Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 268

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1905725 22-Nov-2017 12:11

MikeB4:

The measure of success is quantifiable, that is the number achieving degrees and in particular going on to do advanced degrees and post grad something that was extremely hard under Nationals draconian and illogical tertiary education policies.

Do you have the numbers for now, so we can compare them to 2 years from now? I want to see stats on :

Number of Enrollments

Number of Qualifications earned.

I will be surprised if there isn't a significant drop in the % of people who enroll who don't finish. If that's the case, then Labours bribery was a poorly thought out farce in my view.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1905728 22-Nov-2017 12:21

MikeB4:

The student funding changes are a good investment for the nations future.

I disagree with your statement as the facts are not there. Universities have said today enrollments for 2018 are up 10% on last year already. I would suggest that this massive funding increase for students isnt thought through properly.

The new Govt does NOT seem to be making expenditure decisions rationally. It seems fragmented as if each Minister doesnt need sign off from cabinet for extra funding.

We are seeing several new Government Depts setup, massive funding boosts for students without any corresponding increase for tertiary institutes to deal with increased numbers and increased money for Manus Island refugees when it isnt even our issue.

I am beginning to see that there is going to be a massive funding blowout next year and we still havnt seen the election promises announced yet like new Health funding and welfare reform.

MikeB4

14450 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1905730 22-Nov-2017 12:27

networkn:

MikeB4:

The measure of success is quantifiable, that is the number achieving degrees and in particular going on to do advanced degrees and post grad something that was extremely hard under Nationals draconian and illogical tertiary education policies.

Do you have the numbers for now, so we can compare them to 2 years from now? I want to see stats on :

Number of Enrollments

Number of Qualifications earned.

I will be surprised if there isn't a significant drop in the % of people who enroll who don't finish. If that's the case, then Labours bribery was a poorly thought out farce in my view.

I will talk to my son who is currently doing a PhD. I will say it was very hard for him to do his Masters and if we were not in a position to help he would have stopped at his BSC.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

There is no planet B

networkn

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1905736 22-Nov-2017 12:33

MikeB4:

I will talk to my son who is currently doing a PhD. I will say it was very hard for him to do his Masters and if we were not in a position to help he would have stopped at his BSC.

I seriously doubt $50 a week that Labour is bribing him with is the difference? He wouldn't be eligible for their new free education programs I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong).

Geektastic

13562 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1905746 22-Nov-2017 12:58

One person supports this post

tdgeek:
Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Pumpedd:

and...the students were winners again today receiving not only free tertiary education plus an extra $50/week.

Your point? The other equation is every income earner gets $40 per week for nothing

How?

A complaint about students getting $50 per week from Labour. Or it would have been us getting $40 per week from National. Same thing

Not remotely the same. One is taxing us and giving it away. The other is letting us keep more of what we worked for.

It is the same, its taxing us and using the taxes. Or giving it away, either to students or to us. Its a bribe either way. taxes should be used to run the place. Giving a tax cut when we cannot afford it is stupid. Giving assistance to students is not too stupid. Re "what we worked for" that all depends if the tax take is always more than what the Govt requires, and thats clearly not the case

Taking our Money and giving it to students to spend on beer is not better than leaving it in the pocket of the people who worked for it and allowing them to use it to look after their own families.

By for the biggest issue for university education in NZ is the extreme difficulty of returning to University later in life, when a career change or advancement may be necessary.

wsnz

624 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1906218 23-Nov-2017 10:24

Pumpedd:

I am beginning to see that there is going to be a massive funding blowout next year and we still havnt seen the election promises announced yet like new Health funding and welfare reform.

The lack of detail on this policy is concerning. If having a free first year increases prospective enrolment numbers, will tertiary institutions be able to increase the numbers of places available via increased EFTS approvals and funding as of 1 JAN 2018? Will the total funding also increase on a per EFTS basis, as institutions have requested? Will the government seek to rebalance the equation by reducing non-EFTS funding to institutions? It is highly unlikely that the TEC will be able to implement any major changes given the timeframe they have been given.

wsnz

624 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1906223 23-Nov-2017 10:31

networkn:

I seriously doubt $50 a week that Labour is bribing him with is the difference? He wouldn't be eligible for their new free education programs I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong).

Adding to this, postgrad students are also not eligible for the student allowance.

So you either need to gain part-time work with the university marking papers etc, find a part-time external job, increase your student loan massively (postgrad papers are much more expensive), find alternative funding sources or a combination of the above.

tdgeek

18496 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1906229 23-Nov-2017 10:35

2 people support this post

Geektastic:Taking our Money and giving it to students to spend on beer is not better than leaving it in the pocket of the people who worked for it and allowing them to use it to look after their own families.

By for the biggest issue for university education in NZ is the extreme difficulty of returning to University later in life, when a career change or advancement may be necessary.

What a bizarre thing to say, assuming its all beer money. With that reasoning we could reduce as much funding as we can to students, to take away beer money and improve education for them

As for later years at varsity, you would think that after many years of earning, and that it's likely that writing was on the wall, there is a lot more capability to plan ahead for those costs, as well as being better off anyway after many years of earning.

Or it might just be that whatever is done, if its done by JA its bad if its done by Bill its good. Thats the real reason

Geektastic

13562 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1906230 23-Nov-2017 10:35

wsnz:

networkn:

I seriously doubt $50 a week that Labour is bribing him with is the difference? He wouldn't be eligible for their new free education programs I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong).

Adding to this, postgrad students are also not eligible for the student allowance.

So you either need to gain part-time work with the university marking papers etc, find a part-time external job, increase your student loan massively (postgrad papers are much more expensive), find alternative funding sources or a combination of the above.

I never realised I would be so jealous of a friend of mine who was sent to do his MSc at Hull University full time, on full salary, by his employers! In today's money he was being paid about NZ$100,000/year equivalent as a student...! The only proviso was that he had to work in the office like normal during the three holiday periods between terms.

tdgeek

18496 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1906235 23-Nov-2017 10:41

2 people support this post

wsnz:

networkn:

I seriously doubt $50 a week that Labour is bribing him with is the difference? He wouldn't be eligible for their new free education programs I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong).

Adding to this, postgrad students are also not eligible for the student allowance.

So you either need to gain part-time work with the university marking papers etc, find a part-time external job, increase your student loan massively (postgrad papers are much more expensive), find alternative funding sources or a combination of the above.

The $50 a week costs $200 Million annually. But it would be worth at least looking where there are other needs or benefits. But, there needs to be a means test of sorts. Attendance, passing. Any Govt funding or subsidy needs to have a guaranteed result, it cannot just stop at enrolments. When stats are released that may force that.

Geektastic

13562 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1906236 23-Nov-2017 10:41

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

Geektastic:Taking our Money and giving it to students to spend on beer is not better than leaving it in the pocket of the people who worked for it and allowing them to use it to look after their own families.

By for the biggest issue for university education in NZ is the extreme difficulty of returning to University later in life, when a career change or advancement may be necessary.

What a bizarre thing to say, assuming its all beer money. With that reasoning we could reduce as much funding as we can to students, to take away beer money and improve education for them

As for later years at varsity, you would think that after many years of earning, and that it's likely that writing was on the wall, there is a lot more capability to plan ahead for those costs, as well as being better off anyway after many years of earning.

Or it might just be that whatever is done, if its done by JA its bad if its done by Bill its good. Thats the real reason

Not really. I'm no great fan of paying students per se and I suspect that their landlords or some other enterprising business will simply find a way to hoover up the spare $50 they now know the students have.

If you were going to do something, then making it so it can only be spent on education would have offered more targeted value - for example by giving it as credit against course text books etc. Alternatively by targeting on degrees specific to areas we need more people to be working in only, rather than all degrees, even James Bond Studies.

I'll agree that it is unlikely Labour will ever do anything of which I will greatly approve (although not impossible) but I would not really be in favour of this form of wealth distribution regardless of which party was doing it.

wsnz

624 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 1906248 23-Nov-2017 10:54

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

The $50 a week costs $200 Million annually. But it would be worth at least looking where there are other needs or benefits. But, there needs to be a means test of sorts. Attendance, passing. Any Govt funding or subsidy needs to have a guaranteed result, it cannot just stop at enrolments. When stats are released that may force that.

The present SA system has tests for eligibility (course is on approved list , you haven't claimed your 200 week limit etc.) and for "satisfactory progress" on a semester-basis. Results filed with the MOE by the tertiary institution are automatically checked by study link.

In terms of this specific policy, I'd like to have seen it more thoroughly thought through with alterative options (e.g. increase SA eligibility criteria to PG students) tabled rather than just suddenly announcing an extra $50 to all SA recipients.

Based on the small amount of information available, I'm not convinced this was the best use of $200m.

tdgeek

18496 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1906253 23-Nov-2017 11:09

One person supports this post

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:Taking our Money and giving it to students to spend on beer is not better than leaving it in the pocket of the people who worked for it and allowing them to use it to look after their own families.

By for the biggest issue for university education in NZ is the extreme difficulty of returning to University later in life, when a career change or advancement may be necessary.

What a bizarre thing to say, assuming its all beer money. With that reasoning we could reduce as much funding as we can to students, to take away beer money and improve education for them

As for later years at varsity, you would think that after many years of earning, and that it's likely that writing was on the wall, there is a lot more capability to plan ahead for those costs, as well as being better off anyway after many years of earning.

Or it might just be that whatever is done, if its done by JA its bad if its done by Bill its good. Thats the real reason

Not really. I'm no great fan of paying students per se and I suspect that their landlords or some other enterprising business will simply find a way to hoover up the spare $50 they now know the students have.

If you were going to do something, then making it so it can only be spent on education would have offered more targeted value - for example by giving it as credit against course text books etc. Alternatively by targeting on degrees specific to areas we need more people to be working in only, rather than all degrees, even James Bond Studies.

I'll agree that it is unlikely Labour will ever do anything of which I will greatly approve (although not impossible) but I would not really be in favour of this form of wealth distribution regardless of which party was doing it.

Good points, education only spending. Making it a more direct subsidy

networkn

21561 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1906260 23-Nov-2017 11:21

One person supports this post

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:Taking our Money and giving it to students to spend on beer is not better than leaving it in the pocket of the people who worked for it and allowing them to use it to look after their own families.

By for the biggest issue for university education in NZ is the extreme difficulty of returning to University later in life, when a career change or advancement may be necessary.

What a bizarre thing to say, assuming its all beer money. With that reasoning we could reduce as much funding as we can to students, to take away beer money and improve education for them

As for later years at varsity, you would think that after many years of earning, and that it's likely that writing was on the wall, there is a lot more capability to plan ahead for those costs, as well as being better off anyway after many years of earning.

Or it might just be that whatever is done, if its done by JA its bad if its done by Bill its good. Thats the real reason

Not really. I'm no great fan of paying students per se and I suspect that their landlords or some other enterprising business will simply find a way to hoover up the spare $50 they now know the students have.

If you were going to do something, then making it so it can only be spent on education would have offered more targeted value - for example by giving it as credit against course text books etc. Alternatively by targeting on degrees specific to areas we need more people to be working in only, rather than all degrees, even James Bond Studies.

I'll agree that it is unlikely Labour will ever do anything of which I will greatly approve (although not impossible) but I would not really be in favour of this form of wealth distribution regardless of which party was doing it.

Good points, education only spending. Making it a more direct subsidy

Well, ultimately it's going to be mis-used by those who would mis-use it now, because if they spend less on books, they will have extra disposable income.

I would support a rebate on fees for years where a person reaches a passrate. Say a 25% rebate each year or something. This means they don't have more money during the year, but accure significantly less debt.

Fred99

8915 posts

Uber Geek

# 1906266 23-Nov-2017 11:28

Pumpedd:

Universities have said today enrollments for 2018 are up 10% on last year already.

I read that, actually from Rod Carr from UC as reported in The Press/Stuff, and I'm not sure how it all pans out:

The 10% increase figure was an extrapolation of applications (and/or enrolments) YTD comparison, up, but it's early in the enrolment season to make conclusions.

Even with a 10% increase, I think UC enrolments are down on pre-Chch quake levels, so some of that 10% increase (if it's real) is probably still recovery from the post EQ slump.

That could also be related to increased availability of accommodation in Chch - and the gradual return of a functioning CBD. Facing paying through the roof for rent, to live in a city without a heart - when there were alternatives - would have been large part in the fall in student numbers in Chch.

1 | ... | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 268