uni. And you don't need to provide money up front. But what it does mean, is getting a job.
It's a fact that in today's society, virtually nothing is free.
Free tertiary education is a nice ideal - but i believe it is exactly that. Find a nice socialist community and it could happen. Could our economy realistically support it?

Basically - i think HECS is okay. It's not ideal, but it's fair. You've got the opportunity to learn with things the way they are.
 
Pseudo G said:
Can you give me a source on this, because as with the rest of your post. I believe this is largely based on your unfounded opinions.

Charles' tour to cost our tax payers $1m
Click to expand...

alright i fucked that point up. im drunk now though so im finding it a little harder to argue. the point i am trying to make though is that it is about priorities. The government spends so much money on bullshit causes.. 1m is still an incredible amount.. not to mention how much money the government spends on election campaigns to cover up the fact they are lying bastards.

Money could be found if education was a priority. which it certianly should be since we are having to bring over foreigners because our population is not educated enough to fulfill our workforce needs.
 
littleone said:
ANOTHER THING! i just finished watching the news and australia is going to have to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants because austrlian residents do NOT have the knowledge and skills that are even required by the workforce. This is a symptom of underplanning and not enough investment in education.
Click to expand...

0,1305,1514,00.html


The top 3 job vacancies by occupation for 2003 was Labour, factory and machine workers, Sales assistants and store persons and food, hospitality and tourism. None of which have anything to do with increased university charges.

What else you got?
 
chart22.gif


Education is the 4th largest area of budget expenditure. I'd say that makes it a pretty fair priority.
 
littleone said:
15 minutes ago the ABC reported that skilled immigrants were needed. Because there are not enough properly educated australians to fill job vacancies. Or perhaps try this link: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=28080
Click to expand...

None of which actually identified what area these 'skilled immigrant' workers would be working in. So if took the time to do some research you'll find that the areas most lacking in skill labour are the trades which are not learnt at universities.
 
which brings me to another point i forgot to make earlier... the government failing to distribute money where needed. Last year the federal governtment gave more money to private schools then state schools.
 
skilled immigrants are from tafe and university sector. which is all education related.
 
this is what you want littleone,

Howard flags skilled migrant worker intake

Prime Minister John Howard says he wants to increase the number of migrants arriving in Australia to counter a shortage of skilled workers.

The Opposition says that is an admission the Government has not provided adequate vocational training to Australians.

Mr Howard says the economy needs more skilled workers and he has told 2GB the migration program needs to be adjusted.

"If part of the solution to that problem is to bring in more skilled migrants then I'm in favour of it and we will look at that issue very closely in the very near future," he said.

There is speculation the Government could increase the intake of skilled migrants by 20,000 next financial year.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley supports a larger immigration program.

"What I don't believe is that we should be using migration to substitute for a sensible government investment in skills," he said.

Mr Beazley says the Government should spend more on training Australian workers.

A New South Wales based-organisation representing employers has welcomed increasing Australia's migrant intake.

The chief executive of Employers First, Gary Brack, says 20,000 skilled migrants would take the pressure off regional businesses who are having trouble finding workers.

He says it is not necessary to restrict migrants to country areas only.

"Even though there is a desire to send these people to the country, the fact is if you bring in 20,000-odd in for particular positions that will take the pressure off the labour market everywhere," he said.

Mr Brack says it is not a long-term alternative to good local training but could fend off an economic crisis.

"If you don't find alternatives in the short term then you're likely to face wage inflation and that could wreck the economic performance we're currently enjoying," he said.

"It is inevitably a short-term response but it may well turn into a longer period of economic sustainability with the kind of growth we've experienced over the last decade."



http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1315112.htm
 
littleone said:
This is a symptom of underplanning and not enough investment in education. Basically university students who have to purchase their education choose safe/ low risk career paths. This means that there are not enough people choosing to study in specalised areas.
Click to expand...

Sorry by this I read you were only refering to university students. Obviously my bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top