Hold on one gokking minute

[Humodour]

Australia's university education system works well: government subsidises a lot of it, but each student still has to pay about $20 to $40 thousand at the end, depending on their degree. The key thing, though, is that every student is allowed to borrow from the government (and usually does) to pay for all this debt, and no interest is charged on this debt (although it is indexed to inflation). The debt is automatically paid off through the tax system once a student's income reaches a certain level (maxing out at 7% of the student's income per year going towards repayment last I checked). So it's a stress-free debt for the student with essentially no risk of default for the government as repayment is compulsory.

 

The system works quite well, and crucially the issue of poor students not having equal access to tertiary education doesn't exist due to the above-mentioned government loans.

 

Universities in Australia also tend to generate huge amounts of money through R&D, while various chunks of government funding are performance-based. Although come to think of it, one of the main reason Australian universities balance their budgets so well is because they charge international students huge amounts to study here (and huge amounts of international students do study here, especially rich Indians and Chinese).

 

So tl;dr version: you don't have to make education free to make it universally accessible.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Krezack

[Humodour]

Orogun, it is on average correct that children of poor parents grow up to be poor and unsuccessful themselves. Not all of them, obviously, but a far greater number than the children of rich or middle-class parents.

 

You simply cannot look at this entirely from a capitalist "it's their own fault that they're poor" perspective. It does not work like that.

 

EDIT: Oh, wait, sorry Orogun, you were spot on. It is Nepenthe who I am disagreeing with.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Krezack

[Nepenthe]

The way I read it was that neither of you understood what I was saying. Of course, I apparently zoned off in the middle of it and left at least one sentence unfinished, I can't really blame you.

 

I was saying that wealth should be eliminated from the university process in general on one hand, but on the other hand there shouldn't be a subjective right for everybody, regardless of talent to pursue a university education.

 

The Australian system of finance seems interesting, a lot fairer than what we have hear (which is why people choose to work their way through school instead of risking student loans).

Edited June 26, 2011 by Nepenthe

[Rostere]

If i understand this article correctly, and I may well not, then two students are going to challenge HM government's plan to allow universities to charge

[Monte Carlo]

Australia's university education system works well: government subsidises a lot of it, but each student still has to pay about $20 to $40 thousand at the end, depending on their degree. The key thing, though, is that every student is allowed to borrow from the government (and usually does) to pay for all this debt, and no interest is charged on this debt (although it is indexed to inflation). The debt is automatically paid off through the tax system once a student's income reaches a certain level (maxing out at 7% of the student's income per year going towards repayment last I checked). So it's a stress-free debt for the student with essentially no risk of default for the government as repayment is compulsory.

 

The system works quite well, and crucially the issue of poor students not having equal access to tertiary education doesn't exist due to the above-mentioned government loans.

 

Universities in Australia also tend to generate huge amounts of money through R&D, while various chunks of government funding are performance-based. Although come to think of it, one of the main reason Australian universities balance their budgets so well is because they charge international students huge amounts to study here (and huge amounts of international students do study here, especially rich Indians and Chinese).

 

So tl;dr version: you don't have to make education free to make it universally accessible.

 

Apples and oranges Krezack, you have a population of what, twenty-odd million? In the UK I think we are in the mid-sixties.

[Walsingham]

You chaps seem to have misinterpreted my basic point. Having had breaks from a very poor start myself I understand that it can be a good thing. What I am objecting to is the notion that one has a human right to the best cultivation of your abilities.

[Humodour]

Australia's university education system works well: government subsidises a lot of it, but each student still has to pay about $20 to $40 thousand at the end, depending on their degree. The key thing, though, is that every student is allowed to borrow from the government (and usually does) to pay for all this debt, and no interest is charged on this debt (although it is indexed to inflation). The debt is automatically paid off through the tax system once a student's income reaches a certain level (maxing out at 7% of the student's income per year going towards repayment last I checked). So it's a stress-free debt for the student with essentially no risk of default for the government as repayment is compulsory.

 

The system works quite well, and crucially the issue of poor students not having equal access to tertiary education doesn't exist due to the above-mentioned government loans.

 

Universities in Australia also tend to generate huge amounts of money through R&D, while various chunks of government funding are performance-based. Although come to think of it, one of the main reason Australian universities balance their budgets so well is because they charge international students huge amounts to study here (and huge amounts of international students do study here, especially rich Indians and Chinese).

 

So tl;dr version: you don't have to make education free to make it universally accessible.

 

Apples and oranges Krezack, you have a population of what, twenty-odd million? In the UK I think we are in the mid-sixties.

 

So... you don't think a similar system would work in the UK?

[Monte Carlo]

Possibly, but your economy is in a better state than ours plus there's the issue of volume.

 

As others have said, the demise of decent vocational training in the UK is part of the problem, as is the proliferation of frankly trivial and frivolous courses of study by second-rate institutions.

 

As usual, the UK is opting for an amalgam of the worst aspects of European and American models. There should be decent system of affordable student loans, consolidated and accessible bursaries and (crucially) a structured and properly supported system of apprenticeships. The idea that you need a three-year degree to do certain jobs is ludicrous, and we need to develop more modular access to higher education.

 

Like the Aussie health care system, which makes lots of sense, it simply doesn't translate to a smaller country with a flat-lining economy but a much bigger population density.

[Gorgon]

You chaps seem to have misinterpreted my basic point. Having had breaks from a very poor start myself I understand that it can be a good thing. What I am objecting to is the notion that one has a human right to the best cultivation of your abilities.

It's not about human rights, that was just the way to pursue this through the courts. I thought we covered this already.

[Orogun01]

You chaps seem to have misinterpreted my basic point. Having had breaks from a very poor start myself I understand that it can be a good thing. What I am objecting to is the notion that one has a human right to the best cultivation of your abilities.

So you want to argue ethics? That human rights are a human construct and otherwise useless in a state of nature.

 

Maybe you can put up with this little white lie in the pursue of a greater good.

[Raithe]

I think Wals point lays in the idea that if it proliferates that you have an inalienable right to education up to x point, regardless of the effort you're willing to put into it... then that starts to get into certain dodgy grounds. What would be the point of people bothering to push themselves to achieve scholarships or aim to produce actual abilities.. if you know you can get access regardless?

 

If you know everyone is getting in regardless of what you do, how many people really start flexing themselves? Maybe I'm just cynical about human nature, but self-motivated and disciplined people (especially teenagers) aren't exactly common on the ground..

[Orogun01]

I think Wals point lays in the idea that if it proliferates that you have an inalienable right to education up to x point, regardless of the effort you're willing to put into it... then that starts to get into certain dodgy grounds. What would be the point of people bothering to push themselves to achieve scholarships or aim to produce actual abilities.. if you know you can get access regardless?

 

If you know everyone is getting in regardless of what you do, how many people really start flexing themselves? Maybe I'm just cynical about human nature, but self-motivated and disciplined people (especially teenagers) aren't exactly common on the ground..

One of the causes of the high dropout rate, but as an institution education works. Problem is the lack of freedom given to teachers to actually instill values on students, so as usual the ones that learn are the ones actually interested. Those who don't care for it and still pursue a career just because is the logical next step, well I saw them once or twice before they finally stopped coming to school altogether.

Although I been for a half a year in an arts schools that it's very career oriented, they make you push yourself by constantly reminding you what the job is. So no its irrelevant to them if you push yourself or not since A) you are paying a lot of money to be there B) if you don't make it through school you probably won't make it on the job.

 

But we in America have that "pursuit of happiness" thing and don't need to use human rights to make a case. You guys should have listened to Locke.

[Raithe]

Well it used to be that the government provided Student Grants that covered the basics of tuition fees depending on how much money your parents made.... You still had to actually get the qualifications that the University wanted and get accepted before that.. but it meant you only had to worry about living expenses and the cost of books and the like.

 

Of course, that disapeared a few years back.. I think it was during the early run of Blair's labour government that they got scrapped out.

I'm not sure exactly how it's handled these days..

[Orogun01]

Well it used to be that the government provided Student Grants that covered the basics of tuition fees depending on how much money your parents made.... You still had to actually get the qualifications that the University wanted and get accepted before that.. but it meant you only had to worry about living expenses and the cost of books and the like.

 

Of course, that disapeared a few years back.. I think it was during the early run of Blair's labour government that they got scrapped out.

I'm not sure exactly how it's handled these days..

Bummer, we still have a similar program here at the states. Don't know how you guys manage, ever consider studying overseas?

[Walsingham]

1) Pursuit of happiness is something we can all get behind in theory. But it's like 'fairness'. What does it actually mean and more importantly where does it stop? This is important because with limited resources in attention if not assets we have to enact policy to push it forward. Personally I cannot regard a 'fair' access to higher education as a human right in the same way as a right to life and liberty. yet this precdent will make it a legal imperative for the government.

 

2) We discussed the 'construct' of human rights with LoF/Cycloneman a while back, when he was defending Sendero Luminoso. I think I was a little bit sick in my mouth, as they say. His argument was that since human rights were a social construct then society could easily and legitimately deconstruct them to suit its needs. The result being arbitrary rape, murder, and slavery.

 

3) This is really the point. Enshrining 'fairness' as a human right will make government policy socialist on pain of criminal prosecution. Everyone gets to go to University. Everyone should be near a job so the government has to move people and house people who live in destitute regions. Ugly people and short people deserve plastic surgery since neither feature serves their social engagement. Poor people don't experience as much of the world on rich people's gap years so the government should subsidise holidays. This is not a straw man. This is how legal precedent works.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Walsingham

[Humodour]

Slippery slope fallacy?

[Gorgon]

Fairness is not a human right, it's one of the cornerstones of a welfare society we can't presently afford, but that people understandably have come to expect and rely on.

[Walsingham]

Slippery slope fallacy?

 

 

This is how legal precedent works.

[Orogun01]

3) This is really the point. Enshrining 'fairness' as a human right will make government policy socialist on pain of criminal prosecution. Everyone gets to go to University. Everyone should be near a job so the government has to move people and house people who live in destitute regions. Ugly people and short people deserve plastic surgery since neither feature serves their social engagement. Poor people don't experience as much of the world on rich people's gap years so the government should subsidise holidays. This is not a straw man. This is how legal precedent works.

Wow, Wals you really have taken this thing an ran with it. Isn't it a bit of hyperbole?

 

Before the scenario you describe could happen, don't they need to have a whole bunch of trials based on the precedent and people behind it? Plus there is a difference between alienable rights and privileges, what you describe are the privileges of the rich.

[Walsingham]

3) This is really the point. Enshrining 'fairness' as a human right will make government policy socialist on pain of criminal prosecution. Everyone gets to go to University. Everyone should be near a job so the government has to move people and house people who live in destitute regions. Ugly people and short people deserve plastic surgery since neither feature serves their social engagement. Poor people don't experience as much of the world on rich people's gap years so the government should subsidise holidays. This is not a straw man. This is how legal precedent works.

Wow, Wals you really have taken this thing an ran with it. Isn't it a bit of hyperbole?

 

Before the scenario you describe could happen, don't they need to have a whole bunch of trials based on the precedent and people behind it? Plus there is a difference between alienable rights and privileges, what you describe are the privileges of the rich.

 

It is entirely possible I'm running in mental circles by this point, waving my hypothalamus out my ear like a naked arse from the window of a sunlit chevy. But I don't think so.

 

The thing is that human rights legislation is designed to be super-powerful and transnational. It's designed (or so I thought) to get genocidal gokking bastards into jail, and peaceful protesters out of the torture chamber. Not to mandate every aspect of society.

 

I still think that using it in this way demeans and dilutes the power of the very important point of the legislation. And it does it so students can avoid running up 27k debt, rather than the 100k debt they do in other countries.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Walsingham

[Orogun01]

It is entirely possible I'm running in mental circles by this point, waving my hypothalamus out my ear like a naked arse from the window of a sunlit chevy. But I don't think so.

 

The thing is that human rights legislation is designed to be super-powerful and transnational. It's designed (or so I thought) to get genocidal gokking bastards into jail, and peaceful protesters out of the torture chamber. Not to mandate every aspect of society.

 

I still think that using it in this way demeans and dilutes the power of the very important point of the legislation. And it does it so students can avoid running up 27k debt, rather than the 100k debt they do in other countries.

But its misuse won't affect the charter of human rights itself, clearly put: they won't change the human rights charter by misusing it.

Besides is not like they want to do something wrong, you seem to have an obvious bias against it though. Don't know why.

 

Although if the courts feel like you do, maybe it won't happen. So cheer up mate, there is going to be future generations of undergraduates but the human rights remain pure and sacred. That's all that matters, ain't it?

[Walsingham]

It is entirely possible I'm running in mental circles by this point, waving my hypothalamus out my ear like a naked arse from the window of a sunlit chevy. But I don't think so.

 

The thing is that human rights legislation is designed to be super-powerful and transnational. It's designed (or so I thought) to get genocidal gokking bastards into jail, and peaceful protesters out of the torture chamber. Not to mandate every aspect of society.

 

I still think that using it in this way demeans and dilutes the power of the very important point of the legislation. And it does it so students can avoid running up 27k debt, rather than the 100k debt they do in other countries.

But its misuse won't affect the charter of human rights itself, clearly put: they won't change the human rights charter by misusing it.

Besides is not like they want to do something wrong, you seem to have an obvious bias against it though. Don't know why.

 

Although if the courts feel like you do, maybe it won't happen. So cheer up mate, there is going to be future generations of undergraduates but the human rights remain pure and sacred. That's all that matters, ain't it?

 

*sigh* Legislation of all kinds only gets really defined when it is put through the system of the courts. So you are completely off beam. If they successfully claim using the human rights act at a high court level then that is what the Act becomes. A charter for demanding government sponsorship.

 

I'm no legal expert, but we've got some lawyers on here. Anyone care to chip in?

[Nepenthe]

Anyone care to chip in?

Not particularly.

[Orogun01]

Anyone care to chip in?

Not particularly.

You seriously are a downer

[Nepenthe]

Well, I think that Wals is onto something, but as usual, the less you know, the easier it is to formulate a clear opinion. I don't have the time or inclination to write a good long paragraph on the matter, never mind the 200 pages it would require.