Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The Education Election
The HECS Hex.
Nahum Ayliffe
Whilst I can understand the arguments on HECS, I often wonder about the politics of it. Governments change the mix of higher education policy and HECS often, but rarely to the resulting outcomes match the increases in population growth. The result is that whilst it seems to be a priority for both major parties, publicly funded university places continue to both decline, and become more expensive.
The Howard government has lowered in 1996, and then raised the HECS threshold again this year. The HECS threshold is the level of income at which an employee must start making payments on any HECS debts. Moving the threshold is somewhat secondary to changing the fee structure, to allow universities to charge more for courses. The Howard government has also done this.
The Liberals argue that universities need to be able to offer courses at different prices in order to attract students. Scarcity of positions available and institutional prestige will usually lead to higher prices. Regional universities will be more likely to charge less for courses. If the price is too high or too low, students will show the universities with their enrolment, or lack thereof. In this way, the market determines the price.
The problem is that some universities will attract students at almost any price. International Students constitute a large proportion of fully paid places at many universities based in capital cities. These students are often paying well above the relevant HECS rate for the same course.
Some of these universities carry prestige that will always attract students regardless of the HECS fee. In some cases, the deferred debt will mean that the price component of the decision is deferred also. Some students will never pay back HECS debts due to an inability to find work locally in their field of study. However, if students had to contribute a deposit for each subject, this may lead to students basing their enrolment decision on the price sought.
The ALP says that it is more committed to reducing HECS fees and raising the income threshold when students must begin paying back debts. According to its Aim Higher policy, this means reversing the HECS increases, and increasing the places available to students to the tune of 20,000 more each for TAFE and Universities.
When you consider the size of our population 20,000 more HECS university places doesn’t seem like a lot. It’s a tenth of one percent. The Philips Curran education review, compiled last June, found that the increase of places in 2006 was 16,299, increasing each year, to maintain current university participation levels.
Whilst the ALP’s policy seems to support an increase in places, and is not cheap at 2.34 billion, it still won’t do enough to keep publicly funded education available at current levels.
Universities will argue that reversing the HECS increases will hurt them financially. Realistically, prestigious unis in capital cities attract more overseas students than anyone else and don’t really need the extra money so their argument doesn’t work. The universities whose prestige and location allows them to charge more will be the most eligible to hike up their prices, whilst the regional and second tier unis, who need the money, will not be able to do so without losing students.
For voters, the question must be: Which party is more committed to keeping the costs of education down whilst considering the ongoing financial needs of the unis.
Nahum Ayliffe
Whilst I can understand the arguments on HECS, I often wonder about the politics of it. Governments change the mix of higher education policy and HECS often, but rarely to the resulting outcomes match the increases in population growth. The result is that whilst it seems to be a priority for both major parties, publicly funded university places continue to both decline, and become more expensive.
The Howard government has lowered in 1996, and then raised the HECS threshold again this year. The HECS threshold is the level of income at which an employee must start making payments on any HECS debts. Moving the threshold is somewhat secondary to changing the fee structure, to allow universities to charge more for courses. The Howard government has also done this.
The Liberals argue that universities need to be able to offer courses at different prices in order to attract students. Scarcity of positions available and institutional prestige will usually lead to higher prices. Regional universities will be more likely to charge less for courses. If the price is too high or too low, students will show the universities with their enrolment, or lack thereof. In this way, the market determines the price.
The problem is that some universities will attract students at almost any price. International Students constitute a large proportion of fully paid places at many universities based in capital cities. These students are often paying well above the relevant HECS rate for the same course.
Some of these universities carry prestige that will always attract students regardless of the HECS fee. In some cases, the deferred debt will mean that the price component of the decision is deferred also. Some students will never pay back HECS debts due to an inability to find work locally in their field of study. However, if students had to contribute a deposit for each subject, this may lead to students basing their enrolment decision on the price sought.
The ALP says that it is more committed to reducing HECS fees and raising the income threshold when students must begin paying back debts. According to its Aim Higher policy, this means reversing the HECS increases, and increasing the places available to students to the tune of 20,000 more each for TAFE and Universities.
When you consider the size of our population 20,000 more HECS university places doesn’t seem like a lot. It’s a tenth of one percent. The Philips Curran education review, compiled last June, found that the increase of places in 2006 was 16,299, increasing each year, to maintain current university participation levels.
Whilst the ALP’s policy seems to support an increase in places, and is not cheap at 2.34 billion, it still won’t do enough to keep publicly funded education available at current levels.
Universities will argue that reversing the HECS increases will hurt them financially. Realistically, prestigious unis in capital cities attract more overseas students than anyone else and don’t really need the extra money so their argument doesn’t work. The universities whose prestige and location allows them to charge more will be the most eligible to hike up their prices, whilst the regional and second tier unis, who need the money, will not be able to do so without losing students.
For voters, the question must be: Which party is more committed to keeping the costs of education down whilst considering the ongoing financial needs of the unis.
