Student protests at ANU

Masquara said :

milkman said :

Masquara said :

Having experienced the dregs that constitute CCAE/UCI think allowing universities to compete – which would require UC to lift its game – is a good idea. I’d rather be indebted and have a Melbourne University qualification, than a PayLess qually from UC, where standards are totally subjugated to a directive to pass foreign students.

Grads generally aren’t particularly useful. Where they obtained their undergrad degree makes little difference in my experience (as someone who interviews and hires).

I’m sure that if you’re hiring in a polytechnic type field, grads from UC would be fine.

It really doesn’t make a difference. Where grads did generalist arts degrees the writing skills of those at a ‘better’ uni might be a bit more developed (although Gen Y’s writing skills usually suck), but other than this there’s bugger all difference. Far better to pick up on their work experience (regardless of what it is), and ask them a few curly questions to see how they react to a bit of social pressure. The good ones tend to respond well to a bit of stress and have work experience, even if it’s just McDonalds.

milkman said :

Masquara said :

Having experienced the dregs that constitute CCAE/UCI think allowing universities to compete – which would require UC to lift its game – is a good idea. I’d rather be indebted and have a Melbourne University qualification, than a PayLess qually from UC, where standards are totally subjugated to a directive to pass foreign students.

Grads generally aren’t particularly useful. Where they obtained their undergrad degree makes little difference in my experience (as someone who interviews and hires).

I’m sure that if you’re hiring in a polytechnic type field, grads from UC would be fine.

I support the HECS system for TAFE.
I don’t support deregulation of fees. Surely a much better way of raising quality is to give students actual career councilling on a consistant basis from year 8. Encouraging people to only go to uni if they really want.
Discussions about what jobs need a university degree as opposed to a tafe qualification or on the job training.

A lot of change may be required by it will generally have to start in schools at 14/15 and in the home with parents stop expecting their kids to get a degree.

I’m also a fan of bringing back the training accord that went out under the Howard government.

Last night I was at ANU.
On my way in there was an entire notice board with ANU Liberals club notice it said “If you think the socialist students should get back to class join the ANU Liberals”
on the way out 3 hours later they had all been ripped down.
I found the posters shocking and their removal hilarious.

milkman said :

Masquara said :

Having experienced the dregs that constitute CCAE/UCI think allowing universities to compete – which would require UC to lift its game – is a good idea. I’d rather be indebted and have a Melbourne University qualification, than a PayLess qually from UC, where standards are totally subjugated to a directive to pass foreign students.

Grads generally aren’t particularly useful. Where they obtained their undergrad degree makes little difference in my experience (as someone who interviews and hires).

+1. Occasionally you get a good one, but it’s nothing to do with where they studied.

Maya123 said :

urchin said :

milkman said :

What about the new scholarship program mentioned in the budget speech, that 20% of all new fees go to supporting lower SES student scholarships?

yes, it is remarkably kind and generous of them to devote 1 out of 5 dollars to partial scholarships when they double/triple fees.

the universities wouldn’t be clamouring for this if they didn’t think they were going to make money hand over fist.

Ian Young has been saying it will result in a better undergraduate experience, smaller classrooms etc.. However, given the fact that he is cutting small enrolment classes as he says this, it is a bit difficult to believe he is sincerely committed.

I understand the notion that people want “elite” universities, but wouldn’t it be better for society as a whole to have a university system designed to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible?

And who will do the plumbing etc. Why do so many people need to attend university? The best students should go and possibly be paid to go, and background here is irrelevant. They would go onto being the scientists, doctors, etc. Many other can get a trade, etc. University should not be regarded as a continuation of high school/college. “but wouldn’t it be better for society as a whole to have a university system designed to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible?” gives the impression of just this. Jobs now demand university qualifications, that in the past functioned well without them. They had in-house training relevant to the job. (I wonder if this meant the job was done better, as the training was very directed?) As more people attend university; people who perhaps would be better doing a trade, etc, it pushes the quality of the education down “to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible”. Qualifications from some universities are better regarded then from others, and this is not for snobbery reasons, but for the standard of student that they attract.
By the way, many tradespeople can earn more money than those with a degree. And there is nothing wrong with educating yourself further, but universities should not be there “to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible”, but those who will best benefit society by a university education.

i am not suggesting that university should be made compulsory to everyone, only that everyone should continue to have the exceptional degree of access that they currently have. if we have to choose between the (futile) attempt of creating an australian harvard or keeping the kind of near-universal access to university that we currently have, i think the choice is obvious. people who can and want to go to harvard can go to harvard. the other 99.8% of the undergraduate population can continue to go Australian universities.

The days of universities being limited to top scientists and doctors is long since past. Who will train our teachers? Who will train company employees and, dare I say, public servants? It is generally accepted that a well-educated populace is a good thing. Manufacturing jobs in Australia are going the way of the thylacine. To improve productivity and increase competitiveness, we should be looking to raise the bar for all–not just the elite.

Abbott’s notion of deregulation goes in the opposite direction. nor is it simply a matter of reserving the best universities for the best students, it is reserving the best universities for wealthier students.

the idea that raising student fees will somehow transform australian universities into international powerhouses is laughable. roughly 1/3rd of university funding comes from undergraduate fees, with 1/2 being paid for by the commonwealth and half from the students (the percentages may vary a bit depending on the field). increasing that one piece of the pie–the bit that students pay–from 1/6th to 1/3rd while simultaneously decreasing the amount of commonwealth support means that the overall increase in university revenue will not change all that much. only change is that more of it will be shifted onto the shoulders of students.

Masquara said :

Having experienced the dregs that constitute CCAE/UCI think allowing universities to compete – which would require UC to lift its game – is a good idea. I’d rather be indebted and have a Melbourne University qualification, than a PayLess qually from UC, where standards are totally subjugated to a directive to pass foreign students.

erm… why do you think that universities do not compete? if you were capable of getting into Melb U. why would you choose to go to UC? They cost the same. Now fast-forward 5 years and you are smart enough to get into Melb U but if you do you’ll be 100k in debt after graduation whereas if you go to UC you can probably get a scholarship and come out with no debt.

When you offer two products at the same price, people will choose the better product. When you offer two products for two vastly different prices, people without a lot of money will settle for the cheaper one.

Masquara said :

Having experienced the dregs that constitute CCAE/UCI think allowing universities to compete – which would require UC to lift its game – is a good idea. I’d rather be indebted and have a Melbourne University qualification, than a PayLess qually from UC, where standards are totally subjugated to a directive to pass foreign students.

Grads generally aren’t particularly useful. Where they obtained their undergrad degree makes little difference in my experience (as someone who interviews and hires).

switch said :

milkman said :

I like the current arrangement, but we have to be aware that it comes at a cost: we will never have the best universities in the world, and indeed are probably sliding compared to international competition.

Is having “the best” universities in the world in Australia’s interest? There are few job opportunities here for the most brilliant graduates (note I didn’t say “no opportunities,” just precious few, far fewer than the number of graduates produced). So most of the output from these “best unis” would be going overseas, as they do now to find satisfying jobs. This may raise our standing internationally, but it is a poor investment choice for this country. Or lets be honest, the best unis are really just cash cows, and they’ll only get worse than they are atm.

Well this is exactly the question that has to be answered. Do we want to support the best at the expense of the majority, or the majority at the expense of the best?

urchin said :

milkman said :

What about the new scholarship program mentioned in the budget speech, that 20% of all new fees go to supporting lower SES student scholarships?

yes, it is remarkably kind and generous of them to devote 1 out of 5 dollars to partial scholarships when they double/triple fees.

the universities wouldn’t be clamouring for this if they didn’t think they were going to make money hand over fist.

Ian Young has been saying it will result in a better undergraduate experience, smaller classrooms etc.. However, given the fact that he is cutting small enrolment classes as he says this, it is a bit difficult to believe he is sincerely committed.

I understand the notion that people want “elite” universities, but wouldn’t it be better for society as a whole to have a university system designed to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible?

And who will do the plumbing etc. Why do so many people need to attend university? The best students should go and possibly be paid to go, and background here is irrelevant. They would go onto being the scientists, doctors, etc. Many other can get a trade, etc. University should not be regarded as a continuation of high school/college. “but wouldn’t it be better for society as a whole to have a university system designed to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible?” gives the impression of just this. Jobs now demand university qualifications, that in the past functioned well without them. They had in-house training relevant to the job. (I wonder if this meant the job was done better, as the training was very directed?) As more people attend university; people who perhaps would be better doing a trade, etc, it pushes the quality of the education down “to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible”. Qualifications from some universities are better regarded then from others, and this is not for snobbery reasons, but for the standard of student that they attract.
By the way, many tradespeople can earn more money than those with a degree. And there is nothing wrong with educating yourself further, but universities should not be there “to cater to the broadest spectrum of society as possible”, but those who will best benefit society by a university education.