University Fee Deregulation

[martyshire]

Apologies if this is already covered elsewhere.

I am just wondering if anyone can provide any sort of convincing argument for why university fee deregulation is a good idea for the country (I understand that it is good for the bottom line of a few elite institutions)? I work in an industry that provides a service to universities (i.e. every university in the country) so this topic comes up in discussion often. I am yet to hear a convincing argument for why it is a good idea.

At best, I can see it as untested and unnecessarily risky. At worst it is diabolical, short-sighted and hugely detrimental to our social fabric, the hopes of retaining young talent in the country, our economy (long term) and to the culture of Australian universities; which, by and large, is already well below that of other western countries.

Personally I see this as by far the scariest aspect of the proposed budget.

Someone, please convince me I am wrong...

 

[Baloo]

Does it mean you can raise your prices for the services you provide ?

 

[martyshire]

Haha. I doubt it.

The elite unis will probably start developing their own programes 'in house' and the rest probably won't have a need for us any more or won't be able to afford it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I keep hearing it mentioned in a grading context, as in our universities are "below" or are not in the "top" when considered in comparison with universities in other countries and that this will somehow change that. I haven't heard anyone explain what the metric is for measuring these things or how this change leads to these outcomes.

It might be my bias but all I hear is an ideological view that commercial competition and market theory are king so we should turn our universities into an education market of some kind. The consistent failure of the other types of markets that lead the US and great swathes of Europe to the brink of economic collapse doesn't seem to count when assessing the usefullness of markets.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I keep hearing it mentioned in a grading context, as in our universities are "below" or are not in the "top" when considered in comparison with universities in other countries and that this will somehow change that. I haven't heard anyone explain what the metric is for measuring these things or how this change leads to these outcomes.

Not sure whether deregulation will fix it, but having had two stints at uni more than a decade apart, the second time around was a lot easier. A lecturer told me he was under pressure to pass fee-paying international students who didn't deserve it.

Having paid my HECS debt, going back to uni at 30 was the best thing I ever did, and that'd still be true at twice the price.

 

[K3]

Not sure whether deregulation will fix it, but having had two stints at uni more than a decade apart, the second time around was a lot easier. A lecturer told me he was under pressure to pass fee-paying international students who didn't deserve it.

Having paid my HECS debt, going back to uni at 30 was the best thing I ever did, and that'd still be true at twice the price.

Interesting points mate, but on the underlined, do you think you would have chosen to go to Uni, with the above, if you were from a middle to low socioeconomic position?

 

[martyshire]

I keep hearing it mentioned in a grading context, as in our universities are "below" or are not in the "top" when considered in comparison with universities in other countries and that this will somehow change that. I haven't heard anyone explain what the metric is for measuring these things or how this change leads to these outcomes.

It might be my bias but all I hear is an ideological view that commercial competition and market theory are king so we should turn our universities into an education market of some kind. The consistent failure of the other types of markets that lead the US and great swathes of Europe to the brink of economic collapse doesn't seem to count when assessing the usefullness of markets.

Yes, this has been a key argument but I don't find it convincing.

Just to explain, there are a few different ways that universities are graded or ranked. The main rankings are based on the factors such as the number of papers published in top tier journals, or in other terms, the universities that contribute the most in terms of ground-breaking research and building knowledge.

According to the Times Higher Education rankings (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking/range/01-50) we currently have 4 in the top 100, with Melbourne Uni coming in highest at 44. I know the rankings have slipped a bit but I don't think that is too bad. There's a hell of a lot of countries out there people. France, which has double+ our population only has 1 in the top 100. Scandanavia only has 1.

The government wants the elite universities to push up the list and for us to have a top 20 university but I just don't see why this is important when there are over 30 unis in Australia and very few undergrad students in Australia leave home to study. Surely there needs to be decent unis in Adelaide, Cairns, Hobart, etc. Surely it is more important to have good unis generally. To me it seems like having a top 20 uni just sounds good so it is easy to spin.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Interesting points mate, but on the underlined, do you think you would have chosen to go to Uni, with the above, if you were from a middle to low socioeconomic position?

I was in a low socio-economic position, sharing a flat, no car and working late shift in a sheetmetal factory. And yes, though I'm viewing it with hindsight, it would still be a cheap option for the improvement in quality of life it has led to. There was a lot of uncertainty involved, and I've been both lucky and unlucky regarding employment at various points since.

Deregulation makes the decision to attend uni tougher, no doubt. Plenty of students drift in because that's what their friends are doing, or the prospect of working doesn't appeal. It's tough on young people because not many are equipped to fully understand the consequences. It'll need to be assessed like any other major purchase. Uni doesn't work for everyone.

 

[martyshire]

Deregulation makes the decision to attend uni tougher, no doubt. Plenty of students drift in because that's what their friends are doing, or the prospect of working doesn't appeal. It's tough on young people because not many are equipped to fully understand the consequences. It'll need to be assessed like any other major purchase. Uni doesn't work for everyone.

That's exactly right. Especially these days. In terms of maturity, independence, responsibility and worldliness, IMO 18 today is the new 15. Even people in their mid 20s these days get bailed out by their parents when they run into financial strife while backpacking. Are parents going to do the same when their children suddenly decide they want to study law...and then suddenly change their minds? Are the more responsible 18 year olds going to have the confidence to back themselves to take on take on a huge debt, which will incur and have to pay off before they can consider buying into the world's most expensive housing market...or will the smart ones just move overseas to study?

It also makes it tough on anyone that gets ill or has a family tragedy while they are studying or if they are studying in a field where the work dries up while they are studying. Then there's the broader issue of who is going to justify doing a degree that leads to a low-paying job (teaching, emergency health, etc) or a degree that doesn't lead to a qualification in its own right (Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, etc.). Uni degrees will be even more goal driven than they already are in Australia, and that's saying a lot! Humanities could pretty much disappear and with it, our ability to think critically and decode political spin.

I see so many potential down sides...

 

[IanG]

Someone, please convince me I am wrong...

As someone who works in a mid tier University I don't think you're wrong. It may be good for the top tier Universities but not for the sector as a whole and will lead to increasing student costs and declining participation. But that is what Abbott wants, its what Howard wanted, a preservation of an elite status.

 

[K3]

Some interesting points from everyone, and as someone with a kid starting Year 12 next year, I am concerned at the future costs in his wanting to head to Uni soon...

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

As someone who works in a mid tier University I don't think you're wrong. It may be good for the top tier Universities but not for the sector as a whole and will lead to increasing student costs and declining participation. But that is what Abbott wants, its what Howard wanted, a preservation of an elite status.

Agree that's what they want but think it's more about striking a balance between the supply of blue- and white-collar workers than preserving an elite class.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/push-to-encourage-more-tradesbased-careers-as-perth-prepares-to-host-the-worldskills-jobs-expo-in-september/story-fnhocxo3-1227002598031?nk=bfc95586ed9e1d4f8307827be6a3d25f

 

[martyshire]

Agree that's what they want but think it's more about striking a balance between the supply of blue- and white-collar workers than preserving an elite class.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/push-to-encourage-more-tradesbased-careers-as-perth-prepares-to-host-the-worldskills-jobs-expo-in-september/story-fnhocxo3-1227002598031?nk=bfc95586ed9e1d4f8307827be6a3d25f

I find it amazing that there are still not enough people wanting to train up in a trade.

Tradies are paid while studying (albeit not much), often earn more than uni graduates (although not overseas), can more easily work for themselves if they choose to and often usually enjoy a healthier lifestyle and better conditions than many white collar workers. If I had my time again I would head straight for a trade.

Some interesting points from everyone, and as someone with a kid starting Year 12 next year, I am concerned at the future costs in his wanting to head to Uni soon...

Hope it all works out for him. I have a 1 year old that is lucky enough to be entitled to an EU (Irish) passport. This sort of thing sure reminds me to get his paperwork in. There might be better opportunities for him OS one day (unless he wants to be a tradie) :-\

 

[JAM]

Interesting points mate, but on the underlined, do you think you would have chosen to go to Uni, with the above, if you were from a middle to low socioeconomic position?

I started my degree when HECS just came in. I did 2 years at melb uni, got kicked out, then went and studied at Swinburne a few years later. I didn't have any money or have parents pay the HECS, I worked semi full-time whilst studying. I did my degeree and have paid back the debt over time. It is deducted from your pay once you exceed the income threshold so it's not an excessive burden IMO. I recall it was around $50-80/week when i was earning $50K. As long as the repayment threshold is not too low and the effective interest on the debt not excessive I don't have a problem with it.

I did a commerce degree that I think cost about $20K. I'm not sure what the cost of this will be now but I wasn't against HECS then and I'm not against it now.

BTW, i agree with martyshire if I could turn back time I'd be a tradie - a plumber or builder. Good plumbers can make a lot of coin.

 

[Giardiasis]

Apologies if this is already covered elsewhere.

I am just wondering if anyone can provide any sort of convincing argument for why university fee deregulation is a good idea for the country (I understand that it is good for the bottom line of a few elite institutions)? I work in an industry that provides a service to universities (i.e. every university in the country) so this topic comes up in discussion often. I am yet to hear a convincing argument for why it is a good idea.

At best, I can see it as untested and unnecessarily risky. At worst it is diabolical, short-sighted and hugely detrimental to our social fabric, the hopes of retaining young talent in the country, our economy (long term) and to the culture of Australian universities; which, by and large, is already well below that of other western countries.

Personally I see this as by far the scariest aspect of the proposed budget.

Someone, please convince me I am wrong...

Basically government intervention in the supply of university services distorts economic calculation, and provides perverse incentives for prospective students to go to university. Hence we get an oversupply of people with degrees, when the market doesn't need them. Only the market rate will provide people with the best price in which to evaluate the worth of going to university.

 

[IanG]

Apropos of the topic:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/diverse-voices-make-submissions-on-tertiary-deregulation-20141002-10ni9t.html

And John Quiggins opinion on the GO* submission:

http://johnquiggin.com/2014/09/25/the-go8-knows-nothing-about-the-us-university-system/

And John Quiggins personal submission:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29646818/HigherEd1409.pdf

 

[bullus_hit]

Basically government intervention in the supply of university services distorts economic calculation, and provides perverse incentives for prospective students to go to university. Hence we get an oversupply of people with degrees, when the market doesn't need them. Only the market rate will provide people with the best price in which to evaluate the worth of going to university.

I see your point but history has shown that deregulation creates significant barriers to entry for students at the lower end of the social spectrum. We therefore stand to lose some of the best & the brightest due to an uneven playing field. I'm not against deregulation on a number of counts but when it applies to education I see it as a catalyst for a class divide. I also don't think we should look at degrees simply in terms of 'degree A should be compatible with job B'. Life simply doesn't work like that, suggesting that a society is 'over' educated makes little sense to me.

 

[Giardiasis]

I see your point but history has shown that deregulation creates significant barriers to entry for students at the lower end of the social spectrum. We therefore stand to lose some of the best & the brightest due to an uneven playing field. I'm not against deregulation on a number of counts but when it applies to education I see it as a catalyst for a class divide. I also don't think we should look at degrees simply in terms of 'degree A should be compatible with job B'. Life simply doesn't work like that, suggesting that a society is 'over' educated makes little sense to me.

Yes perhaps fewer talented people won't get the opportunity to go through uni, but the huge cost associated with "solving" this problem via government coercion is certainly not justified IMO. Student debt levels are a disgrace.

I'd suggest that individuals would pick up the slack and take greater responsibility for helping underprivileged talented individuals. Especially considering they would have more wealth in which to donate.

 

[Brodders17]

Basically government intervention in the supply of university services distorts economic calculation, and provides perverse incentives for prospective students to go to university. Hence we get an oversupply of people with degrees, when the market doesn't need them. Only the market rate will provide people with the best price in which to evaluate the worth of going to university.

wont a market rate regulate the quantity but not the quality?

 

[Giardiasis]

wont a market rate regulate the quantity but not the quality?

Competition will.