Labour announce 3 years free tertiary education

[Ab]

Originally Posted by MadMax

todlers can't vote

this

[Nothing]

Yeah, I think calling CCS ingorant probably does qualify as ad hominem, as far as my post goes. However, there are two points to be made in my defence.

First, not all ad hominem is fallacious. I don't think my ad hominem here was fallacious. It points out the fact that CCS is ignorant in some respects, and that is a relevant consideration when evaluating the claims he is making. If they are the kind of claims that an ignorant person would typically make, we should perhaps regard them with a greater degree of suspicion than we otherwise would.

Second, if CCS were actually making a sensible argument or point of any sort, rather than just parroting inane right wing bullshit stereotypes, perhaps I would have responded to the argument. But he had nothing interesting or original to say, it was the same old same old, and has been so thoroughly pulled to bits on so many occasions by so many different commentators that I just couldn't be bothered. It was far more exedient to simply point out the fact of his ignorance, which he so beautifully illustrated for us.

[BoyWonder]

Thats fine but at the same time we have a skills shortage list which suggests there could be an opportunity to apply it in a more effective way. Of course you don't want to simply create a shortage somewhere else and a whole lot of unemployed IT graduates.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by MadMax

todlers can't vote

None of the people eligible the free tertiary education can vote either.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

I don't think CCS was even replying to you. It looked to me like he was responding to Nothing but your comment scooted in between.

This here is correct.

To think that Heyzoos got shitty and attacked me instead of my argument because he couldn't keep up with the thread. Pretty poor form really.

Heyzoos, withdraw and apologise.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Yeah, I think calling CCS ingorant probably does qualify as ad hominem, as far as my post goes. However, there are two points to be made in my defence.

First, not all ad hominem is fallacious. I don't think my ad hominem here was fallacious. It points out the fact that CCS is ignorant in some respects, and that is a relevant consideration when evaluating the claims he is making. If they are the kind of claims that an ignorant person would typically make, we should perhaps regard them with a greater degree of suspicion than we otherwise would.

Second, if CCS were actually making a sensible argument or point of any sort, rather than just parroting inane right wing bullshit stereotypes, perhaps I would have responded to the argument. But he had nothing interesting or original to say, it was the same old same old, and has been so thoroughly pulled to bits on so many occasions by so many different commentators that I just couldn't be bothered. It was far more exedient to simply point out the fact of his ignorance, which he so beautifully illustrated for us.

You've demonstrated that you've read my post and completely missed my point. You're so keen to feel outraged that you got distracted by my taking the piss out of certain subjects of study and you went straight to coming back all ad hominem. Lefties are so easy to distract that it's no wonder John Key uses it as a technique all the time.

I'm guessing you have an arts degree and got your feelings hurt when I made fun of it?

Here's the bits you're supposed to focus on:

Originally Posted by CCS

It seems like a nice idea and one I'm not an entirely opposed to. But they'd be better off targeting the skills that NZ is most urgently in need of. If someone wants to get a degree in philosophy, they can pay for it.

Originally Posted by CCS

It's pretty fucking easy. STEM disciplines are usually a pretty good bet.

BoyWonder is the only person perceptive enough to see that and need get all butthurt by my taking the piss out of basket weaving and pottery courses.

So if everybody is quite done with being insecure about their arts degrees, let us proceed.

Here's my idea: subsidise STEM subjects and courses that are on the long term skills shortage list (short term skills shortages have to be filled by immigrants who have the requisite skills and experience right now). There is no skills shortage in marketing, arts, pottery, hip hop dancers etc. Those people should expect to pay the usual tuition fees.

A couple of professions on the long term skills shortage list are doctors and nurses. So it would make sense to offer big subsidies on tertiary education for those professions. The graduates must be bonded to work in NZ for a certain period of time. Five years maybe?

Here's a problem though, and it isn't solved by free or subsidised education. Why do we have a shortage of doctors and nurses? I presume that it's simply that you make more money overseas as a doctor than you do here, and probably the same for nurses. Free/subsidised education may help insofar as some doctors may not feel the need to chase the big bucks if they don't have a large student loan. Others may want to chase the larger salary all the same or they want the overseas experience. That's fine. They can pay the full course fees if they want to head overseas instead of being bonded here.

What I'm getting at is that it would help to pay doctors here commensurate with what the would earn overseas, or close to it. That means more funding from the government.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

Thats fine but at the same time we have a skills shortage list which suggests there could be an opportunity to apply it in a more effective way. Of course you don't want to simply create a shortage somewhere else and a whole lot of unemployed IT graduates.

Fair point. I think that could still happen with free tertiary education across the board. You could end up with a lot of professional tampon braiders¹ with no industry that needs to employ them all. I really feel it needs to be targeted. Otherwise it's just an election bribe from Labour.


¹ substitute for the name of whatever tertiary degree upsets you the most if I make fun of it.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

I was absolutely posting the cartoon in the context that the baby boomers all got 100% free tertiary education.

It's hardly fair to hold a grudge against baby boomers who got given free tertiary education in those days.

At the end of the day, they're voters and taxpayers and they get a say.

[CCS]

1. Labour can only tell us where the money for the first year of this plan is coming from.

2. They still need to find $935,000,000 by 2025. That equates to 37.4 flag referendums.

3. This assumes they will win four terms in office starting in 2017. Only one Labour government (the first, for 14 years) has ever lasted four terms. Most lasted just one term, except Lange’s (two terms) and Clark’s (three terms).

4. These numbers are based on current student numbers. It makes no allowance for more people wanting to study because it is free. A quick look at other free policies, like the Gold Card and Interest-Free Student loans, shows a massive blow out in costs.

5. Tertiary fees have gone up 37% since 2008. How much higher will they be in 2025 when Labour is writing a blank cheque?

6. The amount of money we are talking about can only be paid for by massive tax increases.

Remember, don't criticise the person.

[Heyzoos]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

I don't think CCS was even replying to you. It looked to me like he was responding to Nothing but your comment scooted in between.

You are indeed correct but it was too late and the name calling commenced. Hangs head in shame.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by CCS

You've demonstrated that you've read my post and completely missed my point.

Wut? Nothing I've said here, and neither anything you've said, shows that I've missed what you call your 'point'. Actually, I got that just fine. I just didn't really have any comment to make on it, so I didn't. There is no inconsistency between getting that point, and calling you ignorant for bagging the arts.

[CCS]

You're really fixated on that aren't you?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Heyzoos

Attributing education of any kind to a future career is ultimately pointless. People can work that out by themselves.

To cut a long story short, If we could generally agree that tertiary education makes for a better society then I'm more than happy to pay taxes for the rest of my life that enables free-loading BA students to get their fill. Ecstatic would be the word.

Bryan Gould discusses a more comprehensive value of education rather than limiting value judgment to the potential vocational and income outcomes.

The truth is that the undeniable public gain from investing in tertiary education can only be achieved through raising the educational levels of individuals, just as it is with compulsory education - the two are necessarily complementary rather than competing. A higher general level of education means better educated individuals but also a better-functioning and more successful society - one able to take a wider and longer-term view and achieve a deeper understanding.

[Heyzoos]

Nice article. I like the logic of...

"The case for sparing the taxpayer the cost of tertiary education by applying a "user pays" principle looks pretty shaky when the user and the taxpayer are the same people."

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Whoa shit
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11582567

OK Cotton, let's see if it paid off.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/educat...FOHXUDJVR46OI/

(T)he number of decile 1 students in first-year tertiary study has halved since the policy started, with students from wealthier backgrounds making up an increasingly greater share.

Government data shows bachelors-level students made up two-thirds of fees-free enrolments. Most were aged 18 to 19 years. And most were European.

And the “parity gap” has increased, according to a summary on educational performance indicators, as the qualification completion rate fell for Māori and Pacific peoples in 2022.

Whaddya know, it helped middle-class white kids and shut out poor brown kids.

[fixed_truth]

I would think that Covid come along and the resulting economic disaster disproportionately effected poorer people, shutting them out. Without the scheme enrollments would have been a lot worse.

[Cyberbob]

Isn't there some massive leaps in logic there to reach those conclusions?

Tertiary enrollment declined for every demographic and ethnic group, but slightly more so in low socio-economic or poorer communities. (resulting in the "students from wealthier backgrounds making up an increasingly greater share.") therefore, it's not worth covering the first year, and instead let's cover the last year?

It would appear to me that it's not incentivizing additional signups, and more or less the same students would be either seeking or choosing to not seek tertiary education regardless of whether any particular year is fully funded or student loan funded. You're just giving it to those that could fund/borrow their way into courses either way.

If someone doesn't think they can fund year 2 and 3, they're not going to sign up to a three year bachelor course just to get the first year free.

Funding the third year's no better, because it assumes they can fund year 1 and 2.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

It would appear to me that it's not incentivizing additional signups, and more or less the same students would be either seeking or choosing to not seek tertiary education regardless of whether any particular year is fully funded or student loan funded.

That's a fair take. I do think that the fact students are doing worse since Covid does contribute. It's definitely not the case that offering the first year free is resulting in less people seeking tertiary education.

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

You're just giving it to those that could fund/borrow their way into courses either way.

As someone who had a student loan and someone who's kid has just signed on to a student loan, I don't have a problem with this.

[Ab]

The scales were tipped in favour of the wealthy from the very start. It is literally a government handout to people and families who value university education and aspire to white-collar careers. What do you think such people look like? Where do they go to school? What are their home environments like?

[Lightspeed]

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

The scales were tipped in favour of the wealthy from the very start. It is literally a government handout to people and families who value university education and aspire to white-collar careers. What do you think such people look like? Where do they go to school? What are their home environments like?

Targeting race is racist! /s

Iirc it included trades etc and the plan was to extend it to second & third years.

[Ab]

How much does the first year of a trade cost? How much does the first year of dentistry cost?

If both are made free, what sort of person is getting the greatest assistance?

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

How much does the first year of a trade cost? How much does the first year of dentistry cost?

If both are made free, what sort of person is getting the greatest assistance?

All I know is that the lad is starting year 7 with 6 figures hanging over him and he was very appreciative of the first one being picked up by the Govt and scholarships.

[fixed_truth]

I'm all for initiatives that help alienated groups engage in education and from this move on to tertiary institutions. It's very much a socioeconomic as well as an institutional racism thing. Things like serious wealth distribution, spending on social services, reframing how we teach the curriculum to be more relevant to Maori, guaranteed seats at the table where it's decided what's important & what's not. Removing financial barriers to study is part of this.

Like paid maternity leave, free fees is taken up more by middle class. This doesn't necessitate it being something we shouldn't do as a society.

[Ab]

Opportunity cost; every dollar that went on free fees for future doctors is a dollar taken away from early childhood.

[fixed_truth]

And future teachers, nurses, electricians, builders, social workers, accounts, surveyors, radiologists and a long list of services we need for society to function.

If people want resources to be not so hoarded to the point of this false scarcity, then start voting for the parties that want to tax land & wealth & assets.

[Ab]

You meant “tax capital gains”… right?

[fixed_truth]

ALL THE TAXES!?!

[xor]

Taxes isn't the problem. The govt receives a ridiculous amount in tax revenue. Successive governments show time and time again how they waste taxpayer dollars.

[fixed_truth]

What makes the amount ridiculous? I do think there should be a lot less income tax.

And who gets to decide what is to be categorised as wasteful?

[xor]

govt depts go on spending sprees to use up any leftover budget at the end of financial year. This sort of mentality is the typical attitude of govt depts and is just a teeny tiny example of wastage.

[fixed_truth]

That doesn't mean it's not spent on earmarked projects

[Lightspeed]

It's just a meme. As old as the Romans at least.

The biggest waste is opportunity cost, but that's too much like smart-pants expert talk for many.

[xor]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

That doesn't mean it's not spent on earmarked projects

Case in point. Labour's policy to subsidize first year tertiary education was intended to be utilized by those whom needed it the most. Yet, it's honkey's like StN's fam who benefited from it.

[Ab]

A cynic might comment that Labour's policy was intended to generate support among young voters.

[Lightspeed]

A pragmatist might think the same. After all, Labour can't leverage fear of the other, like the parties currently in government can. They can't threaten us with the poors or the browns. The most they can do is fund public broadcasters that have to toe the line, and only while in power. Whereas their opponents have the bankroll to fund private broadcasters any day of the week.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by xor

Case in point. Labour's policy to subsidize first year tertiary education was intended to be utilized by those whom needed it the most. Yet, it's honkey's like StN's fam who benefited from it.

Yes, let's not introduce measures to remove barriers to tertiary education incase a pandemic comes along and offsets it!

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

A cynic might comment that Labour's policy was intended to generate support among young voters.

Not just young - I recall someone telling me about an elderly parent who would gather the grandkids around and listen to their concerns and needs and then applied his vote in a way that would most benefit the next generation, rather than his traditional voting lines.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Labour can't leverage fear of the other, like the parties currently in government can. They can't threaten us with the poors or the browns.

CHINESE-SOUNDING NAMES!!1

[xor]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yes, let's not introduce measures to remove barriers to tertiary education incase a pandemic comes along and offsets it!

hah, ok then. Wish i had your optimism re: govt spending on failed policies/projects/operations.