Australia University fees set to rise under Abbott gov't

Status
Not open for further replies.

amdfangirl

Expert
Ambassador
http://talkingpoints.com.au/2014/03/go-one-eight-universities-just-sold/

http://tharunka.arc.unsw.edu.au/unsw-pushes-increase-fees-popular-courses/

UNSW has joined the Group of Eight (Go8) universities coalition in calling for the government to allow universities to exclusively charge full fees in popular undergraduate courses, as part of an initial move towards wider fee deregulation.

In a submission to the Abbott government’s review of the demand driven funding system for public universities, led by former Liberal education minister David Kemp and economist Andrew Norton, the Go8 universities argued in favour of an opt-out system allowing universities to forego government funding for particular courses in favour of charging full fees.

Under the current demand driven model, the Federal government funds Commonwealth supported places for all domestic undergraduate students accepted into a bachelor degree course at a public university, with the exception of medicine.

In place of this, the Go8 proposal would see full fees charged to students in subjects such as law, accounting, economics and commerce, in which the government currently subsidises 16 per cent of student fees. Such a move would amount to the effective privatisation of these courses, with the Go8 stating that the highest band of student fees could increase by 56 per cent from $9,792 a year to $15,250.

SRC President, Joel Wilson, told Tharunka the Go8 proposal is “disappointing” and will adversely affect students from lower socioeconomic, regional, and rural backgrounds.

“This decreased access to university means that we’ll get less graduates in remote areas, when in fact what rural Australia needs is more graduates and a high skilled workforce,” Wilson said.

The Go8 submission cited the threat to the quality of research programs at Go8 universities following increased student numbers since the previous Labor government uncapped university places for domestic students in an attempt to increase university education to 40 per cent of young Australians.

The number of Commonwealth supported places has risen by over 350,000 students between 2008 and 2013, although Tharunka understands that growth rates at UNSW have remained relatively stable at tops of two to three per cent per year, with the University further instituting a minimum 80 ATAR policy in 2013.

The Go8 submission follows the announcement of an “efficiency dividend” on university funding, which is projected to cut approximately $15 million out of UNSW’s 2014 budget alone, as part of a greater $43 million loss of federal funding over the next four years.

Education Officer on the National Union of Students, Sarah Garnham, said any moves to increase fees will entrench socioeconomic inequality in Australia.

“Student cannot afford higher fees,” Garnham said. “In 1989, when the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) was introduced, students had to pay a flat fee of $5,400. Today, most students graduate with a debt upwards of $20,000. This level of debt prevents working class and poor students from going to university.”

Wilson agreed. “The Group of Eight universities should instead be focusing on opening up university to people from lower socioeconomic groups so that every young adult in Australia has a chance to go to university if they have the ability.”

UNSW Vice-Chancellor, Professor Fred Hilmer, has previously been a vocal advocate for fee deregulation at universities. In a speech to the National Press Club and an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2012, Professor Hilmer argued an urgent need to deregulate fees in order to increase university revenue, suggesting that students in medicine, law, business and engineering should pay more for their “premium” degrees.

Yay, let's give students more crippling debt.

I wonder what honi soit will write about this...
 
I didn't vote LNP ... but a lot of stupid poor people did, and now they have the audacity to complain that the rich man's party is ripping them off.

Maybe next election people will vote for the Labor Party.

I should run for a Senate position ... the PC Party !!

:)
 

musical marv

Distinguished
Feb 26, 2011
2,396
0
20,810
Go for it.Perhaps you will win.

 


The Coalition is a party made up of the Liberal And National Parties. The Liberals are essentially centrist Republicans and the Nationals are slightly right of them, representing more rural concerns.

The ALP (Labor Party) is similar to the Democrats.

We also have the Greens ... fairly self explanatory.

 

Kool.

Thanks! Gonna have to read up on my Aussie politics.

What would you recommend, concerning online literature, to get a glimpse of your country's politics?
 
Folks from Oz, if you want to see how this plays out just look at the U.S. We're about 10-15 years ahead of you on this issue. The article amdfangirl linked said that the states want to stop subsidizing university degrees because it costs a lot of money to do so. The reason they state the costs have gone up is because of a huge increase in demand.

Well, we've seen this here. An undergrad degree or better is now essentially required to do anything except unskilled work so the vast majority of people go to college. This had been going on for a while but really took off around the 2001 '90s tech bubble burst when a lot of people formerly working had to go back to school added to the ranks of the Baby Boomers' children going to college. That recession reduced tax revenues like recessions do and states cut way back on the huge cost driver, college funding, as a result. Tuition skyrocketed in the early and mid-2000s to the point where it was increasing by 30-50% a year and tuition about tripled between 2000 and 2010 before leveling off at 5-10% increases annually. The feds said "oooh, there's money to be made here" and kicked most of the private lenders offering as low as 2-3% interest rates on student loans for reasonable degrees (e.g. engineering, medicine) out of the market and replaced them with loans the feds made themselves through the Direct Loans program with rates going as high as 8.75%. What is currently happening is that more and more people are not going to college. The job prospects in the poor economy stink anyway and it's better to not have student loan debt if you're going to be unemployed or only be able to get work at an unskilled job anyway.

The one thing that NEVER gets discussed is WHY colleges charge what they do. The last sentence in the article gives a big hint: "...Professor Hilmer argued an urgent need to deregulate fees in order to increase university revenue, suggesting that students in medicine, law, business and engineering should pay more for their “premium” degrees." Well-known universities have a de facto monopoly on the granting of degrees that are widely recognized because there aren't many well-known universities and it's an extremely high barrier to entry to become a well-recognized university. It's a classic case of the universities abusing their position and charging what they think the market will bear rather than the price being set between sellers and buyers in a competitive market. The universities like their status and they like the massive bloat that most of them have way too much of. Of course they don't want to discuss why college really costs what it does and do an incisive look at what education really should cost.

So if you really want to reduce tuition, go take a really good look at the universities first. I'd start with eliminating gen-ed requirements that generally serve as welfare for departments which would otherwise have few students and lose money hand over fist. English, minority studies, and philosophy come to mind. You should have learned gen-ed stuff in high school, if you didn't, go do GED classes until you do learn it and then retake and pass the entrance exam. Next I'd eliminate tenure. Everybody has to prove their worth to the organization on a continued basis. Tenured professors are some of the laziest SOBs in the world, ranking right up there with union workers getting government contracts with ridiculous concessions like three-hour lunch breaks. Why work when you don't have to? Well, the students are paying your salary, that's why!
 

amdfangirl

Expert
Ambassador
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/uni-fees-let-the-free-market-rip-to-create-an-aussie-harvard-20140423-zqyap.html

Australia's top universities are urging the Abbott government to embark on the biggest shake-up to university funding since the introduction of HECS by removing government caps on student fees.

Letting market forces decide how much students pay for degrees would allow Australian universities to compete on quality with prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Stanford, according to Group of Eight (Go8) universities chair Ian Young.

The deregulation push, which is backed by Australian National University Chancellor and former deputy Labor leader Gareth Evans, comes as the Abbott Government finalises its response to a major review into university funding.

Professor Young said: “We should not be ashamed of thinking big – there is no reason the degrees offered by Australian universities shouldn’t match the best in the world.

“Removing arbitrary limits on fees would lead to a more vibrant and diverse university system and allow Australian universities to become truly world class.”

Professor Young, who is also Vice-Chancellor of ANU, said deregulating fees would allow universities to reduce class sizes, offer highly specialised degrees and boost investment in research.

Universities that increase fees should be required to offer extra scholarships to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, he said.

Students in equivalent degrees currently pay the same fees regardless of which university they attend.

Under the elite universities’ proposal the only limit on fees would be that income from domestic students – via government funding and student contributions – does not exceed the amount charged to international students in the same course.

International students typically pay far more than local students. Domestic Commerce students at the University of Sydney pay $10,000 a year while international students pay $34,000 a year.

Australian Catholic University Vice-Chancellor Greg Craven said the current funding system should not be scrapped to chase an “overseas nirvana”.

“The most important thing is not that you have the best university in the world but the best university system in the world,” he said.

“You don’t want to have one Rolls Royce and 12 clapped out commodores”.

Professor Craven said universities specialising in low-income degrees such as teaching and nursing would be less likely to benefit from any increase in fees.

Australian Technology Network of Universities executive director Vicki Thomson said technology universities have a long-standing opposition to complete fee deregulation.

“Australia will never have an Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard,” she said.

The University of Melbourne is Australia’s top-ranked university at 43rd place in the London Times global reputation rankings. Melbourne had an overall score of 6.2 compared to Harvard, ranked first globally with a score of 100.

Grattan Institute Higher Education program director Andrew Norton said he supported less regulation but warned that allowing students to take on more debt would pose substantial risks to the federal budget. The cost of unrecovered student loans is already forecast to be as high as $13 billion by 2017, he said.

The National Union of Students said: "Deregulating fees would enable universities to charge students through the nose for their education.

"Students already graduate with almost a decade's worth of debt to repay, and deregulating fees would only increase that debt burden."

A spokesman for Education Minister Christopher Pyne said: “We are committed to the best possible higher education system in Australia and to ensuring our universities are not left behind by our Asian competitors and other international universities.

“The government welcomes a debate over how to ensure our universities remain competitive.”
 


30-60 if you are American...

Lucky for you if you get in-state, are economically disadvantages, know how to get scholarships...

You get the idea...

I hope to get tution bill below 20 grand after I graduate with a BS. 30 with a Masters...if plausible.
 
And if you go for a professional degree such as medicine or law, you can add an extra zero to the end of the debt amdfangirl has to pay. The newer docs at the hospital I work with have about $225-250k in debt at about an 8% interest rate (which accrued from the second the loan was taken out), and they're 30-35 years old depending on how long they had to spend in residency. That amount of money is a mortgage but at 1980s mortgage rates, not today's ~3% rates on borrowing a similar amount of money for a similar 10 year payback period. They pretty well all anticipate on getting extensions to pay back the loans over 20 years. Yay to paying off your student loans 10 years before you retire...
 
I am split on the arts v science pay structure idea:

1) I like the idea of arts majors playing less in tuition, whereas, the sciences pay more. Since tuition reflects the average for wages for respected discipline

2) I do not like the idea, since baisic market theory states that many will go for a arts degree for it will be cheaper. While science pays much better, the idea of large incurred debt scares off possible investors...the students.

Your thought AMDfangirl?
 

amdfangirl

Expert
Ambassador
Well as of right now the delta between science and arts isn't that great. A few hundred dollars if that.

With the Go8 recommendations, the idea is that universities can charge whatever they want for degrees.

It makes more sense to have everyone pay little for a degree. That gives a greater chance for disadvantaged people to get a better livilhood.
 
The cost of tuition would largely just reflect the cost of actually providing the instruction to students if education were an actually free market. Courses with extra costs like labs for science courses and equipment for the applied arts courses would cost more as a result. (They did at least where I went- there were lab fees and equipment fees in courses that had extra costs other than just a lecturer and a projector.) I don't agree with any social engineering sort of stuff in making some classes cost less or more because of their content rather than the cost to actually provide the class.

I also disagree with having people have significantly subsidized degrees. That encourages a lot of waste (e.g. the "professional student" who never really graduates) and puts that burden on the taxpayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.