'Talent and drive, but no money? Forget uni' (The Age) (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

Talent and drive, but no money? Forget uni

An interesting piece (just ingore the fact that it's a Victorian article ).

"My family can't afford to pay the university fees up front, so I will be taking out a HECS loan," she said. "I don't think it's a good way to start life, owing the government $40,000."

It is as though many people are of the belief that all students pay their HECS contribution up front and that to not do so is financial suicide. I cannot understand arguments such as the one quoted above, because quite frankly, they don't make sense. Yes, costs for many are prohibitive (the caption attached to the article's picture is a case in point), but the HECS-Help component shouldn't be considered as such. Yes, it will be quite a bit of money by the end of your degree, but it's a deferred cost and one that will not be repaid in a manner that cripples your finances. I'm of the belief that the HECS level shouldn't be too high, though.

 

[santaslayer]

Friend paid his undergraduate accounting degree in ten years. That actually shocked me. (heard this in year 11). He's been working @ QANTAS ever since he graduated.

HECS is actually really helpful in the short term. It tends to bite back at you when you start working IMO. Some people need every cent of their income to survive, the HECS repayment fucks you up however small people argue it to be. Not everyone is as financially able as others are. Problems like this are exacerbated if you live independently, don't qualify for centrelink payments, need to rent, and pay everything yourself.

That being said, HECS is still a viable option for most people since it helps you so much in the short term (which matters most).

 

[hipsta_jess]

Some jobs have a starting salary of ~$35k once graduating, stop being a snob. Not all of us are cut out for the high paying world of acturies.

 

[Generator]

Some jobs have a starting salary of ~$35k once graduating, stop being a snob. Not all of us are cut out for the high paying world of acturies.

Then why is it that so many people are trying to live such a life, even if their salary isn't up to scratch?

Despite what some may say, the HECS bill is not going to come back and bite you on the arse later in life, if you are financially responsible and live within your means, that is. If you cannot manage that, then as far as I'm concerned you have no real reason to complain about the HECS debt itself because that isn't the problem.

 

[withoutaface]

You are using a service from the government, and if you gain a financial benefit from it (ie get an income above the threshhold) it is your duty to pay for the service. I'm of the opinion that HECS should extend to the entire cost of uni education, but that's another kettle of fish.

Bob the builder up the road who either chose not to go to uni or was never given the opportunity should not pay for me to get the opportunity to gain a higher income, or if I'm doing it to learn for the fun of itt then he shouldn't be paying either, because especially in the latter case it is something that only really benefits me.

 

[Generator]

I'm of the opinion that an education is a right for those who are both capable and willing. Even though I'd prefer a 'free' tertiary system in its entirety, I'm not against the notion of HECS, provided that the federal government continues to bear the greater part of the cost. Even though the individual clearly benefits, society in general also benefits from the study that many undertake (whether it can be quantified in economic terms or not).

 

[withoutaface]

My argument is that a secondary level of schooling adequately prepares the populace for citizenship, and while there are some university graduates that become community leaders, this number is minimal compared to the number of those who go in purely for vocational reasons, and while those vocational graduates will indeed benefit society through acting in their own self interest, the fact remains that they are acting in their own self interest and thus should pay. The benefit to society would exist whether the government subsidised the majority of HECS fees or not, because most of those capable would still attend university, and where the same net effect occurs with or without government intervention, imo it is always best to go with the latter. I would not, however, endorse a move to complete full fees for all students unless there was a sufficient mechanism contained within the market to provide enough scholarships/traineeships etc so that such a move would not act to the detriment of society in general.

It is probably in society's interest that the CEO of a large corporation should have a form of transport to and from his place of business so that he may co-ordinate production, but I don't think that many people would argue in favour of their car being paid for by the taxpayers, and it is my belief that this circumstance falls under the same banner if looked at without being biased towards the status quo.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I think that increasing HECS has added to the "elistism" factor of universities, but I don't think HECS is the biggest cost barrier. Living costs if you have to move away are huge so that is hard for people from regional areas, plus centrelink income support has not changed significantly despite the cost of living rising e.g. the $6000 "income bank" figure (the amount you can earn in supplement to youth allowance) has not increased since 1992, not even when the GST was introduced. Youth allowance is also indexed in a way so that it is a much smaller payment than the dole.

Increasing the costs increases that psychological barrier, the "I can't afford to go to uni" thought factor. Certain people on here will rave about how this is bullshit or whatever, but the fact is that socio economic classes can be somewhat psychological e.g. that whole cycle of "poverty repeating itself". I know people who have fallen prey to it. And I know people who are setting their kids up to fall in to the "poverty" mindset as well. For example a family friend of our who live in Southern Victoria in an isolated town on a farm. They were visiting us, the daughter who is about 13 or so says to the mother "when I go to university I'm going to study science", the mother snaps back "I've told you there is no way we will ever be able to afford to send you to university"... hmmm. Like they are really quite poor, but still to crush the kids dreams like that sucks, but her mum said to my mum "our family of 4 lives on $350 a week, how could we pay for a university education on that it's better that she knows now".... so a lot of it is the mindset, people think because the fees are expensive you have to be pretty well off to go to uni. Not that this midset is misdirected, because with other costs etc it is pretty expensive, especially since this kid would have to move to Melbourne. Also there is a lot of misinformation around about HECS vs DUFFS etc, a lot of people don't understand the system, particularly parents. Like I had silly friends who applied for full fee courses because their parents didn't want them to get a HECS debt. Luckily another friend and I explained the HECS system to them before preference changing closed, otherwise they would be paying a lot more for their university education....

As for the argument that there is always TAFE, one of my friends who was quite intelligent decided to do a TAFE course while she worked for a year to save up and maybe so she could get credits towards her degree later on or whatever. When I asked her what it was like, this is a direct quote.

"TAFE is a fucking piece of shit. If you have half a brain you will be bored out of your fucking mind. They teach you like you are semi-retarded, the classes move so slow it is unbearable. I can't believe I wasted a year of my life there"

This was simply her opinion- I'm not slagging off TAFE, but saying that maybe it is designed for a certain kind of student sometimes.

So, smart people probably enjoy the challenge of university as opposed to TAFE, and since I am of the mind that education should be a right and not a privilidge, I think someone who is smart enough to go to university and wants to go to university should be able to. TAFE teaches very different things to university.

I was pissed when HECS was raised 25 per cent, because I think if we aren't careful we could easily lose whatever level of accessibility our higher education system has. HECS is OK, I can live with that. I just think there are quite a few financial accessibility issues that aren't really being addressed by the current system.

 

[mishka]

I wouldn't be able to afford to go to uni if it weren't for HECS. I'm deferring all of it because I figure I'll be able to better manage my finances WHEN I have finances

HECS gives everyone the opportunity to go to university, no matter their reason, and I think that is really important.

 

[Generator]

I wouldn't be able to afford to go to uni if it weren't for HECS. I'm deferring all of it because I figure I'll be able to better manage my finances WHEN I have finances

HECS gives everyone the opportunity to go to university, no matter their reason, and I think that is really important.

Nobody here is disputing the notion of HECS.

Edit: Sorry, it's just that your post seems to suggest that somebody was (not even calculon or wikiwiki went that far).

 

[hipsta_jess]

Whilst HECS is helpful, don't forget theres a lot of other costs associated with going to uni...textbooks, fees, transport, etc...I know most of them can be countered (borrow books from the library, VSU, walk to uni, etc) but no matter how careful you are, it certainly isn't cheap.

 

[mishka]

Nobody here is disputing the notion of HECS.

Edit: Sorry, it's just that your post seems to suggest that somebody was (not even calculon or wikiwiki went that far).

Yeah I know - I just read some earlier posts But it just goes to show that you certainly don't have to be loaded to survive uni life. I get by by deferring HECS and budgeting what little money I do have. People from low socio-economic backgrounds shouldn't be put off by the cost - there are scholarships and subsidies for people in desparate need who can prove their ability. I guess I was defending against the title of the article

 

[withoutaface]

Whilst HECS is helpful, don't forget theres a lot of other costs associated with going to uni...textbooks, fees, transport, etc...I know most of them can be countered (borrow books from the library, VSU, walk to uni, etc) but no matter how careful you are, it certainly isn't cheap.

Most of these expenses aren't so great that they can't be alleviated by taking a year off before uni to work, in combination with current student welfare arrangements etc.

 

[Raginsheep]

It's HECS indexed to inflation though? Cause if it is, its effectively 0% real interest ain't it?

 

[braindrainedAsh]

The trouble is in regional areas it is hard to find work a lot of the time even if you defer for a year, I have friends who are unemployed/underemployed at the moment and it certainly isn't because they haven't tried hard to find work. So you either move to the city where your ability to save is hindered by high living costs or hope to find some sort of stable job in your home town, or move to uni and work you ass off working heaps while studying (which is what I did last year to qual for youth allowance). Plus there are so many things which can exclude you from recieving govt payments as a dependent even if your parents don't have a high income.... stuff like owning small businesses/farms etc can mean that their assets are too high for you to recieve help even if they actually have a very low income.

But yes, HECS is the lowest interest loan you will ever recieve. It's the other stuff that ads up quickly and has to be paid for now, not when you have a good job at the end of it all.

 

[ujuphleg]

its indexed to the CPI

so effectively zero real interest yes.

Yes, but you have the amount of HECS you pay back is for the year that is current. ie. if you graduated in 2000 and the HECS amount you started at uni with was say $4500 for an average degree, in 2005 you might be paying back $6000 because that is the amount of HECS for this year

I'm being a snob?

What because I am saying DONT GO TO UNIVERSITY IF IT WONT MAKE MONEY FOR YOU.

Plus you stupid tart - you dont start paying hecs back until your income reaches the threshold. Which i think is already greater thant $35 k.

Actually for the 2004-2005 Financial Year, the HECS threshold was exactly $35000.
ref

If you have a look at some of the graduate exit surveys for the University of Sydney, you’ll find that the average wage for your average degree (that is, accounting, science, arts etc, excluding law and medicine) is only just over the $35000 mark 6months out of university. (around the 35 - 45 k mark but usually not over that) ref

Look, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have to pay back HECS or that we shouldn’t have it, because the scheme does have its benefits. However, the amount could do with being lower – after all, there are plenty of universities around the world with much higher fees than in Australia but student debt on graduation is also much much lower.

 

[erawamai]

Bob the builder up the road who either chose not to go to uni or was never given the opportunity should not pay for me to get the opportunity to gain a higher income

You don't believe that the government should encourage the societal benefit of education?

It's a rather anti intellectual argument and shows up a tall poppy view. I thought it was mutually known that educational access to those who will work for it and want it is good for society as a whole.

This does not mean bob the builder or granny may should pay for the whole of my degree. However their taxes go towards many 'social goods' or public goods. Such goods that market principles do not deal too well with as people have a hard time making a profit out of them. The invisable hand fails, the invisable foot comes into play and you get a big fat market failure and everyone looses.

or if I'm doing it to learn for the fun of itt then he shouldn't be paying either, because especially in the latter case it is something that only really benefits me.

As for the suggestion that people should not subsidise your 'fun'. Are you serious? Are are actually trying to suggest the commodification of the emotion of happiness and fun? Just because someone does something for the fun of it doesnt mean it is not good for society at large.

The essence of that statement is that people do not go to university for the intellectual enjoyment of it. If they do do a uni degree for the enjoyment of it (perhaps say enlightenment of themselves because they enjoy the pursuit of knowledge) then they should not be subsidised at all. For example you might do yourself a favour by learning about economics by taking a postgrad course in economics after you do your engineering degree. Certainly if you become a member of the Liberal party and end up as an advisor somewhere I think it would be a very useful social good that you knew what the hell you were talking about and I would be happy, to an extent, to subsidise your quest for knowledge.

And how exactly are you going to work out who went to uni for the fun of it?

What about if you finish your engineering degree and get employment in an area that is not related to engineering where you do not use the skills you learnt in your engineering degree. For example you might write articles for the neo classical dry think tank on how you want to apply market forces to footpaths. Is your engineering degree to be construed as 'fun' and 'enjoyment'? Since you didn't get employed in the area of engineering the skills leant in that degree did not benefit society and as such were an inefficienct waste of tax payers money.

The implication of your statement is not too far from the communist allocation of professions. The attitude that no one should ever pay for people who do a degree for fun or enjoyment acts as a DISINCENTIVE for people to educate themselves. It's just like communism except at the other extreme.

It is probably in society's interest that the CEO of a large corporation should have a form of transport to and from his place of business so that he may co-ordinate production, but I don't think that many people would argue in favour of their car being paid for by the taxpayers, and it is my belief that this circumstance falls under the same banner if looked at without being biased towards the status quo.

Oh dear calculon. I think you have been reading too many neo liberal economics books without balancing it up with the criticisms.

Yes the large corporation does provide much benefit to society. I think it would be rather hypocrital for a corporation that believes in the powers of the market to accept a subsidy from the government for the CEO's car. The corporation and the CEO didn't get rich through maximising efficiency by taking government subsidies.

The government will generally only intervene or subsidise things that happen to not work to well in the market. Education is one THING where market principles do not work too well.

 

[Generator]

Yes, but you have the amount of HECS you pay back is for the year that is current. ie. if you graduated in 2000 and the HECS amount you started at uni with was say $4500 for an average degree, in 2005 you might be paying back $6000 because that is the amount of HECS for this year

Ah, sorry? To my knowledge they do no such thing. Your HECS debt is determined at the time of study, not the year in which you are making a repayment, with indexation being the only modifying factor.

 

[withoutaface]

You don't believe that the government should encourage the societal benefit of education?

It's a rather anti intellectual argument and shows up a tall poppy view. I thought it was mutually known that educational access to those who will work for it and want it is good for society as a whole.

This does not mean bob the builder or granny may should pay for the whole of my degree. However their taxes go towards many 'social goods' or public goods. Such goods that market principles do not deal too well with as people have a hard time making a profit out of them. The invisable hand fails, the invisable foot comes into play and you get a big fat market failure and everyone looses.

So are you supposing that if HECS were increased significantly that a large chunk of those currently attending university would not? I think you'd find that the bulk of current students either have absolutely no idea what their HECS debt is, or don't care because it seems so far off that they will have to pay it. I'm not arguing a line which says education does nothing for society, but rather that under higher HECS we'd have the same net effect.

As for the suggestion that people should not subsidise your 'fun'. Are you serious? Are are actually trying to suggest the commodification of the emotion of happiness and fun? Just because someone does something for the fun of it doesnt mean it is not good for society at large.

The essence of that statement is that people do not go to university for the intellectual enjoyment of it. If they do do a uni degree for the enjoyment of it (perhaps say enlightenment of themselves because they enjoy the pursuit of knowledge) then they should not be subsidised at all. For example you might do yourself a favour by learning about economics by taking a postgrad course in economics after you do your engineering degree. Certainly if you become a member of the Liberal party and end up as an advisor somewhere I think it would be a very useful social good that you knew what the hell you were talking about and I would be happy, to an extent, to subsidise your quest for knowledge.

And how exactly are you going to work out who went to uni for the fun of it?

What about if you finish your engineering degree and get employment in an area that is not related to engineering where you do not use the skills you learnt in your engineering degree. For example you might write articles for the neo classical dry think tank on how you want to apply market forces to footpaths. Is your engineering degree to be construed as 'fun' and 'enjoyment'? Since you didn't get employed in the area of engineering the skills leant in that degree did not benefit society and as such were an inefficienct waste of tax payers money.

The implication of your statement is not too far from the communist allocation of professions. The attitude that no one should ever pay for people who do a degree for fun or enjoyment acts as a DISINCENTIVE for people to educate themselves. It's just like communism except at the other extreme.

So you're interested in perpetuating the attitude of "I can do as many degrees as I want and do SFA with them and it won't be a problem so long as someone else is paying for them"? If being accountable for the burden you inflict upon society acts as a disincentive to do things that primarily benefit you then so be it.

Oh dear calculon. I think you have been reading too many neo liberal economics books without balancing it up with the criticisms.

Give me some titles and I'll have a look at them.

 

[erawamai]

So you're interested in perpetuating the attitude of "I can do as many degrees as I want and do SFA with them and it won't be a problem so long as someone else is paying for them"? If being accountable for the burden you inflict upon society acts as a disincentive to do things that primarily benefit you then so be it.

I think you do not understand the concept of social capital and the role it plays in ensuring an efficient market. Or if you have read anything resembling an economics or a political economy textbook you simply forgot about the chapter on criticism or shortfallings or the limits of the market. Your hardline neoliberal stance can easily picked to bits. The problem is you do not have the background to even understand when it is picked to bits. A post talking about the important social capital role of education is lost on you; you do not realise that the implications of what you suggest would mean for civil society. Even though what you say neatly follows the literal interpretation of economists you like to quote in our sig. Ironically if people actually didnt believe in the important role of education for the masses (I believe you are a part of the massives out in the outer burbs) you would not be at university.

--------

I would appreciate it if you did not misstate my comments through paraphasing.

You state my comment is perpetuating this attitude...

"I can do as many degrees as I want and do SFA with them and it won't be a problem so long as someone else is paying for them"?

Which is incorrect. I say this...

Certainly if you become a member of the Liberal party and end up as an advisor somewhere I think it would be a very useful social good that you knew what the hell you were talking about and I would be happy, to an extent, to subsidise your quest for knowledge.

Note 'to an extent'. That does not mean do 5000 degrees.

I think it would be good if you went and did an economics degree. I think it would be reasonable for the community to support you.

However suggesting that people who degrees for 'fun' (ie not adding to the productivity of the economy) should not be subsidised is very shortsighted. Again it leads to the conclusion that anyone who does not use the skills learnt in their degree in their area of employment they are in should not be subsidised by the government. That amount of subsidisation should be paid back to the state.

Again, if you did an engineering degree but rather gained employment working for a thinktank writing articles about how market forces should be applied to lighthouses then the skills you learnt in your engineering degree do not contribute the productivity of society. Your 4 years spent at uni doing that degree would be for 'fun' as non of the skills learnt are relevant to your current employment. Since you didn't get employed in the area of engineering the skills leant in that degree did not benefit society and as such were an inefficienct waste of tax payers money.

Since you do not believe the state should fund peoples fun then you are dismissing the role 'fun' or holistic education has as a social good. Generally the government will fund things that are for the social good. By saying that education for fun should not be subsidised (to an extent) you reject the notion that education, that is more than direct training for employment, is a public good and as such should not be subsidised by government.

Give me some titles and I'll have a look at them.

If you really want to correctly chant for the side you supposedly support whereby people who do know what they are talking about, and hence take you seriously, perhaps you should read 'Dry, In Defence of Economic Freedom' by John Hyde published by the IPA. He is a Dry through and through but he argues the the dry line without sounding like a dogmatic slave to the market.

As for titles that highlight some problems with the market...any decent economics text book or political economy text. Even a book i was looking at called 'understanding capitalism' had a chapter on problems with markets.

------------------------

Everything I say about is useless if you actually believe an educated society is not a good thing. If you do believe that I'd be questioning your belief in democracy and in your interest in a productive economy. We all know having a educated population is good for production and democracy.