Protest (1 Viewer)

[stazi]

RE teachers' wages.

I agree that we don't want people doing teaching for the money. To be a good teacher, you actually need to want to do teaching. There's a lot of effort that comes in outside the 6 hours spent at the school, and if you're just in it for the money your students will suffer.

It just seems like a pity that top HSC students have no desire to do education.

I was seriously considering teaching, but thought the pay sucks. I know I'd be a fantastic teacher that the kids would also love and learn a lot from.

So, it's not necessarily that someone would do teaching for the money, but that someone who would consider teaching may preference that pathway higher as the money won't suck.

It's hard to imagine that someone would be in it "just for the money" if the pay is still much lower than people in law/business/medicine/engineering.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

It just seems like a pity that top HSC students have no desire to do education.

There's no need for them to since they're mostly asians with no communication skills anyway

 

[blakegman]

Teaching seems like a decent career really. I think a lot of people ignore the intangible(?) aspects of it, such as helping kids develop, helping them towards their goals/careers etc. It definatly seems more rewarding then reading balance sheets all day. But maybe i am wrong

 

[stazi]

furthermore, I've just realised that you can be motivated by the money of a profession and still be fantastic at it. I love marketing and I know I'm a great marketer, but if all of a sudden marketing strarted paying $50k/year, I'd defect to another profession which I'd get just as passionate about and be good at if I can earn 100k+.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I agree that we don't want people doing teaching for the money. To be a good teacher, you actually need to want to do teaching. There's a lot of effort that comes in outside the 6 hours spent at the school, and if you're just in it for the money your students will suffer.

But what's the alternative?

However, to your detriment, I'm also a logical person who doesn't limit myself to the views of a particular ideology.

Nor I, mr. ass. For instance, my support of the privatisation of NSW electricity assets?

Aren't after like 7 years teachers on like 68-70 grand or something?

I just copied this straight from the pdf article. You want the right hand column.

Increase 4.5% 4.5% 4%
Step 13 69,334 72,454 75,352
Increase 3% 3% 3%
Step 12 64,798 66,742 68,744
Step 11 62,341 64,211 66,137
Step 10 59,888 61,685 63,536
Step 9 57,435 59,158 60,933
Step 8 54,983 56,632 58,331
Step 7 52,527 54,103 55,726
Step 6 50,072 51,574 53,121
Step 5 47,621 49,050 50,522
Step 4 45,167 46,522 47,918
Step 3 42,943 44,231 45,558
Step 2 40,259 41,467 42,711
Step 1 36,936 38,044 39,185

---

firstly, I don't know why I keep arguing. arguing with you is like competing against the 5th grade debate team. but, nonetheless:

Good start, Stazi. :rofl:

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.

Well uh, no, I can't. Nice try though.

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?

Maybe, I'm not too sure. It's possible that I'll tutor but since that's not certain it seems somewhat unfair to include it in this argument. The $55,000 was an average I took at a glance.

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.

I'm glad we agree. I think the current model of only subsidising education faculty courses is insane.

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'm not at all sure. I've looked into scholarships a bit, but the information was hard to come by. I've heard rumours about those country town scholarships, but haven't seen much concrete evidence. There's a shortage across the board though...

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.

Oh but apparently the money you earn makes a big difference in choosing a degree, according to you. Are you saying that people don't consider massive debt as a factor, but only look at the end result? It's a combination of both, and suggesting anything otherwise is terribly illogical. If the government subsidised medical, nursing, teaching and whatever else degrees, people who passed them up before would re-consider. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

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?

Oh, it's just that too many people use it without knowing what they're talking about. I really don't know that much about economics. I mean, I know a bit, but I feel like a douche when saying the "economy" since I really don't know what I'm talking about on a very deep scale. It'd be the same if people started talking about the "chemistry" of things.

Would you say that buying at XBox 360 has as much impact on society as a doctor, vet, teacher, nurse, engineer or architect does? Or was that just a foolish strawman you came up with?

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?

Possibly. A better solution would be to structure their courses so that they have to participate in class, have to do oral presentations, have to write essays and so on. And as an interesting point, the only subjects I've taken at USyd where I haven't had to do an oral presentation were chemistry, and maths subjects.

*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.

There's the unfortunate fact that I've been advocating it for years and took the longer route knowing that I'd have to pay more. So um, yeah... :rofl:

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".

Well I imagine that the PhD would contribute a lot more than a bachelor would.

Yes, although you'll also get 3-4 months of paid holidays/year.

lol. It's 10 weeks paid holidays per year. And there's also the fact that being a teacher is uh, pretty damn stressful.

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.

True.

Just like "tearing up workchoices"..?

Hahaha, they're working on it. They're in the process of rolling it back.

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.

No, because that's not exactly the way university places work, from what I've been told. HECS places are subsidised, DFEE places are not. So say the total for a degree is $100k

HECS: 20k (user) + 80k (govt)
DFEE: 100k (user) + 0k (govt)

The ALP has said they'll replace DFEE places with HECS places, so the overall funding will remain the same. Should they not be able to afford this, they'll cut back student places temporarily. This isn't a good thing, but it won't have a profound effect on students at uni, since the funding cutbacks will, I imagine, be limited to getting rid of now redundant tutors and so on.

I would assume that it'd cost over $1 billion unrecoverable dollars/year!

I suggest we take that money out of defense.

And while I support the ALP, I don't nessecarily agree with them all the time, nor do I vote for them all the time. In the federal election I voted greens in the upper house, and in the state elections I voted for greens all around. I'll more than likely be voting liberal in the next state election.

 

[A High Way Man]

ppl shud have the option to teach yrs after they are tired of being a professional

 

[stazi]

Well uh, no, I can't. Nice try though.

But you could

Maybe, I'm not too sure. It's possible that I'll tutor but since that's not certain it seems somewhat unfair to include it in this argument. The $55,000 was an average I took at a glance.

Not really. If you know that you'll have spare time, particularly due to the holiday period, and there being a demand for tutors, I think it's fair to include those estimates. Also, keep in mind that many people tutor 'under the counter', so you don't actually pay tax on that amount.

I'm not at all sure. I've looked into scholarships a bit, but the information was hard to come by. I've heard rumours about those country town scholarships, but haven't seen much concrete evidence. There's a shortage across the board though...

Uhhh info is very easy to come by. Both USYD and UAC offer these scholarships. Just from UAC alone, there are 12,000 education costs scholarships at $2k/year, and an unstated number of $4.3k/year accommodation (country) scholarships. Then universities will typically offer more scholarships. For example, USYD offers 100 $5k/year scholarships for students with disabilities/from rural areas and 150 more merit and entry-based scholarships also valued at $5k/year.

Oh but apparently the money you earn makes a big difference in choosing a degree, according to you. Are you saying that people don't consider massive debt as a factor, but only look at the end result? It's a combination of both, and suggesting anything otherwise is terribly illogical. If the government subsidised medical, nursing, teaching and whatever else degrees, people who passed them up before would re-consider. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

Yes, because:
1) The debt isn't massive
2) You don't have to repay the debt unless you earn over a certain amount
3) It's not stupid to suggest otherwise. Go and run a survey on bos for HECS students: does the cost of your degree affect your choice of subjects/career choice

Oh, it's just that too many people use it without knowing what they're talking about. I really don't know that much about economics. I mean, I know a bit, but I feel like a douche when saying the "economy" since I really don't know what I'm talking about on a very deep scale. It'd be the same if people started talking about the "chemistry" of things.
Would you say that buying at XBox 360 has as much impact on society as a doctor, vet, teacher, nurse, engineer or architect does? Or was that just a foolish strawman you came up with?

No, us "economists" look at smaller-scale models. The Xbox 360 example was to suggest that almost all consumption impacts on the economy positively. You said that a vet would help with farms, which would help the economy. To suggest that every vet would be doing that is silly: many vets would operate in private practices around metropolitan centres only helping with sick pets. Does this help the economy? Yes. Should we also fund their degrees? No. In fact, as a teacher earning $55k/year, would you be comfortable having $1k less in your wallet so that people entering university can do their degrees for free; so that I can go to Singapore and get $200k/year to only benefit me? Remember, if the government introduces this, it won't happen for a number of years: they won't just abandon HECS this year, and it's unlikely they'll work everything out by next year, so you'll have to wait until 2010 when you won't have very long to go until graduation and are stuck with your massive debt. On top of this you'll be paying for some schmuck who is doing gender studies.

Possibly. A better solution would be to structure their courses so that they have to participate in class, have to do oral presentations, have to write essays and so on. And as an interesting point, the only subjects I've taken at USyd where I haven't had to do an oral presentation were chemistry, and maths subjects.

Oh right...so we should also change the way that every class is taught until we standardise education?

[quoteThere's the unfortunate fact that I've been advocating it for years and took the longer route knowing that I'd have to pay more. So um, yeah... :rofl:[/quote]
But if you have to, then you don't mind that much paying more, as ultimately you don't have to worry about it. Chances are you'd be just as successful if you didn't stay at uni for seven years, as that's a bit of overkill. Your decision was rational.

Well I imagine that the PhD would contribute a lot more than a bachelor would.

What about a coursework masters degree such as an MBA?
And yes, a phd contributes quite a bit, but imagine the resources needed to support a phd student. Many PhD people work and it'll take them many years to complete their thesis. What if they don't complete it? Should they repay the government for the years they spent doing it thus ending up in way more debt than anticipated?

No, because that's not exactly the way university places work, from what I've been told. HECS places are subsidised, DFEE places are not. So say the total for a degree is $100k

HECS: 20k (user) + 80k (govt)
DFEE: 100k (user) + 0k (govt)

The ALP has said they'll replace DFEE places with HECS places, so the overall funding will remain the same. Should they not be able to afford this, they'll cut back student places temporarily. This isn't a good thing, but it won't have a profound effect on students at uni, since the funding cutbacks will, I imagine, be limited to getting rid of now redundant tutors and so on.[/quote]
So less people should be entitled to an education, if the government needs to cut back places? But it's ok, as you're also putting tutors out of jobs.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/HECS.htm also seems to suggest that for 1.9b of HECS liabilities in 2003-2004, the Commonwealth government paid out $597m to universities.

Perhaps someone who's better-versed in HECS can clarify.

Even if you look at your suggested contributions, if the number of DFEE students goes down, then the university won't have access to 20k/student immediately. I found a stat that in 1998 we had 392,560 undergrad domestic students. Let's say that 15% of those are DFEE. That equals to $1.1billion lost/year. However, I highly doubt that each students costs $100,000/year to put through university. I'd be quite certain that the majority of the costs are included in the HECS amount, which the government gives to the universities.

Come to think of it I'm about 70% sure that the way HECS works is the commonwealth government pays the university (e.g.) $20k/student > the student then repays the commonwealth government when they earn over the threshold.

I suggest we take that money out of defense.

[/QUOTE]
I agree to an extent, but we still need a defence budget. We could, however, decrease it by quite a bit.

 

[blakegman]

Defence really can't afford to be cut. Because we have such a small number of actual 'soldiers' to speak, the only reason we are credible in the world stage is because the soldiers that we do have, are some of the best in the world.

Cut the funding and were no better then the army of Papau New Guinea.

Back to the teaching point, I see no problem with cutting out DFEE places as long as university funding is no worse off. Though people should contribute money towards their own degree.

 

[stazi]

Why do we have to be better than the army of PNG? We don't have many threats.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm about to leave and won't be back until tommorow sometime. Don't think that I'm giving up though, Stasius Richardsin (I think).

 

[stazi]

you may as well give up, though. your lack any demonstrable models to back up your arguments. logic > emotion.

 

[blakegman]

Why do we have to be better than the army of PNG? We don't have many threats.

We need troops for peacekeeping missions in other countries. Plus any bullshit war we get dragged into with america. Plus the existence of a decent defence force gives the country credibility.

You never know when the defence force will be needed. What if in 20 years time Indonesia decide that they wouldn't mind some extra land ? probably not gonna happen but still.

I don't know the exact funding, but i suppose cutting some of it wont be too detrimental.

 

[stazi]

We can avoid those wars though by being more neutral. I will concede, though, that the defence force is fantastic to the economy: you need to produce a lot of food, ammunition and infrastructure to sustain the military. This creates lots of new jobs, and puts money into people's pockets thus growing the economy, as a whole.

 

[withoutaface]

We can avoid those wars though by being more neutral. I will concede, though, that the defence force is fantastic to the economy: you need to produce a lot of food, ammunition and infrastructure to sustain the military. This creates lots of new jobs, and puts money into people's pockets thus growing the economy, as a whole.

<3

 

[stazi]

keynes ftw

 

[withoutaface]

I say we employ bulldozers to move huge piles of money around.

 

[blakegman]

We can avoid those wars though by being more neutral. I will concede, though, that the defence force is fantastic to the economy: you need to produce a lot of food, ammunition and infrastructure to sustain the military. This creates lots of new jobs, and puts money into people's pockets thus growing the economy, as a whole.

True, to an extent. However if shit hits the fan in 30 years i would feel a lot better knowing we have the latest missle defence systems then knowing little johnyy smith was able to get his arts degree.

Views on Government spending are subjective anyway. There is no right answer i suppose.