|
|
 | | From: | Scott Hillard | | Subject: | Re: Ya gotta love the right wing. | | Date: | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:02:59 +1100 |
|
|
 |
"Denz" wrote in message
news:5PoDd.107732$K7.97880@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Scott Hillard" wrote in message
> news:vhnDd.107$Sa7.2508@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > Nope, it acts as a deterrent to the lazy and useless who refuse to apply
> > themselves. Good thing, too.
> Theres no logic to your argument here.
Wrong, comrade.
> The lazy and useless who refuse to apply themselves are deterred by the
> workload.
Yes, that "workload" might actually include paid work - to cover the fees,
books, transport, rent, etc....
> Students from less than affluent families are deterred from the prospect
of huge debts
"Huge debts"?
Get off the sauce, you're as sober as a NSW Judge.
The debt potential of even the most expensive degrees pales in comparison to
the most basic mortgages, and plenty of people from "low socio-economic
backgrounds" have no problem signing themselves up for mounds of housing
debt that offers nothing like the ROI that a properly applied degree does.
Wanker.
> and the likelyhood of needing to work while studying. Those with
> afluent parents are usually insulated from this.
My parents were 'more effluent', but I worked whilst studying anyway - to
pay my own damn way.
I'm hardly the ubermensch, and somehow I managed it. So did all of my
mates. So did my wife. So did millions of other souls throughout history -
both ancient and recent.
> > That's why we get 80yo retired Barristers doing history degrees on HECS,
> > yes?
> Do you actually know of such a case?
Yes, I do.
> Retired Barristers on HECS - as in more
> than one?
I'm sure I could find a second.
> > > The demographic in our universities is changing
> > > towards more dumb rich kids.
> > Evidence?
> Its probably not easy to extract definate statistics to support the
> statement "more dumb rich kids".
What a surprise.
'Nuff said.
|
|
| | From: | Denz | | Subject: | Re: Ya gotta love the right wing. | | Date: | Sat, 08 Jan 2005 06:24:13 GMT |
|
|
|
"Scott Hillard" wrote in message
news:mOsDd.152$Sa7.5244@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Denz" wrote in message
> news:5PoDd.107732$K7.97880@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Scott Hillard" wrote in message
> > news:vhnDd.107$Sa7.2508@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> > > Nope, it acts as a deterrent to the lazy and useless who refuse to
apply
> > > themselves. Good thing, too.
>
> > Theres no logic to your argument here.
>
> Wrong, comrade.
>
> > The lazy and useless who refuse to apply themselves are deterred by the
> > workload.
>
> Yes, that "workload" might actually include paid work - to cover the fees,
> books, transport, rent, etc....
Just when i expected a counter argument, you surprise me instead.
> > Students from less than affluent families are deterred from the prospect
> of huge debts
>
> "Huge debts"?
>
> Get off the sauce, you're as sober as a NSW Judge.
Some students may consider a $20K - 30K debt before they even start working
a huge debt.
> The debt potential of even the most expensive degrees pales in comparison
to
> the most basic mortgages, and plenty of people from "low socio-economic
> backgrounds" have no problem signing themselves up for mounds of housing
> debt that offers nothing like the ROI that a properly applied degree does.
Irrelevant argument. Lets counter argue that even the cheapest degree is
tremendously more expensive than a good quality bicycle. Besides, gotta live
somewhere. Pay mortage or pay rent.
> > and the likelyhood of needing to work while studying. Those with
> > afluent parents are usually insulated from this.
>
> My parents were 'more effluent', but I worked whilst studying anyway - to
> pay my own damn way.
> > > That's why we get 80yo retired Barristers doing history degrees on
HECS,
> > > yes?
>
> > Do you actually know of such a case?
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> > Retired Barristers on HECS - as in more
> > than one?
>
> I'm sure I could find a second.
So your whole arguemt that 'all these retired barristers on HECS isnt a good
investment in the future' is based on one single case??? giggle. Besides,
havent you heard of re-skilling. The poor barrister is probably sick of the
bench afer all this time :)
> > > > The demographic in our universities is changing
> > > > towards more dumb rich kids.
>
> > > Evidence?
>
> > Its probably not easy to extract definate statistics to support the
> > statement "more dumb rich kids".
>
> What a surprise.
>
> 'Nuff said.
Not so fast. 'not easy to extract definite statistics...' was obviously
just a disclaimer to set the context for those with mediocre reasoning
abilities. I see it still went way over your head. Of course you cant apply
numerical statistics to general concepts like 'more dumb rich kids' You have
conveniently ignored the core argument.
|
|
| | From: | Scott Hillard | | Subject: | Re: Ya gotta love the right wing. | | Date: | Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:57:26 +1100 |
|
|
|
"Denz" wrote in message
news:h0LDd.109592$K7.62273@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Scott Hillard" wrote in message
> news:mOsDd.152$Sa7.5244@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > "Denz" wrote in message
> > news:5PoDd.107732$K7.97880@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > "Scott Hillard" wrote in message
> > > news:vhnDd.107$Sa7.2508@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > > Nope, it acts as a deterrent to the lazy and useless who refuse to
> > > > apply themselves. Good thing, too.
> > > Theres no logic to your argument here.
> > Wrong, comrade.
> > > The lazy and useless who refuse to apply themselves are deterred by
the
> > > workload.
> > Yes, that "workload" might actually include paid work - to cover the
fees,
> > books, transport, rent, etc....
> Just when i expected a counter argument, you surprise me instead.
Strap yourself in, comrade. It's a rough ride for you from here on in.
> > > Students from less than affluent families are deterred from the
prospect
> > of huge debts
> > "Huge debts"?
> > Get off the sauce, you're as sober as a NSW Judge.
> Some students may consider a $20K - 30K debt before they even start
working
> a huge debt.
Less than a year's income for any decent graduate. What a crock of shit.
They'll likely spend more than that on their mobile phones between the time
they start High School and the time they finish Uni.
A debt that attracts SFA interest, is incurred by acquiring an education
that (supposedly) will be used to better their employment prospects, and
achieve this "on average higher income" that gets bandied about?
Gimme a break.
> > The debt potential of even the most expensive degrees pales in
comparison
> > to the most basic mortgages, and plenty of people from "low
socio-economic
> > backgrounds" have no problem signing themselves up for mounds of housing
> > debt that offers nothing like the ROI that a properly applied degree
does.
> Irrelevant argument.
Nope, you don't get off the hook that easily.
Why would the people from "low socio-economic backgrounds" be shitscared by
a debt that amounts to less than one year's income, and will assist them to
achieve the kind of professional success their (almost invariably) useless
parents could only dream about, and yet be so keen to sign up for a debt of
10 times that amount for housing?
Well?
> Lets counter argue that even the cheapest degree is tremendously more
expensive than a good quality bicycle.
And plenty of people from "low socio-economic backgrounds" will borrow money
to buy those.
Who do you think signs up for 2 years interest free on a Playstation at the
local Hardly Normal? Hint: It isn't the plumbers and GPs.
> > > and the likelyhood of needing to work while studying. Those with
> > > afluent parents are usually insulated from this.
> > My parents were 'more effluent', but I worked whilst studying anyway -
to
> > pay my own damn way.
As do PLENTY of others, who come from all sorts of circumstances.
My childhood Doctor arrived in Australia without a word of English on his
tongue, and with less than $50 in his pocket. Managed to work his arse off
and self-fund his study (and living expenses), and achieved considerable
professional success as a result. I'd consider spending the first few years
of your life in some backward drek village in Northern Pakistan as a "low
socio-economic background".
Would you, comrade?
You lot love cosy anecdotes, don't you?
> So your whole arguemt that 'all these retired barristers on HECS isnt a
good
> investment in the future' is based on one single case??? giggle. Besides,
> havent you heard of re-skilling. The poor barrister is probably sick of
the
> bench afer all this time :)
Pissweak, even you can do better than that.
> > > > > The demographic in our universities is changing
> > > > > towards more dumb rich kids.
> > > > Evidence?
> > > Its probably not easy to extract definate statistics to support the
> > > statement "more dumb rich kids".
> > What a surprise.
> > 'Nuff said.
> Not so fast. 'not easy to extract definite statistics...' was obviously
> just a disclaimer to set the context for those with mediocre reasoning
> abilities.
Sounded more like an escape clause to me.
Have fun finding evidence that "the demographic in our universities" is
trending towards school leavers with lower TERs, but a higher household
income.
> I see it still went way over your head.
Woefully inadequate attempt to cover your arse.
> Of course you cant apply
> numerical statistics to general concepts like 'more dumb rich kids'
Bullshit - I've just asked you to provide the evidence, with very clear
parameters.
Have fun.
> You have conveniently ignored the core argument.
You have no core argument - only bullshit.
|
|
| | From: | Denz | | Subject: | Re: Ya gotta love the right wing. | | Date: | Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:28:47 GMT |
|
|
|
"Scott Hillard" wrote in message
news:xnMDd.302$Sa7.13751@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Denz" wrote in message
> news:h0LDd.109592$K7.62273@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Scott Hillard" wrote in message
> > news:mOsDd.152$Sa7.5244@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > "Denz" wrote in message
> > > news:5PoDd.107732$K7.97880@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > "Scott Hillard" wrote in message
> > > > news:vhnDd.107$Sa7.2508@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> > > > > Nope, it acts as a deterrent to the lazy and useless who refuse to
> > > > > apply themselves. Good thing, too.
>
> > > > Theres no logic to your argument here.
>
> > > Wrong, comrade.
>
> > > > The lazy and useless who refuse to apply themselves are deterred by
> the
> > > > workload.
>
> > > Yes, that "workload" might actually include paid work - to cover the
> fees,
> > > books, transport, rent, etc....
>
> > Just when i expected a counter argument, you surprise me instead.
>
> Strap yourself in, comrade. It's a rough ride for you from here on in.
>
> > > > Students from less than affluent families are deterred from the
> prospect
> > > of huge debts
>
> > > "Huge debts"?
>
> > > Get off the sauce, you're as sober as a NSW Judge.
>
> > Some students may consider a $20K - 30K debt before they even start
> working
> > a huge debt.
>
> Less than a year's income for any decent graduate. What a crock of shit.
> They'll likely spend more than that on their mobile phones between the
time
> they start High School and the time they finish Uni.
The kids who have their education subsidised by their parents maybe. But
werent we talking about less privileged kids who i argue will be discouraged
from higher education because of the increased costs. I dont think youre
spending a fortune on mobile phones when youre battling to eat properly.
Theres certainly more in this category than your lone retired judge on
HECS - kids needing to live away from home to attend uni and probably living
in poverty.
> A debt that attracts SFA interest, is incurred by acquiring an education
> that (supposedly) will be used to better their employment prospects, and
> achieve this "on average higher income" that gets bandied about?
>
> Gimme a break.
>
> > > The debt potential of even the most expensive degrees pales in
> comparison
> > > to the most basic mortgages, and plenty of people from "low
> socio-economic
> > > backgrounds" have no problem signing themselves up for mounds of
housing
> > > debt that offers nothing like the ROI that a properly applied degree
> does.
>
> > Irrelevant argument.
>
> Nope, you don't get off the hook that easily.
>
> Why would the people from "low socio-economic backgrounds" be shitscared
by
> a debt that amounts to less than one year's income, and will assist them
to
> achieve the kind of professional success their (almost invariably) useless
> parents could only dream about, and yet be so keen to sign up for a debt
of
> 10 times that amount for housing?
>
> Well?
Ask the kids who are shitscared by the debt amounts:
"... The figures fuel the argument that increased fees may be driving
Australians out of higher education."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/08/1104832354207.html
When that 'one years income' is already just covering your living expenses,
an extra debt burdon is anything but insignificant. These high mortages you
bring up- in many cases the high mortages are with the 'double income no
kids' set. And as i said, gotta live somewhere.
> > > My parents were 'more effluent', but I worked whilst studying anyway -
> to
> > > pay my own damn way.
>
> As do PLENTY of others, who come from all sorts of circumstances.
>
> My childhood Doctor arrived in Australia without a word of English on his
> tongue, and with less than $50 in his pocket. Managed to work his arse
off
> and self-fund his study (and living expenses), and achieved considerable
> professional success as a result. I'd consider spending the first few
years
> of your life in some backward drek village in Northern Pakistan as a "low
> socio-economic background".
>
> Would you, comrade?
Yes i would. Its good to see such people get though like that. If he was
considering starting uni in 2005 instead of when he actually did, would he
even have been able to start? When he went into his degree, it could have
been at a time when uni was practically free? But uni fees have doubled in
only the last 7 years. In this climate your doctor may not have got past
being a cleaner. This is exactly the kind of guy that should be getting
through, instead of being discouraged by the idiots in canberra.
|
|
| | From: | Stan Pierce | | Subject: | Re: Ya gotta love the right wing. | | Date: | Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:55:10 GMT |
|
|
|
"Denz" wrote in message
news:P0_Dd.110833$K7.11231@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
(snipped)
> Ask the kids who are shitscared by the debt amounts:
> "... The figures fuel the argument that increased fees may be driving
> Australians out of higher education."
What would you say to having ALL hard science subjects FREE...after the
first year pass results, and ALL 'social science' applicant given a free
computer and free internet access and politely told to sod off.
Also, as a bonus, the *teachers* of the final year hard science graduates
get a bonus for each skilled person they produce.
What do you think would be the result of this program after, say, 5 years.
|
|
| | From: | Tex | | Subject: | Re: Ya gotta love the right wing. | | Date: | Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:49:35 GMT |
|
|
|
"Denz" wrote in message
news:P0_Dd.110833$K7.11231@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Yes i would. Its good to see such people get though like that. If he was
> considering starting uni in 2005 instead of when he actually did, would he
> even have been able to start? When he went into his degree, it could have
> been at a time when uni was practically free?
News dude: Uni has never been "free"
|
|
|
