Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Certainly up until a few years ago, there were caps on places, fees were regulated and funding was allocated to incentivise specific programs (for social utility and other reasons). However, in the last few years, there's been quite significant reform and higher education is now moving towards an entitlement-based arrangement. Fees are still regulated but Commonwealth funding doesn't match costs and the difference is paid by the student. I don't know the number of scholarship places. I do know that quite significant funding is allocated through two specific measures to improve low-socioeconomic and regional student participation.
Certainly, funding for higher education in Australia is generous and probably more so that in NZ. Whether it constitutes more as a percentage of GDP I'm not sure. They/we also have a brain drain problem, but it's not nearly so bad as NZ's. Also, while participation has increased hugely in the last decade+ in Australia, the partipation of low-socioeconomic students has been static. Finally, as we're doing comparisons, loans are not interest free here, the borrowing appreciates by CPI. And just for the sake of my own personal integrity, I have previously strongly argued for the interest free loan arrangement, I'm just not sure now...
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Including student allowances, absolutely. But student loans are loans. They're at least technically an asset, not an operating expense, and should not be included in a truthful evaluation of money spent on providing tertiary education. That'd be like a bank saying it spends $x on providing mortgages where $x includes the value of the mortgages themselves.
From an accounting perspective, I suspect you're right. However, there's an operating expense due to the loan being interest free and that probably hits the notional P&L. My point is that there's an envelope of funding, capital and operating, available in any single period assigned to tertiary education (which for the moment we're defining narrowly as institution-based) and I understand that an unusually large proportion of that goes to student support (again, I could be wrong but that's what I understand). If then, we have comparatively high participation, is the level of student support justified or is it deadweight? And if it's deadweight could it be better invested in expanding provision (that assumes if student support is decreased the savings remain in the portfolio)?
Of course you'd want to look at the composition of participation, if there's not improving low-socioeconomic participation that's a problem even if overall participation is up.
Contrast this with Australia, where there are many fully-funded positions available on top of scholarships.
I'm not sure what this is based on Matthew? From 2012, all undergraduate places in public universities will be funded by the Commonwealth at a set rate that is part of the cost and the balance will be payable by the student (with access to loans). I don't know that there's comparatively more scholarship places at undergraduate level in Australia.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Well, of course. When your Minister of Tertiary Education includes student loans in the overall education budget, that's quite a significant distortion on what's really available to institutions themselves.
Matthew, I actually think it's reasonable to assess the total value of public funding for tertiary by including student support. The VCs are arguing that student support is too generous. I'm not sure it is, but when the enrolments are capped and fees are regulated, it's hardly surprising that that's their view.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
Lucy, I'm thinking aloud really, I don't have a fixed view (I have in the past had a fixed view which required more funding for students and for universities).
In terms of what funding, I meant the combined impact on universities of regulating fees and also enrolments which, along with set funding for courses, caps university income. I understand, but haven't verified, that public funding for tertiary education is comparatively high however the balance is unusual with a relatively high proporation directed to students (in the form of loans for living costs). If that's correct, and we have high levels of enrolment and qualification and high levels of PLT departures, I think we've got a problem.
The real question in keeping the investment in tertiary students in NZ is, of course, jobs - especially in the sciences and engineering. It's getting the first job right out of university that will keep people here - there is nothing more demoralising than spending several years and a lot of money on a field-specific degree to find that your best offer is barely above minimum wage working a helpdesk. I can't tell you the number of job ads I've seen that say things like "graduate position, two years experience required".
I agree. NZ has low wages and, by virture of its size, can't compete with the opportunities available offshore. If graduates aren't offered interesting work with decent remuneration, of course they'll head offshore. With the Australian economy picking up rapidly, it'll be both tertiary and vocationally qualified NZers who depart. The recovery effort in Queensland will only make matters worse.
All that said, I'm interested in the solution. My once strongly held objection to loans has gone. The issue now is how to limit debt so that it is repaid and doesn't deter students from enrolments. Labour's changes to the allocation of repayments, to principal and interest, was sensible. At the time, I also though setting fee maxima was too (but that was when enrolments were uncapped). I don't think the current mix is right and, if I'm honest, I'm not convinced the interest free arrangements are justified. Perhaps CPI would be better - that's the case in Australia.
-
Speaker: Medical Journal, Chapter V, in reply to Pat Hackett,
Well played Pat! Some are David Warner, others David Gower.
-
Hard News: Book review: 'Wikileaks:…, in reply to Don Christie,
The “rape apologist” label applied to Gordon Campbell was appalling, IMO .
For the comment you quote? Indeed.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Steve Parks,
Sure, but I don’t consider “Don’t let people leave NZ until they have paid off their student loan” as serious rethinking. Or thinking.
No, that's way too superficial I agree (bonding being a sensible variation I think we agree). I don't have the answer but I do think the discussion is worth having and I'm not sure it will be. Labour's long been committed to restoring a level of student support slashed by the Nats in the early '90s and National's now locked in too. I don't advocate students living an impoverished existence but I do wonder about the risk that resources are being over allocated to a group that mightn't need them at the expense of a group that does.
-
Sally, I don't think we disagree greatly but possibly our point of difference is that, for the moment at least, I don't want to fix on a view based only on the reported allegations. I think Russell's said it best, it is possible all parties are speaking honestly about their experiences. If that's the case, it really is a matter for the court to finally determine.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
As for decreasing funding, we already spend less on tertiary education than a lot of the OECD. Remove student loans from the funding calculations, which is a truthful representation since loans aren't funding, and the national tertiary education spend is quite pathetic.
Actually, the position of the Vice Chancellors and others is that we need to shift some of the funding currently provided to students back into funding direct to institutions.
-
Reportedly, ex-All Black Dean Lonegan said Key's broadcasting of his 'wish list' of famous women he would like to screw has made him respect the man even more.
Dean Lonegan's a fuckwit and a former Kiwi League player, not All Black.
Okay, not quite the last word. There is nothing much more important than reducing violence in the world, ipso facto, there is nothing much more important than showing equal respect for women and men in public and in private life.
I agree with you. Entirely.
Assange and his defenders, Veitch and Key and their defenders, transparently do not show or share this respect. George and Jacqueline transparently do. This is the simple truth of the matter, IMHO.
Veitch is a convicted thug, I get your point about him. Key is guilty of making stupid comments and yes, enabling sexist culture, I get your point about him too. Assange however, is yet to be tried and as much as it appears he committed an offence(s), he's not yet guilty and I think that matters.
Incidentally, ABC (Australia) http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3126635.htmhas a good radio doco on Assange which, I should say, is editorially favourable to him.