The debate about whether to allow students to pay for their place at university was reignited this week. On Monday it was revealed that some regional universities had unfilled vacancies, while other universities offering essentially the same course were charging students full fees. This provided the ammunition for critics of the Howard Government to attack on two fronts.
First, it was claimed that the finding that some universities had unwanted places was evidence that the level of HECS fees was driving students away.
Second, it was argued that the Government's policy on universities was "illogical" because some students were attending institutions that charged full fees when they could be undertaking similar courses at another institution and pay a fraction of the price. To some, including the Labor Party, this provides a further reason why universities should be forbidden from charging full fees.
On the first point, whether the level of HECS debt is discouraging potential applicants from tertiary study is unclear. A vacancy in a course might simply be the result of students deciding that better alternatives are available elsewhere.
In any case, it isn't necessarily a cause for concern that students might be deterred by the size of their future HECS debt. The average HECS liability carried by graduates is $10,000. This represents their own contribution to the costs of the education they received. Given that HECS debts are not required to be paid back until a taxpayer's annual income reaches $38,000, it is difficult to claim that the costs of education are a deterrent to students applying for university entry.
The contribution of taxpayers to the cost of tertiary students' education, via the Commonwealth Government's funding of universities, is about three times the amount that the students themselves are required to pay through HECS.
A university education is not an absolute right, nor is it a right that should be guaranteed to be free. In return for paying for part of the costs of their education, graduates gain the opportunity to earn substantially higher incomes than those without tertiary qualifications. It is unreasonable to demand that taxpayers fund the education of those who are unwilling to make even a token financial sacrifice to gain the personal benefits of a university degree.
On the second point, there's nothing illogical about students choosing to pay more to enrol in higher quality courses. What would be illogical would be to prevent students from enrolling in full-fee courses at their preferred university until all the vacancies at every other university were filled. Yet this is precisely what some university administrators are saying should happen.
But beyond these administrative intricacies of tertiary funding there is a more fundamental issue.
It is the question of whether students should be allowed to gain a place at university by paying for the cost of their course themselves. These costs could be very substantial. Next year the price of a full-fee place in medicine at the University of Melbourne will be more than $200,000. According to the Labor Party, some students cannot afford to pay this amount, and therefore those students who can afford to pay should be prevented from doing so.
The ALP's higher education policy is a case of bizarre reverse discrimination. Universities will be stopped from offering full-fee courses to local students, although they are allowed to do so to overseas students. (At the moment 3 per cent of all local undergraduates in Australia's universities pay full fees).
The ALP believes it isn't "fair" that school leavers who miss out by a few points on a HECS place at their preferred university are then forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars if they wish to undertake the same course as a full-fee student.
Of course, in an ideal world this wouldn't happen as there would be an unlimited supply of free university places. But the reality is different. In the real world both funding and places are limited. Students should be allowed to pay full fees and make the financial investment in their own future if they choose.
The fact that some students might have their fees paid for by their wealthy parents, while others will be forced to take out a loan is irrelevant. Labor's ban on full-fee places hurts both poor students and rich students alike. Students from poorer backgrounds may even be relatively more disadvantaged because they have fewer options than those from affluent backgrounds.
Unfortunately, it appears that envy is a key motivation behind Labor's promise to abolish full-fee places. At the last federal election envy motivated the ALP's "hit list" attack on wealthy private schools. Just as Mark Latham disappeared after the election, so too did his policy.
Hopefully, Labor's current higher education policy will go the same way as Mark Latham's schools policy.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment