Why not then just increase taxes of those already IN a well paying job? I don't think there is a need to deregulate fees of students just because they have potential to earn much more in the future (and of course not all will).
Two problems with that, one, increases in tax bring no benefit to anyone except the Government itself (who in many circumstances do not desperately need it), and two, not all people in well paying jobs have gone to university, so it would be unfair for them to cover the costs for institutions they have never even used. At least with the deregulation of uni fees, we are charging the people who should be charged, and there remains some lasting benefit to the student for the increased quality of education they have received as a result of this deregulation, even if it is not an immediate financial benefit.
Yes, it would be incorrect to assume that all university students will end up in well paid jobs, and obviously those people would pay back their debt at a lesser rate. But the reason behind deregulation is not to punish students for their high earning potential, it's to increase the quality of university teaching and research facilities. As students will benefit from a greater education, I think the universities would be entitled to ask for more money, and students should be willing to pay that.
Why does research nees to be governed by the private sector? I don't see any advantages - other than that future research will be forcibly directed towards produce development and self interests.
What it basically comes down to, and this applies to the sale of any commodity, is that business entities in the private sector are able to better engage with their products, have a clearer picture on the features and issues involving that product, and would, as a result of competition between businesses, be more inclined to improve the excellence and quality of their product. If the private sector can perform a job just as capably or better than the public sector, it is best for the public sector to not be involved. The withdrawal of the public sector would generate more business, and hence more economic activity, as businesses in the private sector would compete with each other to sell their product. And as I've said, with the introduction of more products, business will seek to improve their own products to give them a competitive edge, which will work to the benefit of consumers.
A university, for example, and its administrators who are directly involved with the day to day happenings of a university, would have more knowledge about the university, and would be more likely to act in the university's best interest, in comparison to an external Government authority. They would be able to direct the funds they receive to areas which they know will reap the most benefits. The success and increased quality of education and research that this university offers would then encourage other universities to adopt similar strategies as well, in order for them to survive in the market. Some may choose to specialise in certain areas, others may choose to be more broad, but in the end, we have a thriving and diverse tertiary industry which offer to the Australian public a greater quality of education, and a greater capacity for the pursuit of knowledge through research.
That's the theory of course. Many might disagree with me, but I think it is based on some good logic, and I would welcome debate on this issue.
Oh I must have misunderstood - I am surprised that the chaplain sytem already exists! I might be wrong, but I thought they were putting $245m to its development?
No you were right, the program already exists, but they're investing a further $245 million into it. Maybe the money would be better spent somewhere else in the education system, but I don't think it's too important an issue to warrant as much criticism as it is receiving.
