Loudmouth has a good idea there.

Frivolous university courses, or courses for subjects that have a poor chance of employment after graduation, should charge full fees.

Those course such as for Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, pharmacy, physiotherapy, law and forensic science etc, should be heavily financially assisted by the Government.

It always amazes me when some people rant and rave about these 'useless academics' , but then when disasters happen in their small lives such as a sickness occurs, or they are victims of crime, suddenly they seem to like the university trained professionals that can help them...

suddenly they seem to like the university trained professionals that can help them...
Suseonline,
you're insulting the medical profession by comparing useless academics to them.

Why do the advocates for education never look back at their previous pushing for education ? Where are those much fabled advantages for our society ? All I ever see is uselessness & incompetence & increasing taxes. Isn't education supposed to make people smarter ? If so, why is there no evidence ? Education for education's sake is a pointless exercise. How much longer before people accept the evidence that it isn't working.

Individual,

Year after year, in the NT, the TAFE figures declared that something like 20 % of all Indigenous adults were enrolled in some course or other, usually Certificate I. Year after year. Yet there are communities now where nobody knows how to change a tap-washer, or fix a toilet.

Ydes, by all means, educate people across the board in all sorts of skills, rigorously learnt skills, not BS. What sorts of skills will australia need over the next fifty years ?

Silly question, but for sure, trades skills of every sort, for a start. Every professional body of knowledge related to the mining industry, to agriculture, and to building and maintaining and improving, our infrastructure - rail, electricity and water distribution, roads, ports, sewage disposal, recycling.

That should keep us all busy :)

But if anybody wants to f@rt around with cultural studies, etc., etc., that's fine, as long as they pay for it, and are prepared for long-term fruit-picking, that's fine.

Cheers,

Joe

that's fine, as long as they pay for it, and are prepared for long-term fruit-picking, that's fine.
Loudmouth,
Agree but that still leaves us with the average Labor voter who believes the rest of us have a duty to mollycoddle them.

Ripping article! Have to agree with many of the comments here - higher education for its own sake has only one purpose - to keep unemployment statistics looking good for the promoting government - but it will come back to bite when the resultant unemployable bunch finally graduate or drop out.

We cannot eradicate all courses of strictly limited application in the workforce, but at least they can be limited by a quota system - which should apply to all tertiary studies, based closely on the anticipated forward workforce demand in each discipline, plus an allowance for dropouts.

Quotas to meet actual workforce needs would give students a far greater assurance of getting employment in their chosen field, and, combined with appropriate entry requirements, should achieve minimization of drop-outs and year-repeats, ensuring maximum results from fees/studies subsidization - more 'bang' for the buck.

I believe it is important, however, that all students (other than scholarship or Bursary students) should incur some reasonable expenditure for part of their course costs (but with substantial dispensation for a quota of worthy indigenous students - no absolute free rides just for the sake of numbers, all entrants should still have to meet appropriate entry standards), to give sufficient incentive to take their studies seriously. Fee-free (other than the above exceptions and some possible asset-based dispensation) will only encourage hangers-on, to no-one's benefit.

Fees could also be discounted for disciplines in particularly high demand, to ensure filling quota with the most most 'suitable' applicants. I also think entry requirements should include an assessment of 'psychological fitness', and not be solely based on prior studies 'scores', particularly for studies leading to mentally stressful and demanding occupations - such as doctors, nurses, engineers, and the like. Similarly, trades studies entrants ought to meet any relevant physical demand criteria. Again, optimising the bang for the buck, and ensuring as far as possible 'horses for courses'. Anyone missing out can still pay their own way at a private institution, or wait for an opening. All we need now is enough jobs to go round.