Uni's Dumb Down for Foreign Cash (3 Viewers)

[leetom]

I was correcting him on his assumption that garbo's need a UAI of 50.
Alot of ur posts dont say shit much like this one

I challenge you to find one post of mine that hasn't added to the argument, other than this one or the one pulling you up on the poor quality of your own posts.

 

[Plebeian]

Can we please return to the topic? Save your ad hominem bickering for PM's.

 

[Generator]

Can we please return to the topic? Save your ad hominem bickering for PM's.

Sorry, mum.

 

[Plebeian]

You should be

 

[Slidey]

It is as simple as that. Australia should be a meritocracy: those who can succeed are given every opportunity to, regardless of wealth or background.

And what of those who don't want to succeed, whether by choice or by upbringing, ignorance, et cetera?

Sounds like the same concept America was founded on.

 

[Rorix]

Education is a right, and everyone who has the ability should be able to attend universities for free. Education is a foundamental part of the nation. Without educated citizens, the country is no different from other third world countries.

The burden of proof for this statement lies with you.

So while there is no compulsion for the Government to provide free higher education under the first part, we must consider whether higher education is equally accessible to all. The rise in full fee-paying places and resultant drop in HECS places is reducing the amount of places which are "equally accessible to all on the basis of merit" in favour of those which are accessible only to some, on the basis of wealth. Higher Education at a Crossroads made it possible to have up to 35% full fee-paying students enrolled in Australian universities. If this level continues to grow, the right of all Australians to education which is equally accessible on the basis of merit will disappear.

Firstly, it is misleading to suggest that just because I am rich that I can get into university, as suggested by some (although not you in this post). Going on, is it correct to state that the HSC is a basis of merit? Is it practical to have a system with absolutely no full fee paying places? Are there other alternatives available, such as TAFE etc. that are not a university education? We cannot simply say, fee places exist, some people can't attend university, end of matter. Do students not only have a right to university education, but university education of some quality which may result from the introduction of some market forces in university education? Do inefficiences from a government based system ultimately reduce the amount of university places in net by encouraging inefficient faculities, and so on. It's not as simple a matter as it is made out to be.


Re: rest of your post, that is what I'm talking about when I say providing some sort of back-up of the going to shit claim - gotta go to work but will read later.

Quickly,

Hey Rorix, im not the poster child for free education.

I disagree.

I was criticising your position, which seemed to suggest a neoliberal philosophy: complete privatisation of all markets in which the government "competes".

It suggested no such thing, I simply said that education for free (in the university sense) is not a right. That was your interpretation because you were desperate to assert that it was.

If uni was privatised, HECS wouldnt exist and the uni would have very little reason to provide scholarships: they just dont make financial sense.

Never said university should be completely privatised, and even if it was, scholarships do make sense as better students going into uni translates to better graduates, more demand for that course and so on.

So poor students wouldnt be able to go. Non-profitable subjects will be dropped, as a firm's only motivation is profit maximisation. Bye-bye Arts, Bye-bye research degrees.

You can't scream "aiyaaa no government intervention" and then say : P.S: govt will have to intervene to provide HECS.

I never screamed aiya, for one. And I also never said no government intervention.

It will also widen the inequality in income distribution (more than the Howard regime has done).

The latest stats show nothing has changed in income distribution from 1996. You are desperate to attack the Howard government with little to no factual basis.

 

[Plebeian]

Going on, is it correct to state that the HSC is a basis of merit?

Yes. If the trend to increase full-fee paying places continues, however, selection from the HSC will be greatly diminished and placed on a relatively equal footing with ability to pay. This eliminates merit as the sole criteria, which it is meant to be.

Is it practical to have a system with absolutely no full fee paying places?

No, probably not. But that's not what I'm arguing for. I think there should be a greater emphasis placed on public funding for education so that full fee-paying places do not become a significant (or even, foreseeably, dominant) sector of higher education.

Are there other alternatives available, such as TAFE etc. that are not a university education?

Yes, but I don't entirely see how they are relevant to this. You can't send people who don't get into university because "their" spot was taken up by a full fee-paying person, despite the fact they may have been brighter than the full fee-paying person, to TAFE and say everything's fine. TAFE and univsersity cater to different areas of training, and universities need more funding irrespective of how much funding is given to TAFEs; ie. you can't compensate underfunded unis with more TAFE funding because they don't provide the same training.

We cannot simply say, fee places exist, some people can't attend university, end of matter.

Yes, I know, so I never said that.

Do students not only have a right to university education, but university education of some quality which may result from the introduction of some market forces in university education?

Perhaps. But here you are assuming that quality education can only be brought about by the action of market forces to provide revenue. A much better option would be to increase public funding from the start, which allows quality education without the skew towards the wealthy that is introduced by creating large swathes of full fee-paying places.

Do inefficiences from a government based system ultimately reduce the amount of university places in net by encouraging inefficient faculities, and so on.

I assume you are saying that keeping inefficient faculties makes unis take more full fee-payers so they can get funds to subsidise these faculties. Again, this is a problem that could be solved by increasing funding. I don't think abolishing these faculties which provide central parts of society (education, nursing etc.), so that more people can have HECS places for commerce, is really an answer. We need to recognise that prioritising funding so that we can have both is crucial to our success as a nation.

 

[Korn]

Yes. If the trend to increase full-fee paying places continues, however, selection from the HSC will be greatly diminished and placed on a relatively equal footing with ability to pay. This eliminates merit as the sole criteria, which it is meant to be.



No, probably not. But that's not what I'm arguing for. I think there should be a greater emphasis placed on public funding for education so that full fee-paying places do not become a significant (or even, foreseeably, dominant) sector of higher education.


Yes, but I don't entirely see how they are relevant to this. You can't send people who don't get into university because "their" spot was taken up by a full fee-paying person, despite the fact they may have been brighter than the full fee-paying person, to TAFE and say everything's fine. TAFE and univsersity cater to different areas of training, and universities need more funding irrespective of how much funding is given to TAFEs; ie. you can't compensate underfunded unis with more TAFE funding because they don't provide the same training.



Yes, I know, so I never said that.



Perhaps. But here you are assuming that quality education can only be brought about by the action of market forces to provide revenue. A much better option would be to increase public funding from the start, which allows quality education without the skew towards the wealthy that is introduced by creating large swathes of full fee-paying places.



I assume you are saying that keeping inefficient faculties makes unis take more full fee-payers so they can get funds to subsidise these faculties. Again, this is a problem that could be solved by increasing funding. I don't think abolishing these faculties which provide central parts of society (education, nursing etc.), so that more people can have HECS places for commerce, is really an answer. We need to recognise that prioritising funding so that we can have both is crucial to our success as a nation.

How do you suggest we obtain the money to increase the funding to education?

 

[Plebeian]

For one, the $10 billion surplus that is predicted for the next Federal budget.

For another, defence: according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in recent years (and for the foreseeable future) there has been an annual "3% real growth in Defence funding". This compared to the unindexed funding for universities which has seen it drop by $1 billion. I'm not saying we don't need to spend money on defence, but education should be seen as at least as great a priority, when we have such problems with shortages of skilled labour (eg. engineers) and crises in (to use the Government's phrase) "national priority" areas such as nursing and teaching; and in a time when conventional military strength means less and less (how exactly are these new F-35 fighters going to stop terrorists?)

 

[Korn]

For one, the $10 billion surplus that is predicted for the next Federal budget.

For another, defence: according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in recent years (and for the foreseeable future) there has been an annual "3% real growth in Defence funding". This compared to the unindexed funding for universities which has seen it drop by $1 billion. I'm not saying we don't need to spend money on defence, but education should be seen as at least as great a priority, when we have such problems with shortages of skilled labour (eg. engineers) and crises in (to use the Government's phrase) "national priority" areas such as nursing and teaching; and in a time when conventional military strength means less and less (how exactly are these new F-35 fighters going to stop terrorists?)

The defence force provides jobs and training, alot of which is in the trades, so by funding defence we are still funding education

 

[Plebeian]

The defence force provides jobs and training, alot of which is in the trades, so by funding defence we are still funding education

That's why I didn't say "destroy the defence budget", I questioned why we are spending massive sums on advanced procurement projects such as the JSF when they are really of limited use.

 

[Korn]

That's why I didn't say "destroy the defence budget", I questioned why we are spending massive sums on advanced procurement projects such as the JSF when they are really of limited use.

Because they will replace our old shithouse F117's which are a safety hazard

 

[Plebeian]

Because they will replace our old shithouse F117's which are a safety hazard

F-111's, Korn. F-117's are stealth fighters which only the US has

Anyway, yes, we do need to replace our F-111's. But there has been a lot of controversy over whether we need to replace them with an experimental plane, which has been subject to enormous cost increases (currently standing at over $65 million a plane, up from the original estimate of ~28), rather than something tried and tested. Especially when, I again reiterate, we are leaving the age when conventional airpower is going to do us any good.

As if our tiny defence force is going to be of any use if we got invaded anyway. Our defence policy is underpinned by the US defence force, not our own. All we need is an army that can go and provide assistance to the US in its wars so that we get assistance when we need it in return. Our fighters don't really do this (when is the last time you heard of a fighter or bomber actually being used? Our army, navy and aerial transports are all used, but not really aerial strike forces), so I don't see why we spend so much on upgrading them.

 

[Korn]

F-111's, Korn. F-117's are stealth fighters which only the US has

Anyway, yes, we do need to replace our F-111's. But there has been a lot of controversy over whether we need to replace them with an experimental plane, which has been subject to enormous cost increases (currently standing at over $65 million a plane, up from the original estimate of ~28), rather than something tried and tested. Especially when, I again reiterate, we are leaving the age when conventional airpower is going to do us any good.

As if our tiny defence force is going to be of any use if we got invaded anyway. Our defence policy is underpinned by the US defence force, not our own. All we need is an army that can go and provide assistance to the US in its wars so that we get assistance when we need it in return. Our fighters don't really do this (when is the last time you heard of a fighter or bomber actually being used? Our army, navy and aerial transports are all used, but not really aerial strike forces), so I don't see why we spend so much on upgrading them.

Shit yeah, got the number wrong, sorry.
We actually have the best military training in the world so our defence force does alot for its size. Who do you think did the attack planning in Iraq? the US? or Australian SAS?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

F-111's, Korn. F-117's are stealth fighters which only the US has

Anyway, yes, we do need to replace our F-111's. But there has been a lot of controversy over whether we need to replace them with an experimental plane, which has been subject to enormous cost increases (currently standing at over $65 million a plane, up from the original estimate of ~28), rather than something tried and tested. Especially when, I again reiterate, we are leaving the age when conventional airpower is going to do us any good.

As if our tiny defence force is going to be of any use if we got invaded anyway. Our defence policy is underpinned by the US defence force, not our own. All we need is an army that can go and provide assistance to the US in its wars so that we get assistance when we need it in return. Our fighters don't really do this (when is the last time you heard of a fighter or bomber actually being used? Our army, navy and aerial transports are all used, but not really aerial strike forces), so I don't see why we spend so much on upgrading them.

Personally I don't understand why we don't have a missile program...
The REAL way to avoid war these days is to have missiles.

 

[Xayma]

F-111's, Korn. F-117's are stealth fighters which only the US has

Anyway, yes, we do need to replace our F-111's. But there has been a lot of controversy over whether we need to replace them with an experimental plane, which has been subject to enormous cost increases (currently standing at over $65 million a plane, up from the original estimate of ~28), rather than something tried and tested. Especially when, I again reiterate, we are leaving the age when conventional airpower is going to do us any good.

As if our tiny defence force is going to be of any use if we got invaded anyway. Our defence policy is underpinned by the US defence force, not our own. All we need is an army that can go and provide assistance to the US in its wars so that we get assistance when we need it in return. Our fighters don't really do this (when is the last time you heard of a fighter or bomber actually being used? Our army, navy and aerial transports are all used, but not really aerial strike forces), so I don't see why we spend so much on upgrading them.

Why do we need to replace our F-111's? The only problem with them is their aging airframes which is the ultimate factor in it. They still hold the largest payload and are the fastest bomber in service with the RAAF.

Also there aren't too many countries that could mount a successful invasion against Australia, in part thanks to the RAAF. The USA is one of the few (some argue the only) that could. I would also like to point out that despite being small we do have some advantages that could be of use in an invasion such as an OTH. Which in war games has managed to help achieve kills against stealth aircraft.

Also Techie, the JSF is needed as an advanced fighter aircraft. It may never be used in anger, however, possessing it is a large advantage should it be required to be used in anger.

Techie, I question what you mean by conventional air power. In the case of an invasion against Australia, enemy troops must land. The JSF serves well as a CAP aircraft. Not as good as the F22 in that field however, the JSF is multirole. The AP3-C orion is a great assest in anti-maritime warfare.

 

[Plebeian]

So keep the SAS which is useful, and don't spend billions on planes which aren't.

Techie, I question what you mean by conventional air power. In the case of an invasion against Australia, enemy troops must land. The JSF serves well as a CAP aircraft. Not as good as the F22 in that field however, the JSF is multirole. The AP3-C orion is a great assest in anti-maritime warfare.

What I'm saying is that I don't think we are going to get invaded, and that if we do, we're not going to be able to stop whoever invades us anyway, we're going to be relying on the US, so there is little point in upgrading our air force.

 

[Xayma]

We don't have the SAS. They are a British unit.

How aren't aerial denial planes useful? Considering they are expected to last many years it is impossible to tell of the circumstances of the future and guage their usefulness.

The USA can't magically appear within 4 hours to help us. Plus if Australia is invaded I think the USA might be having a little trouble of their own. What country would be stupid enough to invade Australia if the USA wasn't already tied up?

Also what makes you so sure we couldn't stop them. Again, land troops must make it shore. To land the number required would be a huge undertaking.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

We do have SAS.

 

[Xayma]

No we have the SASR. Not the SAS. Two different organisations. Also note that they are only a regiment. Not going to do much damage in anything but covert operations which requires a main army for support.