Protest (1 Viewer)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

lol...80+30 = $110

whatever sometimes they throw in an extra 10.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

the ultimatum game example was also pretty irrelevant to what you were saying. still an interesting experiment.

No it wasn't. Decisions are made which are of a mutual detriment out of some perceived notion of 'justice', which is really just based on jealousy.

edit: People don't want full fee which means mean more money for their uni/benefits for them, because they can see that it also leads to perhaps larger benefits for some people (kinda ridiculous considering it's only 5 uai points... but still).

 

[Evan11]

. You could be an alcoholic sleeping at work, and still earn the same as someone who worked all the time.

bliss!

edit:

for the record and for every1 on here without a sense of humour, i AM joking. k?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

So you're against the government intervening to promote anything? I think there's many situations where you can say a society is better off having things that aren't so commercially viable.

Of course the majority of peope don't agree, as evidenced by the fact that many of these pursuits are not commercially viable. Hence it is unjust to force taxpayers to fund them.

I honestly believe if we had an absolute democracy we would still have the white Australia policy. The idea is that we elect people with good judgment who we believe will represent our best interests.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

It is argued that art degrees, theatres ect are inherently better than other pursuits, hence they should be propped up by the government.

You believe art degrees/theatres/museums don't offer any positive external benefits to society? I'm not necessarily the best person to make this argument, but I think a lot of people will have strong grounds to disagree.

See as far as I can tell, you're subtly promoting the ideology of liberal capitalism in saying that we do all we can to ensure a stable economy (I'm sure you might argue schools should be subsidised because we need intelligent hard working people for instance) and these things are 'positive benefits'. While I don't disagree with this, it's not too different from someone with a socialist ideology saying that for instance fostering diverse cultures leads to 'positive benefits'.

 

[Evan11]

You believe art degrees/theatres/museums don't offer any positive external benefits to society? I'm not necessarily the best person to make this argument, but I think a lot of people will have strong grounds to disagree.

See as far as I can tell, you're subtly promoting the ideology of liberal capitalism in saying that we do all we can to ensure a stable economy (I'm sure you might argue schools should be subsidised because we need intelligent hard working people for instance) and these things are 'positive benefits'. While I don't disagree with this, it's not too different from someone with a socialist ideology saying that for instance fostering diverse cultures leads to 'positive benefits'.

Like in all things tho, u need to find balance. You cant have a society based 100% on making money, just like you cant have one based 100% on having fun. And i think the balance we currently have is quite good. This applies to both uni and the country in general. Do you guys think the balance could be improved?

 

[stazi]

not all costs or benefits are tangible, though. for example, by introducing a free cultural awareness program to all people 18-25, which costs the government $10 mil to implement, you would think that there are no benefits. However, what if crime decreases, equity increases, etc. Stress also decreases for marginalised people, which leads to less health complications, which in turn leads to less of a burden on the public health system.

similarly, by doing lots of drama in school, and appreciating art, to an extent, my creativity was increased. i use this creativity to achieve better results in marketing. the financial effects of my marketing plans will be in the millions of dollars.

 

[stazi]

Like in all things tho, u need to find balance. You cant have a society based 100% on making money, just like you cant have one based 100% on having fun. And i think the balance we currently have is quite good. This applies to both uni and the country in general. Do you guys think the balance could be improved?

yeah, move all Abos to Palestine.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

They have postive benefits but not equal to the costs of producing them.

Value judgment. I'd agree, for some museums, for others, I'd disagree and would want to keep, even if not enough of my fellow countrymen agreed.

The reality is that the vast majority of people dont go to museums, art galleries ect. So the minority that do, and would probably go even if they had to pay, are getting their particular hobby heavily subsidised by the taxpayer because they can assert that it is superior, which is grossly unfair.

The reality is that the vast majority of Australians would probably have kept the white Australia policy going. How grossly unfair of Whitlam to promote something the majority of Australians don't agree with, how intellectually arrogant?

If we did not have such practices in place, think of all the treasures (some of which perhaps we do not appreciate the immediate benefits of) we will have lost?

Subsidies also promote laziness and inefficiency. For instance, if an artist or theatre company is commissioned by the government, they don't have the same insentive to produce quality work as they would if they were doing to it sell commercially.

It also promotes creativity... The most creative works are usually not well receipted by a generally conservative populace who appreciate the norm and there can be some lag time before such ideas are appreciated. Think of how many groundbreaking academic theories would be ignored as "worthless" and not given funding if the general populace had their way.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Maybe they are having their way seeing as science is criminally underfunded in this country

 

[kokodamonkey]

You mean one of those guys that the police told to piss off? LOL!

yeah i was standing up on that perch thing at railway square as they all walked past and was going to go further but the police's carefully worded response made me think twice about that!

Agree with Justin, Dom and Chadd.

I don't believe university should be free. If it's productive and you can get a job out of it, you can offset the payments later. If it's unproductive intellectual wankery you're the only person who will benefit from it, so fund your own damn hobby!

I get sick of how entitled a lot of people are. The "government should pay for just about everything, including free university" people don't realise that the government isn't the one paying, the taxpayers are, and why should they fund things they don't use? For some reason, a bunch of entitled hippies think they deserve to have their degrees paid for... same argument applies to people who think VSU is a bad thing.

EDIT: Stas is right. Bloody socialists. Seriously, income redistribution is idiocy, especially in situations like this.

Thanks for the support .
University should not be free to promote the ideal that it is alrite to be an art bum. We do not need taxpayer money to continuously fund Bachelor Of Attendance Students (BA), when taxpayer money would be better spent on my grammar and spelling..

Regardless of peoples opinions on the existence of DFEE places, i hate peoples ignorance when i hear comments such as "if there was no DFEE, then i'd have made it into CSP combined law" No you wouldnt have... DFEE places dont take away from CSP.. infact they increase the amount of CSP places!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I hate it when this happens.

Zimmerman - go back to UWS lol

yeah i was standing up on that perch thing at railway square as they all walked past and was going to go further but the police's carefully worded response made me think twice about that!

olol @ u.

Also, keep in mind, that in order to attract the best lecturers and researchers, universities in Oz need to be able to pay them good salaries (particularly when they can easily go overseas to teach). If the univeristies lose out on full fee payments, how do they pay their lecturers? They need to pay them with money that is currently available, and not available in 20 years when people's HECS debts are repaid.

The ALP will likely (I wouldn't say it's certain, but hey) replace the funding with HECS places. If they cannot make up the funding, they'll temporarily decrease the amount of places. It's hardly the doomsday scenario you seem to be saying it is.

even with productive degrees, they pay for themselves through the future incomes graduates are able to gain compared to non grads. why should the government pay for this?

Because it's fair.

free tertiary education also creates a disinsentive to work hard, because if you fail, hey, it doesn't cost you anything.

lol

The "government should pay for just about everything, including free university" people don't realise that the government isn't the one paying, the taxpayers are, and why should they fund things they don't use?

In the case of uh, certain types of students who go to uni simply to take philosophy courses and crap, I'd agree with you. But in general, I don't. There's a lot of instances where people should fund things they personally don't use. Hospitals. Schools. Defense etc.

 

[stazi]

The ALP will likely (I wouldn't say it's certain, but hey) replace the funding with HECS places. If they cannot make up the funding, they'll temporarily decrease the amount of places. It's hardly the doomsday scenario you seem to be saying it is.

hahhahahaha so you're advocating less places available to students, therefore less students getting an education, just so full-fee places stop existing.

HECS places also don't raise any money straight away. This money has to be paid in advance for the students, so that eventually, the money is returned. Full fee places raise finances instantly: these finances can go towards developing a superior education for students.

edit: also, what do you think should happen to international students? should we just kick them out, since you don't want any full fee places, and they can't repay HECS if they go overseas?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

hahhahahaha so you're advocating less places available to students, therefore less students getting an education, just so full-fee places stop existing.

temporarily, yes.

HECS places also don't raise any money straight away. This money has to be paid in advance for the students, so that eventually, the money is returned. Full fee places raise finances instantly: these finances can go towards developing a superior education for students.

The money gets to the university instantly in either case.

edit: also, what do you think should happen to international students? should we just kick them out, since you don't want any full fee places, and they can't repay HECS if they go overseas?

seems to me that the best bet atm would be to keep the international thing running as it is until a good solution can be found.

 

[stazi]

temporarily, yes.
Oh right, so the situation will somehow magically work itself out in the future? It will only get worse. The university will have a smaller amount of finances to reinvest.

seems to me that the best bet atm would be to keep the international thing running as it is until a good solution can be found.

oh ok, so because they come from overseas, they deserve more chance for an Australian education, even if their marks are lower than UAI-ranked students, as long as they pay full fee. That's quite hypocritical

 

[withoutaface]

I love when Dom's on the Right side of a political debate.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh right, so the situation will somehow magically work itself out in the future? It will only get worse. The university will have a smaller amount of finances to reinvest.

Well uh, as those articles I mentioned seemed to say, the ALP doesn't exactly seem like the type that would just take away the DFEE funding at let universities rot.

oh ok, so because they come from overseas, they deserve more chance for an Australian education, even if their marks are lower than UAI-ranked students, as long as they pay full fee. That's quite hypocritical

Oh they get in off lower marks? I never knew that. If that's the case then simply up the entrance marks for international students. We need the money, and there's no other solution.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

temporarily, yes.

Who cares if it's a temporary thing? No matter how much money a university can get off the government to fund things they'll always have a chance to get more money if they have a few full fee places.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

but that's immoral!

 

[stazi]

Well uh, as those articles I mentioned seemed to say, the ALP doesn't exactly seem like the type that would just take away the DFEE funding at let universities rot.

Yeah, it's not like governments haven't ever made stupid economic decisions, in order to propagate their ideology...

Oh they get in off lower marks? I never knew that. If that's the case then simply up the entrance marks for international students.

They get in via a converted mark. Quite often the university won't accept as high marks, particularly because it makes financial sense to let them in (exactly like full fee students).

we need the money and there's no other solution

...so you suggest that we decrease the intake of international students and cut off the intake of students who achieve lower than the HECS cutoff.