staringclown

How long will Malcolm remain

184 posts in this topic

I'm rather enjoying the whole vibe at the moment. It's like a good old fashioned left vs right election. 

 

Health and education spending versus innovation/disruption

 

Banking RC versus ASIC.

 

Here's a tip Mal. If you want innovation you cannot achieve with a feckless 20th century workforce. It actually requires educated people.

 

Likewise with the banks. Confidence won't be restored by citing the cop on the beat that was privy to the entire of the previous indiscretions AND that you saw fit to cut funding by 120 million. They were more in league with business than against at the best of times

 

ASIC are fantastic at taking on opponents that can't fight back. Even the fights they ignore were largely raised by whistleblowers rather than there own investigations. In the words of Sir Humphrey they've gone native.

 

If ever there was a good reason for a royal commission this is it.

 

Otherwise it looks like ex-banker says banks are fine. Nothing to see here. Dodgy insurance, rate fixing and managed investments/financial advice are systemic. As is large corporate tax avoidance.  

 

No wonder Mals looking vulnerable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a tip Mal. If you want innovation you cannot achieve with a feckless 20th century workforce. It actually requires educated people.

 

 

 

There is also no point wasting $$$$ in subsidising education for degrees that have no jobs waiting for them. The government should be selective about which courses it will subsidise and how many positions after yearly discussions with industry and government sectors regarding their projected demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a project manager and you think that would be more efficient _and_ successsful?

 

Why do you think almost every engineering student in australia went into IT during the mid 90's? no one foresaw the demand and no one was trained. It took a decade for the schools to start churning out people trained to "just work IT". In the meantime a bunch of people doing a completely different area of study filled the roles (and started the idea that IT was a place to make a on of money).

 

Under your plan those people probably wouldn't have existed (australia doesn't need as many engineers as were being created) and Australia would have had to import the skills.

 

It seems odd to me that so many people who I interpret as "opposed to big government" seem to come up with ideas which create more government in areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a project manager and you think that would be more efficient _and_ successsful?

 

Why do you think almost every engineering student in australia went into IT during the mid 90's? no one foresaw the demand and no one was trained. It took a decade for the schools to start churning out people trained to "just work IT". In the meantime a bunch of people doing a completely different area of study filled the roles (and started the idea that IT was a place to make a on of money).

 

Under your plan those people probably wouldn't have existed (australia doesn't need as many engineers as were being created) and Australia would have had to import the skills.

 

It seems odd to me that so many people who I interpret as "opposed to big government" seem to come up with ideas which create more government in areas.

 

Well, countries like Germany and Japan seem to have planned it better, at least in the past (not sure if it is current policy).

I certainly do not see the value of the current boom&bust approach with nurses, teachers, engineers as an example. I also do not see the value of spending tax payers $$$ on courses for which there is unlikely to be a need, especially those in esoteric areas associated with higher degree courses. If industry thinks there is a specialty need, then let them fund those limited requirements via scholarships.

 

So you are suggesting that governments continue unlimited funding of courses, that is now costing the budget squillions? Also generating lots and lots of graduates who cannot get a job in their desired course with a substantial HECS liability? Glad that makes sense to you, but it does not to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no I don't think they should have the HECS liability. I think education should be completely free.

 

Look around you, the wealthiest people (and therefore ideally the largest contributors to GDP in a simplistic interpretation) are people doing stuff which was not what they did at uni.

 

I am not sure what part of the Japanese planning you are referring to. Maybe the funded 2 or 3 year courses for all Ladies that want to be housewives which cover child nutrition/ budgetting etc?

 

Germany, I believe is now actually paying foreigners to come and study random courses (like Norway does), I would ask the german living with us but she is asleep at the moment.

 

My opinion is that uni is only there to teach you how to learn and doing a course which is "ideal for projected industry needs" will not encouraging learning how to learn. Given how sh*t industry is at projecting almost anything I can't see them being functionally effective compared to just letting kids learn to learn by learning whatever crap they think is interesting. Then they go out and there are no jobs in "paleolithic cave drawings" but they can easily switch out to anything requiring learning.

 

As the engineeers in the 90's showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no I don't think they should have the HECS liability. I think education should be completely free....

 

 

 

That experiment was tried with Whitlam and Hawke (a Labor PM!) had to stop it as it was bankrupting the government.

When will people understand that there is no free financial lunch!

Perhaps you can also suggest the RBA can print money ad nauseum to pay for everything and nothing will happen as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with tor on the idea that flexibility is a more important factor to competing than specific skills nominated by industry. Even BA degrees provide important generic skills like communication, research and critical thought. Industry can identify what skills they require now but I'm not convinced their crystal ball is any less flawed than anybody else's with regard to the future.

 

Additionally, industry don't often nominate pure research as a requirement. This has been best achieved by the public sector in this country at least. Think CSIRO and their contribution to wireless. 

 

The thing about public spending on higher education is that it provides a return on investment

 

 

 

  • Evidence presented in this report suggests that investment in higher education yield high return to individuals, society and the government.

  • On the face of it this suggests that there may be the case for government implementing policies to increase the investment in higher education in Australia.

  • More evidence is needed about marginal rates of return with respect to different types of education expenditure.

  • Evidence presented suggests that investing in the quality of education may be an important priority.

  • Evidence is also presented which suggests that there are high social rates of return to investment in research. 

 

As for a completely free education, I don't have a huge issue with a co-contribution. It gives incentives for users to make the most of the opportunity and not dick around. Tragedy of the commons and all that. The provisos being that up front payments aren't required and the level of the individual contribution doesn't dissuade enrolments. (a la laffer curves)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That experiment was tried with Whitlam and Hawke (a Labor PM!) had to stop it as it was bankrupting the government.

When will people understand that there is no free financial lunch!

Perhaps you can also suggest the RBA can print money ad nauseum to pay for everything and nothing will happen as well. 

 

Not ad nauseum, there are limits, however there is room to move up to the productive capacity of the economy to print. This is not fringe economics.

 

 

Economists should step out of their bubble more often

 

 

 

So back to the original statement: why do financial commentators and macro-economists rarely articulate why government debt cannot be monetised in today’s climate? Why are they not explicit about their assumption that a 5-6% unemployment rate is equivalent to full employment? Only they can tell you the answer. I suspect either they do not fully understand what they are assuming about the labour market or they don’t care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with tor on the idea that flexibility is a more important factor to competing than specific skills nominated by industry. Even BA degrees provide important generic skills like communication, research and critical thought. Industry can identify what skills they require now but I'm not convinced their crystal ball is any less flawed than anybody else's with regard to the future.

 

Additionally, industry don't often nominate pure research as a requirement. This has been best achieved by the public sector in this country at least. Think CSIRO and their contribution to wireless. 

 

The thing about public spending on higher education is that it provides a return on investment

 

 

As for a completely free education, I don't have a huge issue with a co-contribution. It gives incentives for users to make the most of the opportunity and not dick around. Tragedy of the commons and all that. The provisos being that up front payments aren't required and the level of the individual contribution doesn't dissuade enrolments. (a la laffer curves)

 

There is an endless push for young people to get a degree, many that do not lead to a job. That is simply a gross waste of tax payers money. You don't need a degree for critical thinking - you need to just have the right grey matter. Wulfgar is prime example of that. Governments should encourage training where there is a demand, like trades ATM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulfgar is unusual because most people only gain critical thinking skills from further education. If everyone picked the skill up by themselves universities would be quite a bit less useful. He did his own further education.

 

University doesn't always work of course. But if, as StaringClown pointed out, money spent on higher education means more money, which I have never heard a rebuttal to and it is a pretty old idea, then anyone with critical thinking would support widespread further education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first degree taught me critical thinking. I probably would have got that with age anyway- but not as quickly as a degree. The second-degree just taught me how to pass. Most unis are just factories now. 

 

I have a boarder at the moment who is here from India doing an MBA. I have no idea about her scholarly abilities. But her English is so bad I have no idea how she could study in English. Yes, is her response to everything. Would you like beer or wine - yes. Where are you going on holidays - yes. Where are you studying - yes. I know I couldn't pass a cert I in spoon polishing in Punjabi, let alone an MBA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to a certain extent culture has a big impact.

 

I was told that in Japan 50% of school leavers in Japan go to university, in South Korea it's around 95%. Both are fairly comparable in terms of productivity, quality and innovation. Both are highly developed and very clean countries too.

 

There's no one "right" approach to developing people but there are approaches that will generally yield better returns.

 

I also agree with zaph that unis are more like factories now - or perhaps vocational colleges. I kind of view that once you learn the 3Rs you need to learn 3Cs - creativity, communication, and critical thinking. A good university program should provide that.

 

The really cool stuff you learn IMO is not from institutions but from individuals. Find yourself a kick-arse sensei, guru, expert, teacher, etc. and you can learn so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulfgar is unusual because most people only gain critical thinking skills from further education. If everyone picked the skill up by themselves universities would be quite a bit less useful. He did his own further education.

 

University doesn't always work of course. But if, as StaringClown pointed out, money spent on higher education means more money, which I have never heard a rebuttal to and it is a pretty old idea, then anyone with critical thinking would support widespread further education.

 

Universities only teach you about the course subject matter. Intelligence is something you are born with. As zaph pointed out, international students in particular, are paying/demanding a degree that should be printed on toilette paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see university properly funded per student but enforce a minimum standard. I would like to see university as the place to go for only the smartest AND questioning minds, independent of personal finances. I think we should have another institute for career focused training (teachers, nurses). Then we should have somewhere for training apprentices...

Funding costs excuse is a tea party croc. Money could easily be found if our government actually cared about being an innovative country.

Edited by Ugg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that all of the rules people want to try and implement (minimum standards, industry requirements etc) are going to fail because people will have to implement the rules. People suck generally speaking.

 

A better way, I think, is to only have people in the course that want to do the course. By making uni only an opportunity cost (although in Norway I believe they now pay students to attend which removes even that limitation) you remove the incentive for people to do it for prestige or for financial reasons, e.g. in my year of chem eng it was the second hardest to get into after medicine so a bunch of failed medical applicants went for chem eng. they were not people that would ever enjoy a career as an engineer generally speaking.

 

People tend to do better at stuff they like doing, it is in every motivational speakers list.

 

(isn't TAFE the place for training industry requirements? I always thought it was, all the stuff I did at TAFE's was full of people doing it to get a specific job)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TAFE is like a vocational college, practical skills though may not be for a specific job, but definitely focused towards preparing for the work place. Uni has moved that way. Mrs Medved is completing an undergraduate course, she gets credits to her degree for volunteering and internships.

 

I agree that we should have vocational colleges (TAFE) for getting people skilled for industry, and university for critical thinking and research (and "real" professions like doctors and engineers, where if you stuff up people die). Unfortunately you hit the cultural hurdle in Oz doing this as TAFE is looked down upon and you're seen to be a dead beat if you're not a university graduate. Add to that the Torynuffs ideology of "privatisation is better" and killing off the TAFE system.

 

I'd still rather pay 15k to hang out and learn from ex-Toyota Presidents who established and led entire manufacturing plants and are fountains of wisdom (and hang out with dozens of really cool people for a week) than pay a similar amount for a lightweight *cough* bullsh*t *cough* uni degree, or factory-churned MBA courses, or industry certifications and associated PDUs *cough* PMP *cough*. You learn so much just by hanging out with really smart people with world experience.

 

I was accepted into a postgraduate law degree (at a "good" uni) but knocked it back because they wanted me to pay 100k in tuition fees. It just wasn't worth the cost when my interest was about fulfilling my curiosity rather than becoming a lawyer. The return on investment was just not there.

 

The only thing is it doesn't really impress interviewers if I tell them I know Wulfgar and Tor... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing is it doesn't really impress interviewers if I tell them I know Wulfgar and Tor... :)

If anything that might be considered a detriment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I agree that we should have vocational colleges (TAFE) for getting people skilled for industry, and university for critical thinking and research (and "real" professions like doctors and engineers, where if you stuff up people die). Unfortunately you hit the cultural hurdle in Oz doing this as TAFE is looked down upon and you're seen to be a dead beat if you're not a university graduate. Add to that the Torynuffs ideology of "privatisation is better" and killing off the TAFE system....

 

 

There is nothing to be gained by wasting tax payers money churning lots of undergraduates in degrees where there are no jobs for them in Australia. There has to be consideration for demand & supply. IMO, if they find jobs overseas in their degree, it is also a waste of tax payers money as it does not advance our economy (directly at least).

 

I'm still contracting at a Uni and they should consider themselves lucky I'm not going to become Federal minister for education as I would slash their funding for a few years and disallow recovery of funds via higher tuition fees. That would force them to become efficient like private enterprise where they're not underwritten by tax payers. The mindless public service of academia takes at least 3x to undertake a piece of work compared to private enterprise organisations where I have worked. They absolutely have no concept of time & money. It frustrates the hell out anybody starting work who has come from private enterprise.  :wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to be gained by wasting tax payers money churning lots of undergraduates in degrees where there are no jobs for them in Australia. There has to be consideration for demand & supply. IMO, if they find jobs overseas in their degree, it is also a waste of tax payers money as it does not advance our economy (directly at least).

 

I'm still contracting at a Uni and they should consider themselves lucky I'm not going to become Federal minister for education as I would slash their funding for a few years and disallow recovery of funds via higher tuition fees. That would force them to become efficient like private enterprise where they're not underwritten by tax payers. The mindless public service of academia takes at least 3x to undertake a piece of work compared to private enterprise organisations where I have worked. They absolutely have no concept of time & money. It frustrates the hell out anybody starting work who has come from private enterprise.  :wallbash:

 

If graduates find work OS and not here is that really a fault of theirs?

 

Do you have a source for that 3x figure C? Seems a bit excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If graduates find work OS and not here is that really a fault of theirs?

 

Do you have a source for that 3x figure C? Seems a bit excessive.

 

When my children were thinking about what they wanted to study at Uni, I told them to be carefully consider the demand for their services when choosing a course. There is no point studying to be a rocket scientist, expecting a 'rocket' industry to materialise from thin air in Australia, 3-5 years down the track when they graduate. If you want to work in Australia, then you have to deal with reality as it is. Perhaps they will start an 'innovation nation' after the next election, but until you see it before your eyes ... it ain't!!

 

IMO, 3x is a conservative figure. As an example (one of many!), last year I was involved in the delivery of a software project (the development was outsourced), where, largely due to the mindless bureaucracy, it took over 12 months to implement something that in smaller, private organisations it would have taken max 3-4 months. The management structure for about 300 persons is bigger than private organisations which are multiple times bigger. It needs a steamroller to run over it and severely flatten it. You can tell the difference between where the senior manager owns a company and where it is a bureaucrat who wants to create layers below him to both disassociate from 'reality' and build a kingdom to request a larger remuneration. Being partially unionised, it means that there are also a lot of 'fish that John West would reject', because they know it is difficult to remove them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now