There is no one single education minister in the minority Gillard government. This seems to be inconsistent with her often repeated views on education. Gillard’s argument that she is a firm believer in the value of education is a bit thin; she has no children of her own to educate and she is not particularly well-educated or even highly educated. So all we have to go on is her word. Her actions speak for themselves.
On Insiders this morning Gillard revealed that Higher Education is now split between two ministers. I suspect this is a bad decision in terms of red tape and inconsistencies. Furthermore the idea that education is only about workplace skills is extremely short-sighted.
Sinc, Does this post signal that broadband has reached the remoter parts of Queensland already?
Rafe
12 Sep 10 at 10:01 am
It seems an odd claim that Gillard is “not particularly well-educated”. Was she not a practising lawyer before entering Parliament? That does indeed require a relatively high level of education.
[Llb is a bachelor's degree. Sinc]
David
12 Sep 10 at 10:33 am
Yes, Sinc, we thought you were taking a break.
Actually, I was flicking between Insiders and the last half of the match between the Bulldogs and the Swans – latter much more interesting. And don’t you just hate those long stretches of this week’s footage and some screechy pop song as accompaniment that have become a core feature of Insiders. If they only have material for half an hour, make it so.
But yes the fact that there is now no one minister responsible for higher education is a real issue. Moreover to equate post-graduate education with research is a bit of stretch – and, joy, Kim Il Carr is in charge!
Over at Core Economics, Stephen King is worried about the changes to the visa arrangements as the apply to overseas students and the impending decline in the number of fee-paying and cross-subsidising overseas students at Australian universities.
Which minister will deal with the fall out from this and acknowledge the fact that higher education has not been properly funded for many years, although I guess the new indexation formula will help? And who will deal with the implications of deregulation of quantity and not price, arising from the Bradley recommendations?
Judith Sloan
12 Sep 10 at 10:38 am
Higher education should be privatized.
Timothy Can
12 Sep 10 at 10:43 am
As opposed to what, Timothy?
Privatise it! – the argument that’s all conclusion. So efficient!
FDB
12 Sep 10 at 10:46 am
And don’t you just hate those long stretches of this week’s footage and some screechy pop song as accompaniment that have become a core feature of Insiders.
I quite enjoy those pieces!
This morning, Gerard Henderson said there was widespread anti-Catholic sentiment in the press against Abbott, for example expressed in the phrase “The Mad Monk.” I guess he didn’t realise that Annabelle Crabb, sitting on the couch across from him, is a purveyor of that exact phrase. She tried to challenge him on it, but he cleaned her up.
daddy dave
12 Sep 10 at 10:49 am
FDB,
Do you know how long it takes at present to send internal mail across campus at a small university, and at what cost?
This alone almost makes you think that it should be privatised.
Universities don’t need to be for profit, and there is still provision for social equity funded through taxation.
.
12 Sep 10 at 11:00 am
FDB Because there is nothing about higher education that requires the exercise of coercive power there is no reason for it to be run by the state. If the state is foolish enough to wish to subsidize higher education it may do so through loans, tax rebates, vouchers, direct grants or numerous other means.
Timothy Can
12 Sep 10 at 11:16 am
daddy dave
Gerard Henderson and staff publish an amusing little weekly media commentary:
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wordpress/
The ABC’s interesting approach to ‘balance’ provides regular grist for Media Watch Dog.
I would dare to suggest Gerard was very conscious of Annabelle’s presence in the forum and her role in ABC’s online bloggosphere.
Myrddin Seren
12 Sep 10 at 11:33 am
That’s more like it – a bit of actual argument makes you seem much less knee-jerk tribal.
FDB
12 Sep 10 at 11:33 am
As with pretty much the rest of the ministerial appointments, I think we can safely assume splitting education and other portfolio responsibilities is all about Labor’s simmering internal tensions.
At one level, it could be interpreted as total weakness on Julia’s part – tossing ministries willy-nilly.
Still, from a position of weakness – dividing what were her former key areas might have some tactical sense. There won’t be a single incoming minister able to get across the totality of what she did with education when it was all her baby. Skeletons remain locked up, at least until some diaries are published in the distant future.
Julia would make a heck of an urban guerrilla.
Myrddin Seren
12 Sep 10 at 11:39 am
Particularly vapid this morning was Gillard’s attack on News Ltd in general and The Australian in particular. Her (approving?) silence on the media which fawned over her party was instructive.
I think the poor dear is upset that some of the media has moved to the centre and is doing its best to be ‘fair and balanced, reporting the facts and delineating their opinion from known fact’. That they are doing this because the ‘fawning left-of-centre’ path is now the proven road to a commercial Calvary seems to have escaped her.
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL of Canberra
12 Sep 10 at 11:46 am
FDB I post here only so the proprietors cannot be charged with false advertising for claiming that it is a centre-right and _Libertarian_ blog.
The current higher education system is the sort of frankenstein monster that usually arises when governments try to “reform” a hidebound public monopoly by corporatizing it.
Timothy Can
12 Sep 10 at 11:58 am
One of the reasons why higher education and policy re higher education are in a mess is that the academics dropped the ball in the public discussion about higher education. You might say, “what public discussion?” That is the point!
For example Michael Wilding in retirement has been writing satirical novels about the debacle of higher education and the state of English studies in particular but it all happened on his watch and I don’t recall him as a voice of sanity in the early days when it might have made a difference.
Rafe
12 Sep 10 at 12:01 pm
Higher education should be privatized.
If it was deregulated and privatised, we would soon find it unimaginable that could be any other way. We will look back with puzzlement on the days of government-run universities in the way we now look back at the government run Telecom monopoly (now Telstra, one of many players in a vibrant industry); government-run commercial banks, and the government-run airline Qantas. Amazing in hindsight… and to think that the privatisation of these organisations – and others – was vigorously opposed.
Taxis are also a benefit to the public, but while they are regulated by the state, they’re not run by it. I could list any number of public “goods” in a loose sense that are privately run.
daddy dave
12 Sep 10 at 12:15 pm
I am with Timothy Can. Of course the first step would be abolishing tenure. Tenure is a breach of the free market, but more importantly demeaning to the beneficiary.
There should be no need for public funding of Universities. The proper marketing of the Intellectual Property generated by the Arts Faculty alone should be more tnan sufficient.
rodney
12 Sep 10 at 12:16 pm
Taxis are also a benefit to the public, but while they are regulated by the state, they’re not run by it. I could list any number of public “goods” in a loose sense that are privately run.
This loose sense of the term ‘public good’ is humbug. To use your example, taxis are not a benefit to the public; they are a benefit to private individuals going about their daily business. The reasons we might want to regulate taxis has nothing to do with their ‘public benefit’ but with the fact that we might want to ensure a minimum level of service and public safety. Taxi licenses, in fact, should be treated in much the same way we treat driver’s licences but with additional requirements, namely, a higher standard of driver ability and a very good knowledge of metropolitan area.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 12:28 pm
The only public good is the air. Anyone that defines education as a public good is talking leftwhinge swill.
JC
12 Sep 10 at 12:30 pm
This loose sense of the term ‘public good’ is humbug.
I agree. But note that your logic could apply to more contentious examples such as electricity and water, where “The reasons we might want to regulate [water/electricity] has nothing to do with their ‘public benefit’ but with the fact that we might want to ensure a minimum level of service and public safety.”
daddy dave
12 Sep 10 at 12:49 pm
Privatise it! – the argument that’s all conclusion. So efficient!
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 1:57 pm
Anyone that defines education as a public good is talking leftwhinge swill.
That the population is educated is not necessary to the functioning of the state is, I think, an argument is harder to sustain. That doesn’t mean that education should be state-controlled. It does mean the state must fund it if there’s no other reliable method of guaranteeing a population that is universally literate, numerate et al.
There’s also the principle that people are entitled to a go. That’s a liberal principle is it not?
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 2:00 pm
Yikes! Julia Gillard is inciting revolution. She’s made Lurch minister for youth and schools!
They will rise up!
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 2:02 pm
That is true, DD, but I don’t see the problem in that since it only concerns regulation for public safety and ensuring a minimum level of service. I accept that this last one has some degree of ambiguity to it and that some might want to give it the broadest definition but this can be resisted by continuously reminding people of the narrower definition; it is a reasonable expectation that water or electricity be safely provided, that it is not intermittent or below an acceptable minimum standard but it is unreasonable, to my mind anyway, to think that this also means that it should be available to everyone at the same price irrespective of one’s particular geographical location. The other thing to add here is that it only applies to the regulation of this or that service and the proper character of that regulation; and that it finds public ownership a needless requirement. Moreoever, the whole point of the economic idea of a public good is to demonstrate instances in which public ownership is necessary because one can’t make this or that excludable, etc.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 2:03 pm
Trouble is if you entirely privatize education you’ll get someone like Salary-Anne Atkinson in charge and you’ll have classes like:
Q. If you buy two Pepsis instead of one how much more refreshed do you feel?
A. Pepsi!
Partial credit.
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 2:07 pm
That the population is educated is not necessary to the functioning of the state is, I think, an argument is harder to sustain. That doesn’t mean that education should be state-controlled. It does mean the state must fund it if there’s no other reliable method of guaranteeing a population that is universally literate, numerate et al.
There’s also the principle that people are entitled to a go. That’s a liberal principle is it not?
Adrien, the problem with your argument is that it no where involves a public benefit. Private persons certainly are benefited by good education and government, but that we must also think that the benefits that accrue to private individuals constitute a public benefit doesn’t make sense. There are reasons for traffic laws but they have nothing to do with the private benefits of this or that mode of transport which are then collected and assumed to constitute a public benefit but everything to do with maintaining peace and order in our private travel.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 2:14 pm
For an outfit that managed to hoodwink so many that they were revolutionaries who smashed “Neoliberalism,” their ministeries sure sound like course offerings from the Wharton MBA program.
Innovation NOW!
Deregulation NOW!
And my favorite – from the OB department – Social Inclusion. WTF?
Peter Patton
12 Sep 10 at 3:25 pm
Adrien
We get that now, and will continue to, so long as governments see further/higher education as part of the “Reduce Unemployment Stats” portfolio.
Peter Patton
12 Sep 10 at 3:28 pm
Dover, One of the public benefits of education is peace and order. Is there not a causal link between education and peaceful dealing? Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean exactly by public benefit.
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 3:29 pm
“That the population is educated is not necessary to the functioning of the state is, I think, an argument is harder to sustain.”
For better or (mostly) worse the State has been around for at least 5,000 years. Public mass education has been around for a little over 100. So I don’t think the argument is especially hard to make, though I’m trying to make it.
The market is quite capable of differentiating quality. If some universities drop their standards (actually all of them have already under public ownership) then the value of their degrees will be less and they will become less attractive and find it harder to earn fees.
I question the modern concept of a university. It conflates at least three businesses: the issuing of credentials, teaching towards credentials, and research. There would be fewer conflicts of interest if the three were conducted by separate entities.
Timothy Can
12 Sep 10 at 3:30 pm
For better or (mostly) worse the State has been around for at least 5,000 years. Public mass education has been around for a little over 100. So I don’t think the argument is especially hard to make, though I’m trying to make it.
Indeed and of course the economic system that necessitated and supported the state has remained unchanged since Gilgamesh fought Enkidu.
I question the modern concept of a university. It conflates at least three businesses: the issuing of credentials, teaching towards credentials, and research. There would be fewer conflicts of interest if the three were conducted by separate entities.
I think I might agree there.
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 3:42 pm
Oh and can I just again say: Why does Lurch have a ministry???!!!!
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 3:43 pm
Dover, One of the public benefits of education is peace and order. Is there not a causal link between education and peaceful dealing? Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean exactly by public benefit.
We’ve had peace and order without education. But, yes, you misunderstand me; my point is that the idea, ‘public benefit’, is vacuous. Peace and order are public business even though the benefits we derive from public business are never more than private. The benefits derived from the rules of the road are always private and yet deliberations as to the appropriateness of this or that rule of the road is rightly public business.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 3:47 pm
Timoth Can
You left out THE major role of contemporary universities; baby-sitting.
Peter Patton
12 Sep 10 at 3:50 pm
For better or (mostly) worse the State has been around for at least 5,000 years.
People that say this must have never lived in a failed state. In much the same way, I find criminals that think themselves tough guys amusing; I wonder how tough they would be if they moved in a world in which men where all wolves to other men.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 3:52 pm
DB “People that say this must have never lived in a failed state. In much the same way, I find criminals that think themselves tough guys amusing; I wonder how tough they would be if they moved in a world in which men where all wolves to other men.”
You have a very low opinion of people.
PP “You left out THE major role of contemporary universities; baby-sitting”
It does act as an extended adolescece. This is probably undesirable so I left it out.
Ad “causal link between education and peaceful dealing”
Possibly, but what counts as education? I remember (back when the Dawkins changes where being pushed through) reading that we should be ashamed because a higher proportion Filippinos went to uni than Australians. Apparently for us not to be left behind in the Philippine’s majestic wake we needed to up the proportion of our population with the magic piece of paper. That the Philippines is a cess pit of violence and corruption and going nowhere economically was somehow ignored.
Timothy Can
12 Sep 10 at 4:08 pm
You have a very low opinion of people.
No, I just don’t have any illusions. But even if we put this aside you still have to have some sort of means to solve disputes between parties, and this must involve some sort of public institution.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 4:13 pm
It conflates at least three businesses: the issuing of credentials, teaching towards credentials, and research. There would be fewer conflicts of interest if the three were conducted by separate entities.
Nail, meet hammer.
If you get people to defend public universities (something they will do with indignation, as if it is an assault on common decency to question taxpayer support of universities), implied functions will be revealed; the maintenance of democracy; elevation of civic discourse; preservation of cultural knowledge (such as history); and giving our youth the chance to explore things greater than themselves.
In fact, rescuing people from the drudgery of everyday life seems to loom large as an implicit reason for getting them into university. The (excellent) film “Educating Rita” is probably the best embodiment of this idea.
daddy dave
12 Sep 10 at 4:28 pm
Peace and order are public business even though the benefits we derive from public business are never more than private. The benefits derived from the rules of the road are always private and yet deliberations as to the appropriateness of this or that rule of the road is rightly public business.
Interesting. I’ll think about it before replying.
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 4:35 pm
It conflates at least three businesses: the issuing of credentials, teaching towards credentials, and research. There would be fewer conflicts of interest if the three were conducted by separate entities.
These were the engagements of universities when they were largely private institutions. I’m not sure why you would want to separate one from two if you wanted to deregulate the university sector. The degree itself is the currency of the issuing university.
However, there is probably a case to be made regarding whether or not teaching or research would both benefit by being conducted in separate institutions but it would practically mean having all postgraduate study being undertaken on campuses where there is no undergraduate teaching which might not make sense if you want postgraduates to have some teaching experience if they’re going to fill teaching posts once they finish their p/g degrees.
My feeling, however, is that a combination of teaching and research is to be preferred. Thus you might have some institutions that combine teaching and research and you have others that are solely focussed on research.
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 4:58 pm
You have a very low opinion of people.
No, I just don’t have any illusions.
Not exactly mutually exclusive.
Adrien
12 Sep 10 at 5:08 pm
Rafe / Judith
As it happened I invested in a mobile internet dongle and planned to keep in touch that way, but my laptop died this morning after I posted so I’ve had to make other less satisfactory arrangements. The internet gods are speaking.
Sinclair Davidson
12 Sep 10 at 5:12 pm
Adrien, his statement is asinine and hypocritical. I’m sure he has locks on his doors, does this mean he has a very low opinion of people?
dover_beach
12 Sep 10 at 5:13 pm
What happened to the education revolution? From the Brian Banish School of Utopian Eschatology, Armageddon and Bed-Wetting (Cultural Studies Division of Middle Class White Girl Narcissism) we get this.
Whiteness is an aspiration not a skin colour.
Well, Fuck Me! Now we know!
Let’s watch her progress, and see if her ‘aspiration’ is realized.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/09/11/saturday-salon-17/#comment-235035
Peter Patton
12 Sep 10 at 8:02 pm
“I post here only so the proprietors cannot be charged with false advertising for claiming that it is a centre-right and _Libertarian_ blog.”
That’s the spirit!
Dandy Warhol
12 Sep 10 at 8:30 pm
This one from commenter “Syburi”
The US has been asking for Sept 11 for more than seventy years.
Yobbo
12 Sep 10 at 9:01 pm
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/09/11/saturday-salon-17/#comment-235038
Yobbo
12 Sep 10 at 9:03 pm
Completely illiterate when it comes to history. The Arab middle east experienced 24 years of European colonization – none by the US by the way, and none in Iran.
Peter Patton
12 Sep 10 at 9:10 pm
A cold-hearted cynic would say that Jooolya deliberately spread education around like Vegemite on cold toast with the deliberate intent of making change – change for the better at least – near impossible.
With stalemate in the years ahead, her own disasters in the portfolio will almost seem like actual positive achievements.
Gregoryno6
13 Sep 10 at 6:58 am
PP “The Arab middle east experienced 24 years of European colonization”
I can’t think of a single European colony in the Arab middle east in modern history.
DB “No, I just don’t have any illusions. But even if we put this aside you still have to have some sort of means to solve disputes between parties, and this must involve some sort of public institution.”
You seem to be answering a claim I didn’t make (that the State be abolished) but, to continue patting the ball back, is the State the only conceivable dispute resolution institution? obviously not. In many parts of the world non-state Islamic courts arbitrate most disputes.
DD “If you get people to defend public universities (something they will do with indignation, as if it is an assault on common decency to question taxpayer support of universities), implied functions will be revealed; the maintenance of democracy; elevation of civic discourse; preservation of cultural knowledge (such as history); and giving our youth the chance to explore things greater than themselves.”
Taxpayer support of universities is a different matter than state ownership and control. The extent to which the current universities serve those functions is limited. Their contributions to public discourse have an almost uniform political slant and the views they contribute to public discourse and our youth are tiresomely one dimensional.
Timothy Can
13 Sep 10 at 8:36 am
Taxpayer support of universities is a different matter than state ownership and control.
Point taken. Although I imagine that people here have different models in their heads about the degree of government involvmenent, were the system to be reformed.
The extent to which the current universities serve those functions is limited
I entirely agree. I wasn’t raising them as a defense of universities, but to point out that the rationale for them is even more muddled, as there are implied functions (that they may or may not be successful at) beyond the three that you listed.
The message to students and parents about attending university about a voyage of coming of age, unfettered critical enquiry, and self-discovery. This is where the emotional commitment to the status quo comes from.
And you don’t need to tell me that it’s bollocks. I know that already.
daddy dave
13 Sep 10 at 9:32 am
“The US has been asking for Sept 11 for more than seventy years”
What were they doing in 1931 to piss off bin Laden?
.
13 Sep 10 at 9:36 am
I think part of the original point was that it’s not only Arabs the US have been ticking off.
FDB
13 Sep 10 at 11:21 am
“I can’t think of a single European colony in the Arab middle east in modern history.”
I don’t find it very hard. How about Algeria?
conrad
13 Sep 10 at 11:28 am
FDB though you have to be fair. What were they doing in 1931. What did they do until Persia which was really questionable? The Persian Government weren’t Angelic either.
The artificial division of the middle east and creation of Israel were British, really.
.
13 Sep 10 at 11:36 am
You’re thinking of Arab Africa conrad.
.
13 Sep 10 at 11:36 am
“How about Algeria?”
It’s in Africa I’m pretty sure.
And yes, I’m hard pressed to think of dodgy US foreign adventures prior to WWII myself. Not that WWII was one, of course!
FDB
13 Sep 10 at 11:40 am
You seem to be answering a claim I didn’t make (that the State be abolished) but, to continue patting the ball back, is the State the only conceivable dispute resolution institution? obviously not. In many parts of the world non-state Islamic courts arbitrate most disputes.
Regarding your first point, no, you said that we would be better off without the state, how else are we meant to read the following: For better or (mostly) worse the State….
Regarding your second point, no, again. Re-read what I said: “But even if we put this aside you still have to have some sort of means to solve disputes between parties, and this must involve some sort of public institution.” And to consider your example, Islamic courts are themselves public courts. Public business and public institutions are within the gambit of the State.
dover_beach
13 Sep 10 at 2:58 pm
The “colonization” I was referring to was the mandate and protectorate system, which technically was not “colonization,” but was spun as such to the Muhammadan masses.
And even the meddling in Persia was a response to the Ruskies breaking an agreement not to meddle in Persia after WWII.
Peter Patton
13 Sep 10 at 3:17 pm
Bow if we wanna talk about Islamic imperialism, well how long is a lady finger?
Peter Patton
13 Sep 10 at 3:19 pm
Labor’s choice of Garrett as “schools” minister should cheer the faithful, given Garrett is himself a graduate of elite private schools, and his daughters attended Australia’s school for the daughters of the squattocracy; Frensham.
Peter Patton
13 Sep 10 at 3:29 pm
FDB – “white man’s burden” for a lack of a better turn of phrase. Maybe it just happens when you’re the hegemon?
.
13 Sep 10 at 4:07 pm
I’m hard pressed to think of dodgy US foreign adventures prior to WWII myself.
Phillipines, Hawaii.
John H.
13 Sep 10 at 4:42 pm
DB “And to consider your example, Islamic courts are themselves public courts. Public business and public institutions are within the gambit of the State.”
King’s Gambit, no doubt. This thread seems to be done, the circus has moved on.
Timothy Can
13 Sep 10 at 9:54 pm
WWI was pretty dodgy.
Michael Fisk
13 Sep 10 at 10:52 pm
King’s Gambit is an opening move, Timothy. Are you denying the public character of Islamic courts in Islamic countries and their association with the State therein?
dover_beach
13 Sep 10 at 10:56 pm