Posts by NBH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
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.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
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...
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Yeah, Rich - that's most definitely an issue, and there's a very large difference in participation rates between industries with a strong tradition of training (including areas like baking or printing that don't have legal requirements per se.) and those without such a tradition. The current government's also stopped funding ITOs to support a lot of the baisc courses that you refer to - the health & safety and compliance courses that many firms used to participate in, and short courses that provide key skills but don't meet the necessary number of credits for a full qualification.
I do think you're being a bit harsh about businesses in NZ not caring about training, and there are some firms - even really small ones - that are very strongly committed to supporting skill development. I'd agree, though, that there's a tendency for businesses to complain about other parts of the 'skills ecosystem' (see perennial complaints about secondary school and tertiary graduates) without reflecting on their own role in cultivating and maintaining a skilled workforce.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
You can do one in all of those Rich :-) (well, other than IT - and I understand that one of the issues with that sector it is that the certification programmes run by the major companies are seen as much more relevant than a qualification). The Retail Institute looks after general retail and sales, and many other ITOs have developed specialist qualifications for their sector, the Finance sector comes under the coverage of ETITO etc. - the full list of ITOs and their coverage is here
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to BenWilson,
Would be handy to know comparative hourly rates
That's in the spreadsheet I linked too as well (although not by age). :-) In 2008 the school only/ sub-degree/ degree+ hourly rates were $16.00/ $19.95/ $25.46. Also, that 15-year-old would actually be in the 'no qualifications' group, where the median income for 15-24 year olds was $55/week...
The RoI question is an important one, and it does take a bit of time for students to catch up (and would take even longer if interest went back on loans), but remember that these days most students do work while studying, and are often doing the same sort of jobs as those that people with no qualifications are doing. Those who don't study will (probably) be doing more hours, and won't have the student loan, but in terms of relevant skills and work experience, establishing the beginnings of a career etc., I don't think the difference is quite as big as it used to be even just 20 years ago. Certainly by the time someone hits 30 I think that they'll be seeing a clear benefit, with further options for advancement, and they'll still have several working decades left to take advantage of it.
Of course, there is an educational pathway that involves working full-time, doesn't entail a student loan, links training directly to workplace-relevant skills, and still results in a qualification: our industry training system. However, the current (and likely future) government has been undermining that system over the past year or so.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to BenWilson,
Hence my going through the exercise of working through the actual numbers in NBH's EOTE. I'd be a whole lot more convinced by longer term studies
Well we do have some raw data about earnings by qualification level (though the EOTE work is better quality, because it both tracks a cohort and has involved actually analysing the data) - see here
In 2008, the median weekly income for everyone aged over 15 who had a degree or higher was $844, compared to $360 for those who just had a school qualification and $614 for those who had a sub-degree level tertiary qualification. Confining those rates just to the 25-39 group, the figures are $882/ $709/ $651. There are obvious problems with using that data, you can definitely dispute the specific numbers involved in any of this, and of course they don't necessarily bear any relationship to the experience of a given individual. But I do think that from the data we do have it's fair to say that there is broadly a pretty clear income benefit (as one measure) for degree-level study.
-
Hard News: On Science, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Yup. Government funding of R&D is half OECD average
Hmmm, not according to the most recent recent OECD figures, which I did finally manage to locate on the old MoRST site - in their scorecard here (table 2) and in the 'Igniting Potential' report here (p7). According to those we're clearly below average, but certainly not half of even our big spending comparators - around 0.5% of GDP vs an average of around 0.65% of GDP and around 0.8% in Finland. I'm pretty sure Gluckman's comments in that speech relate to overall expenditure rather than just government funding.
I agree with you that it's pretty difficult to influence private sector R&D behaviour, and so difficult to hold the government to account for that, but there are things can be done around incentives. For example, the current government's removal of the R&D tax credits (which IIRC both Labour and the Greens have committed to restoring, but I may have that wrong) is hardly strong encouragement for companies to fund more research.
-
Hard News: On Science, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Part of that is crippling underfunding - yes I'm going to point out government funding is less than half OECD average AGAIN
Are you sure about that Bart? I readily admit I don't have the numbers to hand and am happy to be corrected, but my understanding has always been that public expenditure on R&D is resonably consistent (in %GDP terms) with the OECD average and our usual reference countries. It's our private sector's incredibly low expenditure on R&D that brings our overall expenditure level miles below the average.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to BenWilson,
Yeah, Ben, determining the 'real' benefit from tertiary education is really very difficult - especially when you translate from the broad-brush quant level down to factors that influence outcomes at the level of the individual. The EOTE work is the best analysis we have to date that attempts to approximate that benefit in terms of wages (David Earle and David Scott from the Ministry of Education's TSPAR unit have also done some really interesting work trying to capture the wider social benefits of education).
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to BenWilson,
The big problem with university education these days is that it doesn't really mean much in terms of extra wages
I hate to be That Guy, but this isn't quite true according to the work that statsNZ and the Ministry of Education have done on the outcomes of tertiary education - particularly their EOTE work here. There are still significant premia for having degree-level quals (allowing for the usual caveats around analysis, variation etc.).
What has changed is the extent to which a degree-level qualification has become the standard entry requirement for many firms and the expected pathway for 'success'. Ewart Keep from the UK's Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance has written some very interesting stuff on this, and the social problems that are created by the obsession of many politicians (and others) with 'knowledge economy'-type approaches to skills and education policy.
Definitely with you on the rather depressing view of NZ's current trajectory though.