Employment rates need to be looked at with a view as to the content of the Degree, is it a real one or some sort of "... Studies". Those with "Basket Weaver Degrees" can't expect to get a job and hence should not be counted (there actually is an old Basket Weaver's shop in Newtown they could form a co-operative in?).

Typical fumblings with numbers to try to invent a point, but then the writer is not a climate-scientist.

has anyone ever asked where this figure of $100000 comes from. Is it from the professional students that take 10 years to get a degree or is it just another lie made up by Amanda and her party?

I also wonder where the figure $100,000 comes from. According to the Universities that's not correct and competition will keep the prices within reason. But even if it was true, they would only be $50,000 degrees because the poor taxpayer pays half.

"Our graduates are finding it increasingly difficult to find employment once completing their studies."

The reason for that might be a bad choice of which course should be studied. Too many students have insufficient intellect to pursue the difficult courses where employment is more likely to be guaranteed. In many cases, vocational training at a TAFE might be more appropriate and the outcome more satisfying.

I doubt that the "Mickey Mouse" degrees cost anywhere near the $100,000 so often quoted by the left. Probably less than half of that would be my guess.

David

Those without money don't count the other people's money that goes toward their education.

Not that I'm a fan, but I do like this quote:

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher

Pure politicing, this. Leave it for the hustings.

80% of the people at universities are wasting their time and taxpayers' money.

"80% of the people at universities are wasting their time and taxpayers' money."
You hit the nail right on the head.

Yes far too many lawyers.

Prices only go down when markets are deregulated in right wing economic texts books.

Broken ideology and clinically flawed policy, which as shown in the American model we seem to ape, has only succeeded if at all, in hugely amplifying the dropout rate and student indebtedness! That is the only unedifying result of such practice/management model

Galloping Gazelles and Corporate psychos, whatever happened to, if it ain't broke don't fix it!

Seriously, if we just one REAL LEADER with JFK's vision and his testicular fortitude/sense of inherent decency and inculcated fair play, we'd wipe the Cheshire Cat grin and wind back all subsidies on subsidized super, subsided health insurance,; plus end all completely counterproductive negative gearing, and make public health and education a means tested entitlement?

And or, if we just had the good common sense to replace our loophole riddled, convoluted, complex tax system, with more holes than Swiss cheese, with a single, stand alone, entirely unavoidable expenditure tax!?

Which would also likely mean, we'd become the lowest taxing nation, with the fairest tax system in the world!?

That being so, and with all the previous tax loopholes slammed shut, there'd be more than enough money to provide a far better means tested tertiary education model; that simply focuses on enabling our best and brightest, (and our future) rather than the insatiable Shylocks of this world; or moribund muddlers, seeking only to preserve pyned for privilege above all else!?

And where actually successful; i.e., only ever added to the almost incomprehensible WW1, death toll!

Knighthood and privilege used to be eternally entwined, until it was abolished in King Arthur's Camelot, to be replaced by excellence!

If management teaches just one thing, it teaches there is always a better way!
Rhrosty.

Big Nana, $100,000.00 degrees are all too common in the land of the dollar bill!

And given our dollar is worth less than our USA counterpart, which we seem to be aping, our degrees might even cost considerably more; but particularly, when competing for limited places, fortunate foreign students are placed in the queue and competing with our own for paid for places.

And given that free competition model, as already reported, are also able to purchase mandatory study time, examination results, passes and degrees!?

Which has resulted to reported cases, where completely inept medical clinicians i.e., have been allowed to practice, with neither adequate english skills or indeed, anything remotely like clinical expertise, such as one might have expected when nursing apprenticeships and on the job training was all the go!?

If we're to ape the hugely inferior free market American model, which costs 13+% of the GNP; which nonetheless, leaves 30% or more uninsured and unable to get health procuring treatment in a timely and usually less costly manner, we will suffer!

In very fair comparison, our universal health care model, costs around 8% of our GNP; at least for the moment.

This failure in the free market American system, which has only resulted in real terms, in more dropouts and seriously more student debt, probably also explains why their medicine costs so much more!

And even then, leaves millions untreated, even for simple things like elementary dental care. Which left untreated invariably results in much more penny wise pound foolish medical care!

I respect your usually informed views Big Nana, I however, would respect them more on this occasion, if they were also fully informed by the comparable facts!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, you totally lost me, I honestly have no idea what to make of that post.

ConservativeHippie Join the queue.
David

VK3AUU,

And it's these people not suited to university who are the ones not getting employment. Those doing serious degrees - the 20% - will, and are, finding work because they have what employers want.

I don't mean to disparage the 80% who, along with their parents, have been brainwashed into believing that a degree is the only way to employment, or a 'good job'. Well, a good job requires a good degree, and there is no call or need for BA's that merely produce people who still cannot even express themselves clearly, or do simple arithmetic, and who make good fodder for rowdy demonstrations demanding that others fund their aspired lifestyle.

Technical colleges would have suited them better.

The idea of placing students in workplaces has merit, but why on earth does this need to be controlled by the Federal Government? Surely it is best left to universities, students and local employers to work out the best placements and the terms on which they are undertaken.

I have had very mixed experiences taking students on work placements. Some have been terrific – hard-working, bright, and making a real contribution to the workplace. One was shocking – dishonest, lazy and unreliable. Most were earnest and enthusiastic but also inexperienced, naïve and frankly high-maintenance. They needed a lot of supervision and direction and contributed very little of use. The bureaucracy surrounding the employment arrangements was onerous.

On balance, I would consider taking a student on placement in future only if I was sure that there was a good fit between their skills/interest and the work we do, and that the associated paperwork and compliance was efficient and simple. Placements should be a net benefit to both student and employer.

“Centralising and standardising Work Integrated Learning through the Department of Education”, as Amanda proposes, seems to me a recipe to ensure no employer would touch the scheme with a bargepole.

Our system is getting more and more like the US one. The US job market has deteriorated, and the vast majority of male workers have had stagnant or declining wages since the 1970s

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

Without a university degree, there is often no hope of anything better than a low-paid precarious job, so people are willing to take on enormous student debt in the hope of getting that degree, even if they would otherwise have little or no interest in university.

Employers have also gotten far more choosy because the labour market is oversupplied and are often demanding (unpaid) internships and degrees for jobs that were formerly done by high school graduates or school leavers. Needless to say, the wages are still low, so the former students have little capacity to repay those loans, which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Real entry level wages for university graduates are no higher than they were in the 1970s, despite significant gains in productivity since then.

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4q-real-entry-level-wages/

The onerous loan repayments interfere with people's ability to afford housing or provide for their families.

Why would we want to copy this system here?

If I had a kid today, I'd be driving them very hard to a plumbers or electricians apprentiship, & definitely not to university.

The only reason to go to university today is if you want to get into the bureaucracy.

I reckon $200,000 would be too cheap for mickey mouse degrees, but it should discourage some of the dumber would be students.

Amanda Rishworth reminds me of Delores Umbridge in Harry Potter, a poisonous woman, whose sole purpose in life is mouth off unpleasant slogans, who could be replaced with a blow up doll and tape recorder.

If you want to know why there are so many graduates unemployed, then you need to ask Labor why they uncapped university places as the economy was struggling, and what on earth does one do with the thousands of ex students with liberal arts degrees especially as the public service is cutting back.

Shadow Minister,

The rot set in with the Dawkins Reforms of 1988. Here is what Barry Jones, who was Minister of Science at the time, had to say about them. "I have little doubt that Dawkinisation will prove to have been the greatest single mistake of the Hawke-Keating years."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/25/1019441281290.html

Before that time, there were a reasonable number of universities for Australia's population with capped places, and as well as the TAFE system, there was also a network of Colleges of Advanced Education that offered shorter, more vocationally oriented tertiary courses and some undergraduate degrees. Because they did not offer advanced degrees or do research, they were very much cheaper to operate than the universities. Dawkins, among other things, turned them all into universities or amalgamated them with universities.

Now we are stuck with an enormous corporatized, bloated system, heavily subsidized by foreign students, who are being bribed with visas that can lead to permanent residence. Because the customer is always right, standards are being debased, and foreign students are being admitted with inadequate English to succeed in their course.

The universities also do a marvelous job of disguising youth unemployment, so far as some domestic students are concerned.

I recall Terry Lane interviewing a Liberal politician (I forget his name) on In the National Interest on Radio National during the Howard years. This politician said much the same things as Barry Jones. When asked why his government didn't just reverse the Dawkins reforms, he said that it would be politically impossible, as many regional communities had a strong interest in keeping "their" university. It is hard to just blame Labor, when the Liberals and Nationals are going along with their bad policy.