OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation Newsflash: Government Not Profitable
181 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
There wasn’t any way I could have had kids, even if I’d wanted to. But yes, you’re in your 20s, right? I expect you’re right that it cost your folks more than it cost mine. I seem to remember that the subsidized percentage was higher in the first year(s?) of the scheme.
Yeah, that's what I meant - no children for university students involved.
That’s how you get the old ones. The young ones, as I was once, are more of a mystery.
Nah, same thing. You'd be surprised at how early the "I have this scholarship/job/opportunity because I am naturally talented and hard-working" attitude can kick in. Sometimes it happens before they've even left high school.
(I spent a looooot of time at college in debating tournaments largely populated by kids from private or upper-decile schools. Mostly boys' schools. I know whereof I speak.)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
"I have this scholarship/job/opportunity because I am naturally talented and hard-working" attitude can kick in.
The worst part is that there's of course some truth to it. Some people are more naturally talented and possibly more naturally hard working. But it's by no means the whole story to their success, and to land natural talent is pure luck.
I spent a looooot of time at college in debating tournaments largely populated by kids from private or upper-decile schools. Mostly boys' schools. I know whereof I speak.
ACT wasn't invented when I was at school :-) But upper class arrogance has been alive and well since class was invented (probably pre-historic).
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
But upper class arrogance has been alive and well since class was invented (probably pre-historic).
First Cro-Magnon to second Cro-Magnon: It's not that my tribe live in the valley with a steadier water supply and easy access to the migration paths, it's that I'm just faster and better at hunting. If you worked at it, you could catch just as many deer as we do. You just need to knapp flints faster, maybe take some time off gathering to get your second-level qualification - it's not like you need to eat that many berries, anyway, and besides, if you didn't have all those children you'd be more mobile, wouldn't you? You need to think about your choices.
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
In other words, nouveau riche ladder-kickers. They’re among the most hypocritical people I’ve ever heard of, even worse than ‘silver spooners’.
There is a general demographic trend which amounts to the same thing - we are getting an older population which lives longer. Any extended funding towards Education must be sourced from cuts to Super or Health. More and more average NZers will not see this as a positive.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The tyranny of demographic bulges. When boomers were young, the government's focus was on education and housing. When middle-aged: jobs and family support. When old: assets, superannuation, health, and disability. And that last one will bite us all in the arse due to lack of solid preparation in areas as broad as accessible built environments and social attitudes about contribution.
-
Sacha, in reply to
very good.
and, gnuhh -
Old Cro Magnon to Young: In my day, we had to catch deer using our hands. You kids have no idea how easy it is with your clubs. That's why you have to give me and your uncle and auntie some of the meat. I gave meat to my mum right up until she died of old age at 27. I would have given Dad some, but he and uncle died fighting the Ungpuns over the hill. You know you're going to get this cave when you're 26, right? For now, you can use it, if you give me some of those roots your woman has been collecting all day.
-
Anyone approaching retirement with the attitude of "I've got mine screw the rest of you" isn't thinking ahead - without the vibrant economy that investing in education brings our retirement investments, kiwisaver and the pension will suffer - you csn't live off your investments if there's no one to invest in - retirement wont be alot of fun
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
retirement wont be alot of fun
Cheers. Start building a retirement wine cellar now.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
In our cups...
Start building a retirement wine cellar now.
We just had a RWC,
complete with screwy caps
and sommelier changing rooms
they say it was a bottler battle,
corker! Vintage stuff,
sour grapes and all... -
Paul Campbell, in reply to
Cheers. Start building a retirement wine cellar now.
nah - these days it's all screw caps, no one knows if they'll last that long
-
Sacha, in reply to
you can't live off your investments if there's no one to invest in
Exactly - developing smart, productive, NZ-owned and export-earning businesses is the long-term answer all round. Income for older New Zealanders; reasons to stay connected here for younger ones. All requires investment and some centralised long-term coordination. Who's offering that future rather than glib slogans?
-
merc, in reply to
Who's offering that future rather than glib slogans?
It's hard to help when they have all the the answers.
-
By not engaging *well enough* against neoliberalism, more broadly, the left let down its constituents.
Well maybe. But in terms of tertiary education, we let the new right choose the battle ground - public vs private benefit. Once you engage in this as a basis for how much you should pay, you've already lost a whole war - we don't charge for social services on this basis.
We never had this discussion properly in the 1990s. If our answer to the new right had been - "are you going to apply that to primary school?" we might be in a different space in the tertiary sector now.
-
Even teaching-only, bachelor's degree-only institutions in the US have active researchers doing a lot of the teaching, and postdocs doing research under them. That's kind of the point of having a university, that link between extending the field of knowledge and teaching in it. I'd want to think very long and carefully before drawing any sort of separation there.
I'd argue that it was the point of the university. Now universities have expanded to fill up so much of the space in preparing people for the workforce and wider society, I'm just not sure it's needed any more as a universal truth.
No high school teacher is active in research at the cutting edge of what they teach. And yet going from one to the other all of a sudden this is a requirement of our first year lecturer. And the lecturers teaching first year history at university might actually research 1% of the survey course that they are teaching, or even none at all.
The distinction also makes little sense when comparing universities and polytechnics. In theory that's a research/non research split these days. But physiotherapy is taught at university, nursing at polytech. I'm dubious that physio needs research active teachers when nursing doesn't. Nursing is taught in both types of institutions in NZ. It doesn't make sense, and yet our limited funding follows the model that doesn't make sense.
I also think that there's a fair bit of elitism involved. Research-led is the one thing that distinguishes universities and their funding from not universities.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Well maybe.
The rest of what you say agrees with me. The left largely swallowed the right's selfish framing (and beyond just education), even when they were 'opposing' it. Bruce Jesson was a shining beacon of success against that in both actions and words.
-
Sacha, in reply to
There's a strange presumption that a good teacher needs to be the same person as a good researcher. Way different skills. Continuous transfer of knowledge between those strengths is not that hard to arrange these days.
-
NBH, in reply to
The distinction also makes little sense when comparing universities and polytechnics. In theory that's a research/non research split these days. But physiotherapy is taught at university, nursing at polytech. I'm dubious that physio needs research active teachers when nursing doesn't. Nursing is taught in both types of institutions in NZ. It doesn't make sense, and yet our limited funding follows the model that doesn't make sense.
Technically, the nursing teaching that happens in polytechs also requires active researchers because it's degree-level study, and under statute (s253B of the Education Act) any degree is required to be taught "mainly by people engaged in research" (It might also be an area the Nursing Council looks at when it accedits programmes, but I'm not sure of that). Of course, the extent to which that statutory requirement is observed in practice is somewhat arguable...
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
There’s a strange presumption that a good teacher needs to be the same person as a good researcher. Way different skills. Continuous transfer of knowledge between those strengths is not that hard to arrange these days.
There are also two different types of teaching in universities, which is worth remembering - or maybe three. There are big survey-style courses, mostly first-year or in degrees that have big through-put (commerce, law.) There are smaller, more focused courses that involve a lot of face-time in small groups (10 or less) discussing readings or doing specific lab projects. Then there's thesis-level work (honours, master's, an PhD) where students work directly with one supervisor on a project.
Getting a PhD will basically teach you how to do the latter two, which is crucial for teaching the next lot of PhDs and higher-level courses at bachelor's level.
But it leaves you a bit bereft on the big survey-style course thing. You can pick it up, but you have to work at it. Our department recently hired a new lecturer, and the top candidates gave seminars and had lunch with the graduate students, where we interrogated them about their experience, goals, teaching style, and so forth. I asked all of them what their teaching experience and style and mentoring style was. People said things like "oh, I don't know, I haven't thought about it" or "I'll pick it up as I go along, teaching isn't that hard." It was a bit face-palm worthy.
But I really do think it's a problem better solved by decoupling the survey-course teaching responsibilities and major research responsibilities, rather than separating the institutions. (Better yet, reward people who have actual teaching qualifications, make it a requirement for first-year course teaching. Make them real, important jobs. DON'T do the American thing and overwork and underpay part-time lecturers.)
-
NBH, in reply to
But I really do think it's a problem better solved by decoupling the survey-course teaching responsibilities and major research responsibilities, rather than separating the institutions. (Better yet, reward people who have actual teaching qualifications, make it a requirement for first-year course teaching. Make them real, important jobs. DON'T do the American thing and overwork and underpay part-time lecturers.)
I couldn't agree more Lucy, and in 2001 the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission considered these issues and actually recommended moves in that direction. Unfortunately the universities immediately rejected that, claiming that it would undermine the quality and reputation of NZ degrees.
-
DexterX, in reply to
If they've got capital gains income and aren't paying back their student loan, why would charging interest change their position? Until capital gains cease to be tax-free, people who have largely tax-free income will have no encouragement to repay their student loans because they'll not be over the threshold.
Yes you can guarantee a lot of people with student loans who don't pay them back are low level rentiers or sneaky ppty developers. You are serious that your view as expressed above is a consideration in the real world?
-
No high school teacher is active in research at the cutting edge of what they teach. And yet going from one to the other all of a sudden this is a requirement of our first year lecturer. And the lecturers teaching first year history at university might actually research 1% of the survey course that they are teaching, or even none at all.
But the idea is that a lecturer has a practice. It might be you are getting taught Early Modern Europe by someone who spends most of their time researching the pilgrimage routes of France in the High Middle Ages. But they will be an active historian, so even though the content differs, they will have a strong grasp of process and practice.
The link between praxis and teaching is important.
-
But the idea is that a lecturer has a practice. It might be you are getting taught Early Modern Europe by someone who spends most of their time researching the pilgrimage routes of France in the High Middle Ages. But they will be an active historian, so even though the content differs, they will have a strong grasp of process and practice.
Most academics are paid to spend 40% of their time doing active research. The cost of that will vary, but it's likely to be between $25 - $50K year. That's a tremendous amount of money to spend on someone to maintain the link between research in a completely unrelated field of history, and the survey course they teach at 1st year level. I don't think we need to spend that much to have someone teach first year anything, when we're not actually spending it on them teaching, but on their research so we can tick a box that says 'research-informed teaching'. Because in many instances it's no more research-informed than a high school teacher.
Higher level courses, absolutely. But much of what universities do these days is sausage factory stuff, which is unfortunate, but reality. You don't need a world class professor to make pre-cooked sausages.
-
But much of what universities do these days is sausage factory stuff, which is unfortunate, but reality. You don’t need a world class professor to make pre-cooked sausages.
No. But you do need a bloody good sausage-maker- er, sorry, teacher. Good teachers are not so common we can afford to throw them away, just because they haven't ticked the 'research-inf...zzzz' box.
Many universities overseas recognise the different abilities required, and have teaching fellowships and research fellowships; or flexible models, that allow departments to allocate teaching and research more effectively- between individuals or over time. Some even recognise that research that's done primarily because it ticks a box/satisfies a PBRF requirement/gets published in a journal nobody reads is faux-research, and a poor allocation of resources.
It's a discussion that's only just beginning to get some traction here. -
But you do need a bloody good sausage-maker- er, sorry, teacher. Good teachers are not so common we can afford to throw them away, just because they haven’t ticked the ‘research-inf…zzzz’ box.
Yes, precisely my point. For much of the important work that lecturers do they are chronically undertrained - teaching. The prime qualification to be a university teacher is to have a PhD and be research active. If we're more willing to split those jobs up we can allow people to focus more on one or the other and actually encourage people to be good teachers and have qualifications that make that so.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.