University deregulation beginning 2016 (2014 budget) (1 Viewer)

[bangladesh]

That is a sweeping assumption. Universities are primarily for research so most of the money will almost certainly go to research (bar that low socio-economic scholarship fund). There is no reason or mandate for teaching quality to increase just because the university has more funding. I would go as far as saying since more money will be invested into research, lecturers (who are almost always a researcher) will be more focused on that, and less on teaching, thus decreasing the quality of teaching. One sweeping assumption for another.

The government claims some uni fees will rise and some will decrease. It is very unlikely for any fees to decrease considering most, if not all, Go8 universities charge the maximum fee at the moment. Hockey said he would be surprised if fees increased by 30%. If universities are joining the bandwagon that since HECS is a concessional loan, and that students only need to pay it off once they earn more than $50,000, then they could very well decide to increase fees by more than 30%. Universities will have the power to match domestic student fees to international student fees, and that has a minimum 70% increase in fees, up to almost 300% for medicine.

Much of the government's logic derives from their claim that those with a university education will earn more than $1 million over a life time compared to someone without a university education. I don't think they've looked at the job market and the number of graduates who have the skills and education, but have not been able to land a graduate job. On Q&A, some guy from Tasmania highlighted the exact same situation. Whilst currently graduates take around 9-10 years to pay off their HECS, it's unknown how much longer it will take to pay off under these new conditions. It could take someone 15 years to pay off a $100,000 debt, and that could have issues later down the track with getting a home loan or anything money-wise.

The other issue floating around is that this is leading to a US styled system. Even though we have HECS, the deregulation can be an argument for the government to suggest concessional loaning is impossible to maintain, hence selling off the debt, allowing universities to charge students upfront at full fee.

repped x124102412

 

[SylviaB]

The government claims some uni fees will rise and some will decrease. It is very unlikely for any fees to decrease considering most, if not all, Go8 universities charge the maximum fee at the moment.

if you're really concerned about a owing a slightly higher amount on a concessional loan then perhaps reconsider going to one of the best universities in the world

 

[bangladesh]

if you're really concerned about a owing a slightly higher amount on a concessional loan then perhaps reconsider going to one of the best universities in the world

I don't think an extra $120k is considered a 'slight' change

 

[D94]

if you're really concerned about a owing a slightly higher amount on a concessional loan then perhaps reconsider going to one of the best universities in the world

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said - I could be attending any other Australian university (not necessarily Go8) and have made that exact same comment. One of Hockey's assertions was that some university fees will decrease. Please tell me which university will decrease their fees, considering the reduction in university funding?

 

[Amleops]

Fees for medicine courses are set to rise by about 300% (from 10k to around 44k per year)That's a total of ~120k on top of what you would normally pay for a medicine degree

You'd expect the increase in quality to be pretty significant then. Especially since the Government has placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of medical research in the Budget. Yes the fees would be higher, but you would get a lot more out of it. Besides, it's not like they're getting rid of HECS and forcing people to pay 44k upfront. THAT would be cause for outcry.

I'm sure that the quality of teaching is good enough to produce good doctors otherwise they wouldn't be able to get permission from the AMA.

I'm sure the teaching quality is great, but surely you can always improve. It would be hard to argue, for instance, that Australian medicine faculties offer a better learning experience than say Harvard or Oxford. I know it sounds ambitious, but Australia can only benefit as a whole if we aim to compete with the other top universities in the world.

Your mistake here is that you think the money will be invested into further teaching and research projects. Wrong, most of it probably won't be invested into further teaching but into research money for the academics which the students will benefit from very slightly (if at all)

They would still have to devote a decent amount of that money to teaching so that they could maintain and strengthen their revenue stream. It would be a bad business strategy to let the internal factors of an entity come at the detriment of their own product. Businesses in this day and age are profit orientated and would be doing themselves a disservice if they offered an overpriced inferior product, this would make it difficult for them to attract more (or any at all for that matter) customers. Why would students want to pay significantly more money for university if they get barely anything out of it?

 

[Amleops]

That is a sweeping assumption. Universities are primarily for research so most of the money will almost certainly go to research (bar that low socio-economic scholarship fund). There is no reason or mandate for teaching quality to increase just because the university has more funding. I would go as far as saying since more money will be invested into research, lecturers (who are almost always a researcher) will be more focused on that, and less on teaching, thus decreasing the quality of teaching. One sweeping assumption for another.

See what I said about it to amirbang. Perhaps I am making assumptions here but I see no other way how this system would work, unless you could provide me with another one.

The government claims some uni fees will rise and some will decrease. It is very unlikely for any fees to decrease considering most, if not all, Go8 universities charge the maximum fee at the moment. Hockey said he would be surprised if fees increased by 30%. If universities are joining the bandwagon that since HECS is a concessional loan, and that students only need to pay it off once they earn more than $50,000, then they could very well decide to increase fees by more than 30%. Universities will have the power to match domestic student fees to international student fees, and that has a minimum 70% increase in fees, up to almost 300% for medicine.

Again, that comes back to my point that the fees would be invested back into the teaching, improving the student's experience. I believe that point still stands unless you have anything to add on that matter.

Much of the government's logic derives from their claim that those with a university education will earn more than $1 million over a life time compared to someone without a university education. I don't think they've looked at the job market and the number of graduates who have the skills and education, but have not been able to land a graduate job. On Q&A, some guy from Tasmania highlighted the exact same situation. Whilst currently graduates take around 9-10 years to pay off their HECS, it's unknown how much longer it will take to pay off under these new conditions. It could take someone 15 years to pay off a $100,000 debt, and that could have issues later down the track with getting a home loan or anything money-wise.

They might be worse off financially, yes. But they would be paying more money for a superior product, which would be worth the money.

The other issue floating around is that this is leading to a US styled system. Even though we have HECS, the deregulation can be an argument for the government to suggest concessional loaning is impossible to maintain, hence selling off the debt, allowing universities to charge students upfront at full fee.

Well that would be a debate for another day, currently I wouldn't think the Government have the intention of doing that. But even if they were loaning out more money to students, they would also be receiving more money from those who have already finished university. Ideally there wouldn't be much change in the difference between them.

 

[bangladesh]

You'd expect the increase in quality to be pretty significant then. Especially since the Government has placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of medical research in the Budget. Yes the fees would be higher, but you would get a lot more out of it. Besides, it's not like they're getting rid of HECS and forcing people to pay 44k upfront. THAT would be cause for outcry.



I'm sure the teaching quality is great, but surely you can always improve. It would be hard to argue, for instance, that Australian medicine faculties offer a better learning experience than say Harvard or Oxford. I know it sounds ambitious, but Australia can only benefit as a whole if we aim to compete with the other top universities in the world.



They would still have to devote a decent amount of that money to teaching so that they could maintain and strengthen their revenue stream. It would be a bad business strategy to let the internal factors of an entity come at the detriment of their own product. Businesses in this day and age are profit orientated and would be doing themselves a disservice if they offered an overpriced inferior product, this would make it difficult for them to attract more (or any at all for that matter) customers. Why would students want to pay significantly more money for university if they get barely anything out of it?

1- A 4 year degree doesn't allow much time for research. All the money that the government is allocating to medical research is good but non of it is going to medschools. Also, you're saying that there's nothing with 120k being added to your hecs... Just coz it's not upfront, doesn't mean you don't have to pay it. Life is pretty tough as an intern (1st year out of uni for med grads) working long hours with very little pay and it really is tough on them and this is just going to make it harder given they'll have much more to pay off....

2- Australian medshools are amongst the best in the world with UMELB ranked 9th in the world and USYD ranked 17th meaning their teaching style/quality of graduates etc is up to the scratch as it is and the teaching quality wouldn't really be affected..

3-'Why would students want to pay significantly more money for university if they get barely anything out of it?'
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PROTESTING ABOUT. In most professions, you need a tertiary degree eg med, law, dent, nursing, engineering etc and you can't get a job in those fields unless you've been through uni and have come out with a degree..

I really don't think you get my point about this whole thing.. the majority of the money will go towards research for the academics at uni because that will also improve the rank of a university..

 

[OMGITzJustin]

1- A 4 year degree doesn't allow much time for research. All the money that the government is allocating to medical research is good but non of it is going to medschools. Also, you're saying that there's nothing with 120k being added to your hecs... Just coz it's not upfront, doesn't mean you don't have to pay it. Life is pretty tough as an intern (1st year out of uni for med grads) working long hours with very little pay and it really is tough on them and this is just going to make it harder given they'll have much more to pay off....

2- Australian medshools are amongst the best in the world with UMELB ranked 9th in the world and USYD ranked 17th meaning their teaching style/quality of graduates etc is up to the scratch as it is and the teaching quality wouldn't really be affected..

3-'Why would students want to pay significantly more money for university if they get barely anything out of it?'
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PROTESTING ABOUT. In most professions, you need a tertiary degree eg med, law, dent, nursing, engineering etc and you can't get a job in those fields unless you've been through uni and have come out with a degree..

I really don't think you get my point about this whole thing.. the majority of the money will go towards research for the academics at uni because that will also improve the rank of a university..

and how do you know this? you're going to be the decider on where the extra money from the deregulation comes from are ya?

we hope that they will spend a majority of the extra revenue from deregulation in research to make the uni better, but you never know

 

[Amleops]

1- A 4 year degree doesn't allow much time for research. All the money that the government is allocating to medical research is good but non of it is going to medschools. Also, you're saying that there's nothing with 120k being added to your hecs... Just coz it's not upfront, doesn't mean you don't have to pay it. Life is pretty tough as an intern (1st year out of uni for med grads) working long hours with very little pay and it really is tough on them and this is just going to make it harder given they'll have much more to pay off....

It would still open up more job opportunities for them even if it isn't affecting their undergraduate degree. Plus I thought more universities were leaning towards a Doctor of Medicine now, which is more research based? In any case, they would definitely benefit from an increase in the activity being undertaken in their profession.

I do admit though that that particular increase does seem a bit excessive. Medicine is a hard industry to work in when you are starting out, what with the high hours and possible lack of good pay and all. The system is already like that, and maybe someone should look into changing it. But medicine is already a highly in demand course, and perhaps the reason for this steep increase is that the Government is trying to discourage too many people from doing it. You would think then that those people who still do medicine regardless of this would gain access to those ridiculously well paying medicine jobs, and for them perhaps the short term struggle would be worth it. Likewise those jobs in the middle or bottom of the medicine profession would probably be filled by those who go to the universities which offer the cheaper option (see the third quote).

But I do see your point.

2- Australian medshools are amongst the best in the world with UMELB ranked 9th in the world and USYD ranked 17th meaning their teaching style/quality of graduates etc is up to the scratch as it is and the teaching quality wouldn't really be affected..

Like I said, there's always the potential for better. Obviously Medicine is probably one of our better performing areas of academia, the policies are more aimed to all areas though. Most of the improvement would be seen there.

3-'Why would students want to pay significantly more money for university if they get barely anything out of it?'
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PROTESTING ABOUT. In most professions, you need a tertiary degree eg med, law, dent, nursing, engineering etc and you can't get a job in those fields unless you've been through uni and have come out with a degree..

There would be other options. Just like in the business world, not all businesses would perform as well as others. Hence, for the lesser businesses to make themselves more marketable, they would make their product cheaper. The deregulation would help their teaching quality increase as well, so really, you would hopefully be getting a similar quality of education for your money than what you would if the current system had remained the same.

I really don't think you get my point about this whole thing.. the majority of the money will go towards research for the academics at uni because that will also improve the rank of a university..

Yes I know that research is the primary factor behind determining the rank of a university, and so they would obviously want to put a lot funding into that. But like I said, to expand that research, and to gain that prestige from increased quality of research, you need more money to fund into it. That money comes from the students. So the universities would have to improve their product in order to compete in the market. If they overcharge for an inferior product, other universities would tailor to gain a competitive advantage by offering students a better deal, so they can receive more students and more revenue. Therefore the original university would run the risk of driving themselves out of the market.

 

[D94]

Most of the money will almost certainly go towards research, especially within the Go8.

The Group of Eight maintain this mantra for membership:

The Group of Eight (Go8) comprises the Vice-Chancellors and Presidents of Australia’s leading research universities. Go8 universities are distinguished by the intensity and breadth of the research they perform, the research-informed nature of the education they offer, and the leadership they bring to community consideration of complex issues.

The Group of Eight (Go8) is a coalition of leading Australian universities, comprehensive in general and professional education and distinguished by depth and breadth in research.

Go8 universities can be distinguished in the following ways:

• they have nurtured every Nobel prize winner educated at an Australian university
• they contribute over 70% of the Fellows of the four Australian learned academies
• they are the most research concentrated of all Australian universities
• they account for more than two thirds of Australian university research activity, research output and research training.

The Go8 is often asked why it is not the Group of Nine or Ten. This analysis of data across a range of important indicators from research income to student-staff ratios shows there is no clear potential ninth member of the group.

You cannot deny their huge focus on research.

 

[D94]

See what I said about it to amirbang. Perhaps I am making assumptions here but I see no other way how this system would work, unless you could provide me with another one.



Again, that comes back to my point that the fees would be invested back into the teaching, improving the student's experience. I believe that point still stands unless you have anything to add on that matter.



They might be worse off financially, yes. But they would be paying more money for a superior product, which would be worth the money.



Well that would be a debate for another day, currently I wouldn't think the Government have the intention of doing that. But even if they were loaning out more money to students, they would also be receiving more money from those who have already finished university. Ideally there wouldn't be much change in the difference between them.

Well you haven't really explained how the money will be invested back into teaching.

The reason why putting money in research and less in teaching would still be a working business model is that a degree is usually a minimum requirement in many well paying jobs. If no university significantly improves their teaching, and fees increase, it will be the exact same situation as now but with higher fees. Given that HECS is a loan, for many students who understand this, they will simply put off the thought of paying until they start working. This is the argument the government is using to convince future students that deregulation won't affect students whilst they are studying. So this will mean students will almost certainly still attend university despite fee increases. It will not be an inferior product because there won't be a superior product with or without deregulation. The top Australian universities have a reputation that would not be superseded just because fees increased. It would be extremely unlikely for universities outside of the Go8 will be able to have the same, if not better, reputation than the Go8 universities, from fee deregulation.

Now, I'm sure you chose to go to USYD for numerous reasons, maybe prestige was one of them, or a better structured degree or location or atmosphere or whatever - if fees were higher, and higher across all universities, if teaching quality isn't any better, and those factors were more or less the same, would you still go to USYD? I think you will say yes, and so would hundreds of thousands of students.

 

[Trebla]

Yes I know that research is the primary factor behind determining the rank of a university, and so they would obviously want to put a lot funding into that. But like I said, to expand that research, and to gain that prestige from increased quality of research, you need more money to fund into it. That money comes from the students. So the universities would have to improve their product in order to compete in the market. If they overcharge for an inferior product, other universities would tailor to gain a competitive advantage by offering students a better deal, so they can receive more students and more revenue. Therefore the original university would run the risk of driving themselves out of the market.

I think you need to keep in mind that there are more students than university places demanded for most courses. There is no 'perfect equilibrium' per se. You're using the economic competition model to explain that universities will compete for students by offering a superior product which makes sense when the supply of university positions roughly meets the demand. However, when you have a small number of universities and less places available than students, there is little incentive for universities to invest in their teaching or student experience.

They (at least the big four anyway) will always fill up their spots in the majority of their courses with students irrespective of whether they offer a better or worse product than another university. It is also highly unlikely for universities to dramatically increase the quantity of their student intake as well and even then a position at a university is still a competitive one to get into.

 

[hayleyemma96]

Although I'm studying at uni now, I'm extending my business degree from 3 to 4 years by doing 3 units each semester instead of 4 units. Less workload and I also get benefits from the full leadership program at my uni (full program is 4 years).
However, I will also be doing a postgrad degree (graduate certificate or diploma in taxation as this is an area I want to work in).
I'm going to be affected by these changes.
Tony Abbott, fuck you! I deserve a future too!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Amleops]

Most of the money will almost certainly go towards research, especially within the Go8.

The Group of Eight maintain this mantra for membership:

You cannot deny their huge focus on research.

I agree, they do have a huge focus on research. All I'm saying is that it can't come at the neglect of the teaching; students would be their main source of revenue, and they wouldn't want to jeopardise giving other universities any sort of competitive advantage (if they can help it), which would take their student base away from them.

Well you haven't really explained how the money will be invested back into teaching.

The reason why putting money in research and less in teaching would still be a working business model is that a degree is usually a minimum requirement in many well paying jobs. If no university significantly improves their teaching, and fees increase, it will be the exact same situation as now but with higher fees.

Yes, I’m also working under the assumption that people would still want to go to university because of the necessity of a degree for many jobs. But ultimately someone would exploit the lack of teaching ability for their competitive advantage would they not? If we assume that the situation you described was the case, wouldn't one of the most obvious ways to create revenue would be to increase the appeal for the customers that give you money? Now I concede this may or may not have negative effects on the research at first, but I think this would be an example of a business taking a risk for long term gain.

Yes, some universities may not want to take that risk. It's true that some of the universities that are already on top; USYD, UNSW, Melbourne etc may not want to risk losing their power in the tertiary sector, and it would take the work of an ambitious administration to take that risk. However, what I think is more likely would be that the university that would be exploiting this competitive advantage would be one of the less prestigious universities. Now while they may not be putting as much money into research as what they may want, it's fair to say without sounding too elitist that the research done by the more prestigious universities would always overshadow theirs if the system were to remain the same. Therefore, they could adopt a new business strategy by placing a lot of their emphasis on teaching, enticing more students to come to them. Their research may suffer originally, yes, but surely the increase in profits that arise from the increased customer base would mean that eventually they would have more money to work with then before, and hence able to improve their research in the long run? In any case, they have superior teaching, and students would appreciate that.

Now meanwhile, the other prestigious universities need to change their strategy; they are losing their revenue from students and are hence risking their position on top of the Australian tertiary system. So what do they do? They adopt the same strategy. Again, you have short term pain for long term gain in regards to their research, but if they don't do this, they risk losing their dominance, or even their existence, in the market.

You brought up an intriguing point, but I don't believe that it is correct.

Given that HECS is a loan, for many students who understand this, they will simply put off the thought of paying until they start working. This is the argument the government is using to convince future students that deregulation won't affect students whilst they are studying. So this will mean students will almost certainly still attend university despite fee increases.

Agreed.

It will not be an inferior product because there won't be a superior product with or without deregulation.

I believe there would be a superior product both ways. Having a competitive advantage is crucial if you want to be successful in a capitalist economy, and in a deregulated system this is what the universities would pursue. If the original focus is on research as you say, then it would follow that investment in teaching would then be one of the most obvious areas for universities to exploit for competitive advantage. A superior product would emerge, and then other universities would attempt to equal or exceed the superiority of that product to succeed in the market. You would therefore have not only a product superior to other universities in that context, but one superior to what they would have under the old system.

And if there was no deregulation, well then the situation is the same is it is now, and I guess it's up to personal interpretation whether you consider some universities to offer better degrees than others. Certainly there has been many a thread made on this website asking which university is better for which course and stuff like that.

The top Australian universities have a reputation that would not be superseded just because fees increased. It would be extremely unlikely for universities outside of the Go8 will be able to have the same, if not better, reputation than the Go8 universities, from fee deregulation.

Similar to what I said above. It's not about the reputation for research; the prestigious universities may still have that regardless of what the less prestigious ones do. But students, at least ones doing undergraduate degrees (whom would arguably be much more populous than those students doing postgraduate research), would prefer quality of teaching to the supposed prestige of that institution. Of course, this wouldn't be the case for everyone. But I think on the whole, they would at least get their undergraduate degree from somewhere that teaches them better. If you are looking at it from an employer's standpoint, a graduate from a university which has an extremely reputable research program, but has also let their teaching program suffer as a result, would most likely be looked upon lesser than a graduate from a university from a lesser research university which has more emphasis on teaching, which has resulted in that university having greater teaching at the end of the day then the more reputable university. Research is not relevant to them, and if one is taught better than the other, it follows that the one who was taught better (ignoring other elements that might play a part such as potential intelligence and aptitude) would be the one who was better off.

Yes, I agree it is unlikely the Go8 universities would be threatened. But why is this? Because they are already on top, so they set the bar. Then if one of the lesser universities tries to exploit a certain product based competitive advantage, other than the cost of the degree, then the Go8 universities would respond by doing the same, so they can keep their market share and retain their dominance in the market. And like I've said, while there is risk involved ultimately they have no choice, and if it works they will benefit in the long term.

Now, I'm sure you chose to go to USYD for numerous reasons, maybe prestige was one of them, or a better structured degree or location or atmosphere or whatever - if fees were higher, and higher across all universities, if teaching quality isn't any better, and those factors were more or less the same, would you still go to USYD? I think you will say yes, and so would hundreds of thousands of students.

Refer to what I said about why increases in teaching quality would happen under a deregulated system above. I think that would establish the unlikelihood of the situation you have described here.

But I'll answer your question from a personal standpoint, just for the sake of not dismissing it. Yes, I would still go to USYD. The atmosphere and learning experience I thought better suited me, and after spending some time here I think the quality of the lecturers are on the whole pretty good. If fees were higher, and everything else was the same, I would still go to USYD. I like learning for the sake of learning and would study regardless of the cost.

I think you need to keep in mind that there are more students than university places demanded for most courses. There is no 'perfect equilibrium' per se. You're using the economic competition model to explain that universities will compete for students by offering a superior product which makes sense when the supply of university positions roughly meets the demand. However, when you have a small number of universities and less places available than students, there is little incentive for universities to invest in their teaching or student experience.

Ah yes, that is a very good point, well spotted. I wanted to avoid this but I think the only way of rebutting this point is through considering political ideology (I don't pretend I'm an expert on this issue so please let me know if my interpretation is incorrect).

Looking at it from a broader context, I do believe that there in fact would either be an equilibrium, or an excess of supply over demand. From a liberal/libertarian political standpoint (which I believe the Coalition holds as well), there is a belief that small government is desirable, and the public sector, where possible, shouldn't compete with the private. Now whether you agree with this or not is really a matter for political debate, I personally do, and as the Coalition does as well I think we can safely say they would be administrating the country with this ideal in mind.

Now one of the reasons behind this small government and aversion to competing with the private sector is, at least from what I can gather, the stimulation this would have to economic activity. If the public sector does not compete, the private sector will thrive, and more businesses and jobs would be created in an attempt to capitalise on the thriving market, which would benefit both the economy and individuals.

So if we extend this argument to the topic of universities, because the Government holds this philosophy, I believe that the deregulation of university fees would allow new universities or tertiary education providers to arise. Like you said, there is currently more demand for university places then there are places themselves. So therefore, there would still be a market for new institutions to market to. Of course if there was an excess of places at universities this wouldn't be the case, but like you said, the opposite situation is definitely true.

That's why I think an equilibrium can exist, and that is why I believe that universities would adhere to the tenets of competitive advantage.

They (at least the big four anyway) will always fill up their spots in the majority of their courses with students irrespective of whether they offer a better or worse product than another university. It is also highly unlikely for universities to dramatically increase the quantity of their student intake as well and even then a position at a university is still a competitive one to get into.

Again, another good point. But again I think this argument is incorrect if there is new competition like I mentioned directly above. There is more of a choice, and there is either an equilibrium or greater supply than demand, so there are other choices for them available, especially if those over universities improve their teaching as a result of exploiting competitive advantage. And like I've said, if the Big 4 are the Big 4 as a result of their reputation, and their reputation is determined by their quality of research, then many undergraduate students would not place emphasis on this.

 

[Amleops]

I recognise I put a lot of effort into arguing my point; this is an area of discussion which I have recently taken a big interest in, and while I think that I know quite a bit I am still only just formulating my own views on the issue. While I appreciate the counterarguments that have been offered after I still believe that I am correct, so if you still think I am wrong or that I am missing something, I would appreciate it if you would continue to give me feedback and prove to me without doubt that I am wrong so I can learn from the experience.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Most of the money will almost certainly go towards research, especially within the Go8.

The Group of Eight maintain this mantra for membership:





You cannot deny their huge focus on research.

That's the entire point of a research university. They get their funding for research primarily from undergrad students where only 20% of them would be PhD level candidates.

Universities do not really need quality teachers. Most thing's are self taught anyway. Lecturer's are paid a fixed fee regardless whether they teach or not, as a lot of their time is spent on research. Money won't really change whether or not you get shitty lecturer's. Lets put it this way, Australia is one of the countries that spend VERY LITTLE for the top of the range strategic minds. Our current funding simply cannot afford to keep our best and brightest. Best example is an economics/business strategy lecturer at UNSW, one of the top brains for in Australia. Italy poached him, paid him a higher salary. How are we to remain competitive if we cannot even keep our brightest minds?

There is already an oversupply of accountants, lawyers and doctors in our education system anyway. Medicine and Law shouldn't be as cheap as it is when you compare it to other countries in the world.

I noticed in Australia the familial commitment to kids is not as high as the USA or even Asia. 18 you go to you uni "pay that shit yourself." Times are changing, people are going to be living at home at an older age due to the increase of access to tertiary education. It's ridiculous that what the Australian taxpayers are essentially subsidizing (through hecs) the unwillingness of parents to invest in their own children's education. If they completely got rid of HECS, I guarantee you parents would front up the cash for their kid's uni.

 

[Trebla]

Two things I want to point out about your rebuttal Amleops:

In the short to medium term, it is very unlikely that there will be new competitors in the university market. The start up costs to set one up and to attract students are way too high especially when you're competing with well established 'brands' which have been around for so many years. It may be possible in the long term but I still think this is unlikely, which links to my next point.

Regarding a future scenario where supply meets or outstrips demand, I think this is never going to happen. Firstly, universities by their very nature only accept 'top students' and have always been competitive to get into. This is in a way increases their value to employers. A situation where everyone can get into a university will heavily dilute the value of a degree and I don't think it is in the university's best interests to intake the lower end of the student cohort if they want to be valued by employers.

 

[isildurrrr1]

I think you need to keep in mind that there are more students than university places demanded for most courses. There is no 'perfect equilibrium' per se. You're using the economic competition model to explain that universities will compete for students by offering a superior product which makes sense when the supply of university positions roughly meets the demand. However, when you have a small number of universities and less places available than students, there is little incentive for universities to invest in their teaching or student experience.

They (at least the big four anyway) will always fill up their spots in the majority of their courses with students irrespective of whether they offer a better or worse product than another university. It is also highly unlikely for universities to dramatically increase the quantity of their student intake as well and even then a position at a university is still a competitive one to get into.

Same reason why thousands of people apply to the Ivy Leagues and oxbridge regardless of cost.

 

[Trebla]

That's the entire point of a research university. They get their funding for research primarily from undergrad students where only 20% of them would be PhD level candidates.

Universities do not really need quality teachers. Most thing's are self taught anyway. Lecturer's are paid a fixed fee regardless whether they teach or not, as a lot of their time is spent on research. Money won't really change whether or not you get shitty lecturer's. Lets put it this way, Australia is one of the countries that spend VERY LITTLE for the top of the range strategic minds. Our current funding simply cannot afford to keep our best and brightest. Best example is an economics/business strategy lecturer at UNSW, one of the top brains for in Australia. Italy poached him, paid him a higher salary. How are we to remain competitive if we cannot even keep our brightest minds?

There is already an oversupply of accountants, lawyers and doctors in our education system anyway. Medicine and Law shouldn't be as cheap as it is when you compare it to other countries in the world.

I noticed in Australia the familial commitment to kids is not as high as the USA or even Asia. 18 you go to you uni "pay that shit yourself." Times are changing, people are going to be living at home at an older age due to the increase of access to tertiary education. It's ridiculous that what the Australian taxpayers are essentially subsidizing (through hecs) the unwillingness of parents to invest in their own children's education. If they completely got rid of HECS, I guarantee you parents would front up the cash for their kid's uni.

lol

 

[D94]

That's the entire point of a research university. They get their funding for research primarily from undergrad students where only 20% of them would be PhD level candidates.

Universities do not really need quality teachers. Most thing's are self taught anyway. Lecturer's are paid a fixed fee regardless whether they teach or not, as a lot of their time is spent on research. Money won't really change whether or not you get shitty lecturer's. Lets put it this way, Australia is one of the countries that spend VERY LITTLE for the top of the range strategic minds. Our current funding simply cannot afford to keep our best and brightest. Best example is an economics/business strategy lecturer at UNSW, one of the top brains for in Australia. Italy poached him, paid him a higher salary. How are we to remain competitive if we cannot even keep our brightest minds?

There is already an oversupply of accountants, lawyers and doctors in our education system anyway. Medicine and Law shouldn't be as cheap as it is when you compare it to other countries in the world.

I noticed in Australia the familial commitment to kids is not as high as the USA or even Asia. 18 you go to you uni "pay that shit yourself." Times are changing, people are going to be living at home at an older age due to the increase of access to tertiary education. It's ridiculous that what the Australian taxpayers are essentially subsidizing (through hecs) the unwillingness of parents to invest in their own children's education. If they completely got rid of HECS, I guarantee you parents would front up the cash for their kid's uni.

If you have been reading the discussion/debate, that is exactly my point! You have basically reiterated everything I have said, and then some.

And @Amleops, I'm about to head to uni, so I'll respond to you later.