Saturday 21 June 2014

Pyne short on maths when it comes to 'prestige' degrees

Pyne short on maths when it comes to 'prestige' degrees

Pyne short on maths when it comes to 'prestige' degrees






Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne


Is the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, having a
lend when he reckons it's fair to pay over $500,000 for the same degree
he got for free, asks Luke Sulzberger.




OUR CURRENT Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne,
has justified a deregulation of university course fees and the
introduction of up to 6 per cent interest on these new debts with the
argument that university graduates earn on average 75 per cent more than
their non-university educated cohort.




By Pyne's reckoning, they should, therefore, shoulder the cost of education.





What Pyne hasn’t told us is, for some, this means lifelong debts totalling over $500,000 for the same degree he received for free.



The ear-marked deregulation will see Australian students pay at least
as much as currently paid by international full-fee students according to Grattan Institute Higher Education program director Andrew Norton.




The Australian Financial Review’s Tim Dodd said that “prestige” degrees of Law and Medicine would see up to a 300 per cent increase. This is backed by modelling provided by the National Tertiary Education Union.







Cartoon by John Graham



Time for a maths lesson, Mr Pyne:



Today, a University of Sydney combined Law/Science degree for a full-fee paying (non-HECS) student costs $195,000.



In 1989, the first HECS Law/Science degree cost $9000 (for the entire
degree), indexed with CPI, payable at a 1-3 per cent of income, after
income reached about $35,000 p.a.


After Howard increased the student HECS contribution, a post -1996
Law/Science degree cost from $27,500 to $45,000 (a 500 per cent
increase) indexed with CPI, but now to be paid back at up to 6 per cent
of income when income reaches $45,000 p.a.


A HELP-based (the system was renamed for reasons that will soon become obvious) Law/Science degree at University of Sydney costs $46,300, indexed with CPI, and payable at a rate of 4-8 per cent of income depending on income.


A post -2016 Law/Science degree at University of Sydney will most likely
cost more than $195,000. It will accrue interest of up to 6 per cent
p.a. regardless of whether it is even being paid back, or at what rate.
Accruing 5 per cent interest and paid back at $10,800 a year would
result in a whopping 12 per cent of $90,000 income.




This represents a massive 400-1,200 per cent increase in the initial HECS payback rate. Over fifty years, the student will pay $540,000 in total and be in debt for their entire working  life. 







What Pyne may have also conveniently missed is that this figure is an
optimistic one because it doesn’t allow for the graduate to experience a
few months where they are out of high income work let alone months, or
years off to have a child.
 And heaven help any student who drops out mid-degree or can only find
low income work. The debts of these students are too scary to calculate.




And yes, a law degree when Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne attended university was FREE!



And Joe Hockey paid just $3,662 for his entire combined Arts/Law degree.







Students protest on Q&A



If the Minister for Educations believes that university graduates
should pay for the opportunity to earn 75 per cent more income, surely
this applies regardless of when you attended university? Lawyers who
graduated with no debt, or $9,000 non-interest-bearing debt, or $60,000
debt, or a $540,000 debt, have all had the same opportunity to earn more
by virtue of their education. 




Why should this massive burden fall only on the current generation of students?



Would it not be more logical and efficient (not to mention fair) to
increase the income tax rate of the demographic earning this “75 per
cent more” to pay for the hike in education fees?




And most importantly – other than ensure future lawyers only come
from one type of family – how does any of this help Australia move
forward from a mineral-export-based economy to a modern technology,
services and innovation-based economy?




It just doesn’t add up Mr Pyne.



(Editor's note:



Hear what Abbott & Pyne actually said below:  



“no school will be worse off over the forward estimates period” and “we will make sure no school is worse off”)






John Graham's art is available for purchase by emailing editor@independentaustralia.net. See a gallery of John's political art on his Cartoons and Caricatures Facebook page.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Wednesday 4 June 2014

University of NSW calls for 'rational debate' on education reforms rather than 'misleading assumptions' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

University of NSW calls for 'rational debate' on education reforms rather than 'misleading assumptions' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

University of NSW calls for 'rational debate' on education reforms rather than 'misleading assumptions'



Updated
8 hours 50 minutes ago



The University of New South Wales (UNSW) is calling
for a "rational debate" about proposed changes to higher education,
rather than what it is describing as "misleading assumptions".
The
Government wants to deregulate universities, allowing them to set their
own fees, and increase the interest rate paid on student loans.


In
his first budget speech last month, Treasurer Joe Hockey said the
higher education sector was being held back and "couldn't compete with
the best in the world".


However, modelling by Universities Australia (UA) - which represents the country's 39 universities - has found the changes will see fees increase for certain courses, including nursing and engineering.

UA chief executive Belinda Robinson told Lateline that measures in the budget threaten to encourage students to study overseas.

"We
might start to see Australian students voting with their feet and in
fact starting to consider international higher education providers," she
said.


But UNSW vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer says the modelling "
... on the impact on fees of changes to cluster funding rates is based
on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the system works and does
not represent the view of UNSW".




"It is up to universities, not Canberra, to decide what
fees should apply to which courses. The funding by cluster is simply a
way of generating a total sum of money that the Commonwealth is prepared
to contribute for the teaching of Australian students in Commonwealth
supported places," he said in a statement.


"The way in which those
sums are distributed across disciplines is entirely up to the
universities, as are the fees that a university would seek to charge on
top.


"The 20 per cent cut in government funding drives an increase
of 30 per cent in student contributions. As the UA paper indicates, on
average the amount of funding per student is reduced by $2251.


"Therefore
an average increase of $2,251 would be required to compensate. It is up
to the university concerned whether a disproportionate amount comes
from some faculties or whether it applies the increase of $2,251 to each
course on a uniform basis.


"Nothing in the legislation impacts the university’s discretion to do this.

"Consequently
statements about large increases for particular disciplines indicate
what universities are considering they might do, not what they are
required to do."


But he says he is concerned about some of the
proposed changes though, including the changes to student loans and the
size of the cut in Commonwealth funding.


"There are elements of
the government package that I would like to see amended, particularly in
regard to the changes to HELP, the size of the overall cut in
government funding and the reduction in funding for the research
training scheme," he said.


"But we need a rational debate based on facts rather than misleading assumptions."