Students 'will never pay off HECS'

Define reasonable against actual cost.

Should there be a loss picked up by whom?

tech/a said:

Define reasonable against actual cost.

Should there be a loss picked up by whom?

Click to expand...

Tech, I think the definition of 'reasonable' is something that people have to decide for themselves. What one person finds 'reasonable' another may not. I'm not sure what a degree actually 'costs' these days but I personally don't think people should be starting their working lives $100,000 in debt because they chose to educate themselves. Initiative should be rewarded and encouraged.

The government doesn't seem to mind throwing money at people willing to have babies, so I think it should be prepared to subsidise the further education of those Australians who have shown some initiative in wanting to improve their own situation and contribute to Australian society in a positive way.

Just my .

A better system for HECS IMO should be that similar to the super co-contribution scheme.

Dollar for dollar matching, up to a certain limit.

That way children and parents could both save for the cost of education, with a little help from the government.

Another option would be to increase the rate of Austudy to match that of the Unemployment benefit and recipents would then have their benefits garnished by a small percentage to cover their HECS debts. Say $20 per fortnight would go a long way to reducing long-term debt level of HECS users.

These are just two options I have thought of that may be up for debate

Yes I agree affordability is the key. A joint effort on the part of parents, politicians, students, future students, universities, governement and welfare agency is what is greatly needed.

How about compulsory Education policy indexed to inflation for each child upon birth.
If its not used then placed as super contribution in their first job.

tech/a said:

How about compulsory Education policy indexed to inflation for each child upon birth.
If its not used then placed as super contribution in their first job.

Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

This thread has proven to be a good topic of discussion, with many views. Kewl!

Nothing like a good debate that affects all tax-payers to get the fire started.

Looking back on it now, I did what I thought was morally right and paid back the full HECS debt I incurred by free will.

My total payment was $23,000

Knowing what I know now, maybe I was very foolish to have done this.

A better option would have been for me to only earn an income under the HECS payment threshold limit and place that $23,000 + the $7,000 first home owners grant into a house.

Then I could have let my debt be picked up by the tax-payer

What do other tax-payers think of this idea?

Was it morally right what I did or was it foolish?

Would I have been better off finacially now?

tech/a said:

How about compulsory Education policy indexed to inflation for each child upon birth.
If its not used then placed as super contribution in their first job.

Click to expand...

Or better, backdated to conception date, giving head start at birth.
I bet it would fix the premature births overnight.

Sorry, for slight mismatch with original thought.

GreatPig said:

Remember, educated people are an investment in a country's future. As with any investment, excessive taxes can kill it.

Click to expand...

I agree. Why could we as a nation afford free tertiary education and now we can't?

MIT

Kris.

At 2% you wouldn't roll your Hecs into a home loan at 6% or more.

Happy.
I've just found a new birth control!!

Mit
Government cutting of expenditure.
Make em pay for education and make em pay for retirement.

And give me the highest super payout possible for being elected for 3 yr min.
You get what you pay for!!

Yeh you reckon!

tech/a said:

Kris.

At 2% you wouldn't roll your Hecs into a home loan at 6% or more.

Click to expand...

No tech/a you have mis-understood my point.

What I meant was to not pay back my HECS debt at all, and to have thrown $23,000 on a home instead, and that would have given me access to the first home owners grant too.

BUT

At the cost of tax-payers, twice over.

Do you get my drift now?

I was doing what was morally right for the tax-payer and that was to pay my debt instead.

Sorry I did misunderstand.
Thats what you get for being High School Educated!!

GreatPig said:

I think you're all mostly just looking at this from one side: the point of view of the student. When you do that, then yes, it's easy to say why should they get something of benefit for nothing.

However, I think you also need to look at it from the point of view of the country. Australia, like any country, needs educated people: teachers, engineers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc. (okay... maybe not lawyers ). For those roles, tertiary qualifications are usually mandatory.

If Australia wants to consider itself a "smart" country, a player in the world of modern technology and science, etc, then I think it needs to encourage people to undertake tertiary qualifications, not discourage them. HECS is a major deterrent.

If people are penalised too heavily for undertaking tertiary studies, then the following will most likely result: either less people will take up tertiary studies, or more of those who do and end up with large HECS bills will move overseas (to avoid having to pay), creating a "brain drain".

Remember, educated people are an investment in a country's future. As with any investment, excessive taxes can kill it.

Cheers,
GP

Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiments GP and with yours too Joe about appreciating the human and social side of it (it's not all about money or 'user pays').

A lot of 'brainy' Asian countries have free (that's right FREE) education systems, and they are not doing all that badly are they? Don't we often whinge about how we are falling behind the rest of the world? Following the Americans means we'll end up in the mess that their society is in. Someone said in another thread here that the US is a 'first world' country in which you can live in 'third world' conditions. I'm sure we can do better.

Government funding of education is an investment in the future wellbeing of this country and its peoples. It should be based on sound philosophical considerations rather than purely financial or party political interests. In some Asian and European civilisations that philosophy is usually hundreds or thousands of years old and is based on valuing knowledge and education for its own sake. That is not to say that tutors were not paid in the past by their students or that some costs were incurred but it wasn't the 'business' that some organisations here are trying to make all forms of education into. Importanty, the wise men and women of the past who valued education could see its intrinsic worth (rather than just the cost of producing courses or lighting lecture halls) and its importance to an understanding of one's self and one's surroundings.

It may well be that these days you have to have a medical degree or a law degree or tafe qualification to get some paying jobs but education is not just about how much money you can convert it into. There is a lot that an educated and knowledgeable individual can contribute to fellow humans (and the economy) through focused study at university or other educational institutions. The importance of a good education cannot be valued in dollar sums alone. Just imagine charging every school kid for their education upto yr 12 or telling them to go out and learn how to become a bricklayer- we'll be going back to the pre-industrial era in Europe.

About the point that paying for something makes you appreciate it more- well I have nothing against paying for some costs (Eg affordable service fees, or application fees or having stricter entrance (interview) conditions to weed out those who are just aimless and disinterested). But to make education a mere 'product' is to miss the point of education in the first place. This could well turn into a philosophy lecture! These are ideas worth thinking about.

Just my views, great topic Kris, let's see if there are any philosophy students out there who can contribute from that angle...

The bottom line is that we are always going to need a wide range of skills throughout the economy. We can't all be doing jobs that require degrees otherwise pretty soon we'll all be starving in the dark.

Unfortunately we live in a society that seems to believe that every single person ought to go to uni. Just look at the media for example - "ENGINEERS are going to drain water from New Orleans, ENGINEERS fixed the levees, ENGINEERS assessed the damange etc". And it's totally wrong because engineers did none of that. They may well have been involved in the planning and acted as managers (which is not in iteself anything to do with their engineering qualifications), but it is tradespeople and labourers that actually do such work.

If every miner, plumber, mechanic, electrician, professional driver and labourer went on strike tomorrow then the bottom line is that Australia would immediately grind to a halt. Those with the degrees would very quickly find out that they depend absolutely on those "below" them.

Slightly off topic but that nice computer you are using right now came literally from a hole in the ground and is powered (in most parts of Australia) by coal. Likewise the hospital that saved the life of someone you know was built not by doctors but by builders, electricians, plumbers etc. No tradespeople and the uni degree becomes literally useless.

So I have a question. Why, given that we need plenty of non-uni educated people and always will, is there this perception that everyone "must" go to university? It just doesn't make sense to be going to uni and then decide to become a plumber. It makes far more sense for aspiring plumbers to go straight into the relevant training as an apprentice and not waste 4 years doing a degree just to impress the parents as is too often the case.

Fair enough if someone just wants a degree. No problem there. But if it adds absolutely nothing to their productive role in an unrelated occupation then I do think it's fair that they pay at least something for it just as it's fair that they pay for anything else non-productive that they want in life. True, it has a value to society but if they are not going to put that education to any use and are earning good money doing something else then surely they can pay towards to cost of their uni education?

Just how many degree-qualified shop assistants, carpet cleaners and truck drivers can we afford? University is ONE option of many.

P.S. No offence intended to any of the named occupations. For example only to illustrate the point.

Personally I'm all for how it was when I went to university (in NZ): essentially free to anyone who obtained suitable grades at high school.

The problem with user-pays is that it favours the wealthy rather than the smart and enthusiastic. And while that could potentially result in some people going along just because they can't think of anything better to do, in my experience those people don't normally last beyond the first year anyway, as it's just too much hard work - and the pay's crap .

As for the finances: well, let's just say that the government has received a lot more money from me over the years in taxes than the NZ goverment ever had to pay to educate me. Other than the fact it's a different government, I think the return on their investment has been very good!


Smurf: One of the problems is that not everyone knows exactly what they want to do before they go to university. They often just take courses of interest and see what develops while they're there and afterwards. It might seem nice for everyone to have their assigned roles beforehand and only receive training appropriate to those roles - all very efficient - but I'm not so sure that such a brave new world would really work

Cheers,
GP

RichKid said:

About the point that paying for something makes you appreciate it more- well I have nothing against paying for some costs (Eg affordable service fees, or application fees or having stricter entrance (interview) conditions to weed out those who are just aimless and disinterested). But to make education a mere 'product' is to miss the point of education in the first place.

Click to expand...

Hi RK,

Firstly, great post! I agree that the education system should not fall prey to economic rationalism and that the cornerstone of equal opportunity is equal access to further education.

When I made the remark that paying for something makes you appreciate it more I guess I was basing it on my own tertiary education experience. Unfortunately when something - like further education - is completely free, people will abuse the privilege. I did one of those degrees in Film and Television like Krisbarry (about 15 years ago) and even though I no longer work in the industry, I have never regretted my choice. At the time the course I was doing - even though it was a degree course - was part of the TAFE system and was completely free of fees. Some of the students at the college I was studying at were there because they didn't get into the course they wanted at another university and just considered it three years off from the dole and were quite happy to sit around, do very little and receive Austudy payments. In my view, that's just a waste of a place that someone who really wants to study could have taken. When someone contributes some of their own money to their education - whether it be in the form of an upfront payment or through the taxation system later - I think you can't help but see further education as a investment in yourself. I think that produces a better calibre of student and creates a better atmosphere in which to learn and ultimately a more effective higher education system.

Sorry for that long paragraph. But even though I believe in student fees of some sort I believe that they should be affordable and that even someone from the poorest of families should be able to access tertiary education without creating a mountain of debt for themselves.

Why does it need to be compulsory to save for something????

Also, by my understanding there is already a compulsory savings plan in place for all sorts of things, one of them being education.

Last I heard it was called TAX and the valuse of the compulsory deposits is going up day by day.

Once upon a time tax was half of what it is today and everything was free, now everything is becoming user pays, the math just doesnt add up.

Really interesting thread and good to see tolerant exchange of valid points of view.

Two more well known people who didn't have a formal tertiary education:
Phillip Adams, Radio National
Sandy McCutcheon, Radio National, both of whom can hold their own in any company and would be judged successful by most standards.

Julia

Great debate on this thread, so many members with such a wide variety of backgrounds and very different views. Well done!

On a somewhat side track, but still very relevant, is the abolishment of compulsory unionism.

For those who have never attended uni, compulsory union fees are charged each year to fund a wide variety of support networks. Some of which include sporting facilities, libraries, welface officers, counselors, nurses, canteens etc.

No union fees or a user pay system would almost wipe out all of the above networks.

Does this then pose the question that Universities no longer provide such diverse cultural/educational environments/experience and then just become degree churning factories for the wealthy?

Joe Blow said:

I agree that the education system should not fall prey to economic rationalism and that the cornerstone of equal opportunity is equal access to further education.

...But even though I believe in student fees of some sort I believe that they should be affordable and that even someone from the poorest of families should be able to access tertiary education without creating a mountain of debt for themselves.

Click to expand...

Very strongly agreed. Everyone should have the option of a university education regardless of socioeconomic background. Likewise access to other forms of higher education including TAFE.

That said, IMO it doesn't make sense that every single person ought to be taking the option of uni just because they can. It makes sense for some but not for others who would be better off getting going at TAFE etc. rather than getting a degree just for the sake of it.

Good to see that we've had a very civilised discussion on what can be an emotive topic.