Howz that education “investment” going

See below chart.  Another R-G-R policy success.  A policy that would have been reintroduced if Labor won government.

Presumably the universities (in response to incentives) increased the supply of courses which a relatively inexpensive to produce – humanities, law, business – the courses that don’t require too much infrastructure like engineering, medicine and sciences.  Clearly Australia needs more lawyers, social scientists and students of marxist lesbian dance theory.

But there is also the cost.   The difference in drop out rates between regular students and demand driven students is 9%.  Across 770,00 students, that is 69,000 kids every year.  Kid who will have racked up large HELP liabilities which they may be paying off for a long, long time.

[Addendum.  Ok.  TAFKAS made mistake with the above calcs.  It’s on 9% of the kids on the demand driven enrollments which would be well less than 69,000.  But it would certainly be more than 100 and how many is too many?]

If a bank or financial services organisation loaded up 10% of its customers with debt that they could not ever be able to pay off, there would be a Royal Commission.  Oh hang on.

Yes oh yes.  Throwing money at education is clearly paying off.  Paying off for education bureaucrats and university administrators at the expense of the rest of us.

Yes oh yes.  Think of the children.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Howz that education “investment” going

  1. stackja

    Education unions want more.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    students of marxist lesbian dance theory

    Yep. It’s a 21stC marvel that now you can pay lots of money for your kids to be educated, only for them to be dumber after three years than they were when they started.

  3. John A

    It’s about 15,000 dropouts (extra, that is), so a lot more than 100 TAFKAS.

    But I doubt if they will be paying off their HELP debt, if they cannot (or choose not to) earn income above the fairly generous threshold for a repayment scheme to apply.

  4. David Brewer

    Original report by the Productivity Commission here.

    The “demand-driven” system was just the government lifting any funding restraint on universities enrolling more students.

    Result: far more dropouts. Another telling comparison from the report:

    By age 25, only 68% of the additional students had passed their degrees, compared to 80% of students who would have got in to universities anyway.

    Two little worries about the Productivity Commission report, from the link above:

    – the Commission Chair, Michael Brennan, opines that “Our school system needs to prepare larger numbers of people for university”. But why? Most entry-level jobs can be performed with a lower-secondary education, or could be so performed if that level had not been so downgraded to cope with the slowest in the class. Not to mention the school time wasted on inculcating views and attitudes rather than imparting skills.

    – the Report also says: “The growing risk of students dropping out of university requires attention. On average, the additional students need greater academic support to succeed. While universities had strong incentives to expand student numbers, the incentives for remedial support are weak.” So, how much extra money does the PC propose to dole out on students who are too weak or lazy to graduate even under today’s debased standards?

  5. Squirrel

    And in spite of all this spending, we are constantly told that we need a very high rate of immigration because of skills shortages – clearly the money is being seriously misdirected.

    Even Aunty ABC is reporting on the issue now –

    Perhaps the outcomes-focused approach to education funding announced in this week’s NSW Budget should be extended nationwide.

Comments are closed.