My son completed the RMIT Electronic Games degree three years ago and is still unemployed.

I wonder about the utility of these programs. The writing program seems like it got people jobs. Lord knows, we need people who can write accurately and clearly.

But it seems to me that many universities just cobble these courses together from old curriculums and then charge top dollar for them in a jobs market which has no demand for the graduates.

I don't think it's fair to ask teachers to have the drive or will of a political leader. They are simply teachers. They are at the bottom of the pecking order. Often the culture of an organisation or school is so repressive that any sort of protest is deemed heresy.

Although some times being heretical in a institution which may be bereft of values is the way to go.

...All public enterprise in Australia, trudges the rocky “privatised” road to nowhere, where its’ sole purpose is self-sufficiency and self-survival; lost in the cul-de-sac of user-pay. If education is the guarantee to a future for individuals that it is deemed to be, then “fee for service” is the point public education fails to service its fundamental responsibility to the community.

...The disconnection between Government responsibility to educate the masses, and its need to “balance the books”, has returned to the bad old days of education, where entry into higher education was a user-paid imperative, reserved for the privileged. An unskilled Australia is the evidence, where public education now plays an active role in widening the economic gap between the privileged and the underprivileged: The total anti-thesis of its intended purpose!

Firstly; institutions once had to complete supply and demand analysis before opening or expanding courses. There was an expectation students could find employment in the field they trained in. With a shift to purely market based approaches any number of students can train in a field with little if no prospects of working in the field. Tertiary training is no longer a contributor to society but a business selling a product. What matters is the single bottom line.

Secondly; teaching does not count either for appointment or promotion in tertiary education institutions. Increasing numbers of academics see students as a wasteful distraction from research. Numbers of publications are THE only criteria to become an academic or be promoted.

Thirdly; tertiary institutions have ceased to be collegial. There is no longer a belief in a collective role in society. Individuals look to their own interest and future and so serve themselves. Taking up causes, such as Malcolm King points to, is of no interest to academics; “what is in it for me?”

Fourthly; the idea of education as providing an equalisation of opportunity in society no longer holds sway in society. Opportunity now belongs to those with the where-with-all to take it.

Moves against the largesse introduced by the Whitlam government in terms of access to, and support during tertiary education when set against increasing participation rates was inevitable. Governments are not bottomless pits of money.

Governments, however, have stepped back and allowed events to take their own course. They refuse to become involved in decisions regarding education. Education is now a commodity to be bought.

Perhaps a solution will be enable students to aggressively sue academics. Legal action by students should be enabled against academics that can not show:
* that what is provided will equip students for meaningful and beneficial roles in society; and,
* they are competent or relevant in their teaching.

Institutions should also be sued when they can not prove teaching is as significant a criteria for appointment and promotion as the level to which their income comes from teaching, about 85%!

Usually, I believe that every activity should stand on its own two legs and not require government assistance. Thus by enlarge, I see nothing wrong with HECs fees.

However, there is a significant financial outcome distinction between a lawyer, accountant and a writer. As very few writers are likely to make sufficient income to sustain themselves a civil society needs to decide whether this activity serves a purpose which needs to be funded.

To charge the same rate for a writing course as one would for an accounting or engineering degree is patently ludicrous. Infact, it is willfull destruction.

I am a graduate of this course and can vouch for its quality and renown. I was in my fifties when attending. The majority of staff and classmates were as good as any colleagues I've experienced. They combined with my own motivation to help me achieve some of the highest quality and most creative work I'd produced to that time. My participation spanned the years 2006 - 2010. Towards the end, I was in no doubt that I was experiencing the decline of the course and was glad to complete. I now work as a writer and desktop publisher, mostly in community, health and environment.

It defies logic that we have exposed education institutions, along with other essential services and utilities, to the machinations of market forces. They are not profit oriented private enterprises with myopic short-term goals. They are a means to invest in our communities now and for decades to come. The graduates they produce take with them skills to underwrite our future. At least, that's how it used to be before the emphasis changed to short-term vocational skills. The whole approach to structuring our society has gone awry and must be reviewed urgently. The demise of this course is but one small example of the decline of our values and fatally flawed priorities. We are consuming ourselves into oblivion.

I strongly agree with Mycroft. I was a Prof Writing student from 98-2002.

I had friends who studied at PWE four years ago and they said it had gone down hill - still good teachers, nice people, etc, but far from the top end, tough/sweet course it used to be.

I suppose every educational program reaches its glory days or 'sweet moment' and for me it was in the late 90s. I felt extraordinary lucky to be there and I made great friends.

The program's success was due to the stringent selection criteria and driving for production against deadlines. It also mixed mature age students with people in their late teens and 20s which created a great learning culture!

I also thought (at the time) that King was behind much of the PWE's success. I read articles in The Age written by King bragging about the program. He advocated for the students. He hired staff and ran new subjects. I'm a little biased as he also helped me get a job.

I could never bloody afford the friggin fees Prof Writing is charging now - $6K per year! Get real. Never happen! I've never heard of an associate degree. This is what happens when we take our eye off the ball. Vale PWE. I'm getting Mr Chips teary...