firstly, I don't know why I keep arguing. arguing with you is like competing against the 5th grade debate team. but, nonetheless:
Nebuchanezzar said:
Although this is getting heavily off track, I'll bite anyway. So, I'll be back in a second while I get my Financial statement from my room.
I'm back.
EDUF1018: $499
GOVT1101: $624
CHEM1102: $889.
MATH1011: $444
MATHXXXX: $444
Total: 24UoS: $2900
Well, you were half right. Yes, it does appear that the education courses are cheaper. But then, since you have to take other subjects in order to become a teacher, apparently those "subsidies" don't go very far. Yessire, and the same applies for nursing when they have to take those big fat expensive science courses. So I was wrong in saying how much I was deferring to HECS debt. It's more around $6000 per year which means I end up with a big fat debt of around $42000 or something absurd like that. That's around a years wages for a teacher! By my estimate, throughout my career as a teacher I'll be earning around an average of $55000. So, if I'm paying 5.5% per year (as the HECS repayment outline says), it will take me a good 20 or so years for me to pay off my debt, just so I can become a teacher!
You can also pay in advance which gives you discounts, so you don't have to repay your debt over X number of years: you can shorten it significantly. Also, are you saying your cap will be $55k/year? You'll never earn more than that? You'll never do HSC marking? You'll never make use of quite a few other income supplementation schemes available to teachers during their holidays? It is sad that you have to pay more for supplementary subjects, however, and I would advocate that the debt you incur on the teaching degree be lower for subjects from outside your faculty, too.
However, couldn't you get a scholarship if you agreed to teach in a country town? That's where the teaching crisis really is, as far as I'm aware. They're not struggling to fill suburban schools (although there's still a problem).
I very much doubt those problems are limited to teaching, because (believe it or not), not every uni graduate earns a fantastic $200,000 salary. Although in your dream world over in the Merewether Building, I'm sure they do. :rofl:
orly? I think we're well aware that not many students would reach that salary and they would be earning a cap of around $80k, on average. However, compare that to people who didn't get a degree. You make up the money very quickly. Do you think postgraduate studies should also be free? The reason people do postgrad, such as MBAs is because they pay $100,000 for their degree, but start earning $30k+/year more than they did originally, thus after 4 years you've already made that money back.
As for the medicine thing, I'd say it's not just limited to the prospects of working overseas (which is a problem for teacher training too). I'd say that if the government said "free degrees!" we'd resolve our shortages pretty soon. And just to be sure, you're clear on the part about education degree subsidies not being all that great, yeah?
Oh right...so if the government suddenly said "free medical degrees" all those people who didn't get in to medicine would suddenly apply? Would all those people who are taking Law degrees suddenly reconsider and do medicine? The cost of a degree isn't a major factor in deciding which degree you choose. I didn't decide against doing a commercial law subject because it cost me $1000 - I'm deferring the fees, and if it pays off than it pays off. Why don't you create a poll: why didn't you apply for medicine. See if anyone selects "Too expensive" as an option.
No, you're absolutely right, more people should go to university.
Then we don't have plumbers and other tradesmen which are also very important.
You seriously suggest the benefits of a more skilled and intelligent workforce ends with the employer? Case in point: Take a look at Australia, and Burkina Faso. Which do you suppose has a higher level of education, hmm? Exactly.
....no, i'm not suggesting it ends with the employer. Seriously, what is wrong with your selective reading. I outlined that although it benefits society, as a whole, it primarily benefits two parties: the employer and employee. Your socialist friends would say that it benefits only the employer, so I'm surprised that you don't subscribe to that view.
You're oversimplifying the situation again, aren't you? You've already said that the benefits of a degree aren't limited to graduates making money. They benefit society. In the case of a vet, for instance, they improve the quality of livestock. This is turn, helps the "economy" (quotes because I hate the word, and I think anyone who uses the word sounds like a dick). A better "economy" helps the individual and their quality of life, and yes, the taxpayer should have to fund this with a fraction of their wealth, rather than heavily taxing the individual.
You need to look at smaller-scale models to see the true benefits. And yes, it would help the "economy" (and why do you hate the word, how else would you name the economy). However, one could argue that anything that we do helps the economy. By purchasing an Xbox 360, I'm putting money into the pockets of EB Games, who in turn use that money to put pay their employees. The employees use that money to pay for their kids schooling, to pay their local mechanic for the car, to invest in shares, etc. So by buying a 360, I'm helping the economy. Perhaps we should start taxing you and me to put those guys through 'retail training'? Should we tax everyone else so that we can all make purchases that would help the economy?
Mmm, and more education helps develop those skills even more.
I think that actual interaction in a real-life situation would develop those skills more than a theory does. Many students don't participate in class, nor do they do oral presentations. So, should we not fund their degrees since they don't develop those skills?
Well you see, I figured that if I have both an arts and science degree, that it will allows for me to have more career opportunities. So that's a five year B.Sc/B.A thing, and two years M.Teach. I made that choice knowing it would cost more. Not that I think that's fair that I should have to pay it in the first place.
*drum roll* and there we have it. The reason you're advocating free education is because you, yourself, don't want to pay for it. You took the longer route when shorter routes are available. We can now also start talking about discrimination: how much should we finance of an individual's degree? What if someone does a 5 year degree, followed by honours, then a masters degree, then a further phd, where they remain in university for 10+ years, whilst the taxpayer is paying for it. Why should they finance this person, when another can do a degree in 3-5 years, graduate, then get a job and start contributing to the "economy".
Just to bring it up, you'll be earning around four times as much as I will. Hmm.
Yes, although you'll also get 3-4 months of paid holidays/year.
I think I see. It once again relates back to the point about the benefits of a degree being limited to the individual, and in the majority of cases, I don't think that's at all true. Perhaps in the wankiest of wanky arts or science degrees (physics, gender studies etc.), but that's about it.
No, it goes back to the idea that regardless of degree, the degree primarily benefits the employer (esp. if you're Marxist) and the person with the degree. Employer: the person you hire has a lot of 'free training' (i.e. the person paid for their own training = university)
Employee: you have the right skills to get hired and will be making more money than people without degrees
Those were the type of examples I was going to look for. So indeed, I suppose I concede this point to you. HECS probably doesn't cause poverty. DFEE, apparently (according to that international student example), very well could. This is all external to my overall point though.
Sorry, I thought DFEE = HECS? It's not external to your overall point though: Basically degrees should be free because education should be free because it helps society. If degrees aren't free than people can't afford degrees and people who want to go to uni won't go to uni.
An appeal to tradition, eh?
But no, I'm basing this not off some appeal to authority. I'm thinking that it's been the ALP line for years, I'm thinking that their membership base would revolt if they suddenly stole funds away from universities, and I'm thinking that it's safe to trust them. It's not blind faith.
Just like "tearing up workchoices"..?
The effects won't be as apparent. Most people won't realise that money is being 'stolen' from universities (well...funding simply will decline, after all), but gradually, over a period of time, universities will have less money available to them (unless taxes go up, or the government reorients its funds)
This assumes they'll have less money. Why is that the case?
To conclude: :rofl:
Are you that daft?
Ok, I have 10 people who subscribe to my video store company. My company makes $1,000/year. I have 7 customers who subscribe to a rental plan in which they pay $100/year giving them unlimited weekly rentals. 2 customers pay $150/year to get unlimited new release rentals. The government passes legislation that states I have to accept everyone at the same amount of money.
This means I have 9 customers giving me $900/year, as opposed to 9 giving me $1,000/year. I make less money.
Now, lets say a university will delete their full-fee places. A similar thing happens.
-------
I'm actually very surprised you're an ALP supporter, and not a supporter of the socialist/communist parties.
Also, let's work out how much the government would have to fund if they make education free. It costs $6,000/year for the average student to complete their degree. Now, USYD has 30,726 undergraduate students. This equals to $184 million for USYD alone! USYD obviously has a lot of undergrads, but assuming 20,000 is the average, imagine how expensive it would be to fund all the public universities around Australia per year? I would assume that it'd cost over $1 billion unrecoverable dollars/year!
