From having a look at the pages referred, I’m not sure if the Go8 proposal would preclude further study, what I saw that the scholarship refreshed when a student changes course, if it refreshes when a student starts another course then 7 years (full-time) is a reasonable time in which to complete a degree - I noticed it factored in a longer scholarship for medicine and longer degrees, and something similar I hope would be applied to double degrees.

If it does refresh at the beginning a new course it isn’t much different from status quo. The only problem I can see at the moment is that one isn’t eligible for Austudy after completing a postgrad qualification, which automatically deters a lot of potential teachers from doing a DipEd, which could be the ideal qualification to offer some insurance for a graduate student considering entering the competitive field that is the academic job market.

Also I can see there being situations like Russell mentioned, what if a teacher wents to reskill to become a Maths or Science teacher, they could run into problems. If the 7-year learning entitlement is per course I don’t have a problem with it, but I can see it in rare cases inhibiting some people from reskilling (although I believe at the moment universities are allowed to waive the 7 year requirement in some circumstances).

Also I can see the bureaucratic mess the 7 year entitlement can place on unis, as Andrew says it probably costs more to police than it saves in costs. I doubt “perpetual students” are really that much of problem (apart from graduate students, who have high GPAs to be eligible for further study). Which leads me to believe this is largely a myth, as I can see little incentive for many people to complete more than two degrees (How many people are financially in the position to complete three or four undergraduate degrees - that’s nine to twelve years living on student allowance, OUCH!!!). Secondly, how many people would want to keep studying course after course without attempt to apply the skills they obtained in a market, other than a few academic types I think the numbers would be minute.

This was in regards to primary school teachers. I doubt it would be the case for secondary school teachers where a much greater mastery of subjects is required.

The Group of Eight proposal gives seven years of subsidies, enough for two undergrad degrees (with a handful of exceptions). There is a bit of a debate about whether there are sufficient ‘perpetual students’ to warrant the bureaucracy involved in keeping track of how much of their 7 years students have consumed, though I have no in-principle objection to the limit (which is the same as current policy).

That’s more or less the point I was making - and that it’s a bad thing. Do you think it’s OK, when we’re told everybody should expect to have at least 3 different occupations/careers in their lives, to make further education so expensive - ie full-fee cost? This new proposal seems to give people just one shot at tertiary education.

Teachers, nurses etc who had the inclination would probably become better teachers and nurses by dipping in and out of continuing, part-time further education over their careers - something they won’t do if it’s so expensive.

Once people have the sunk cost (including the considerable opportunity cost) of having acquired the relevant skills, they are less likely to leave for another occupation even if their salary isn’t that flash, because they lack the credentials and/or experience to enter better-paid vocations.

Your position seems to be that there is some kind of vague general public good from more graduates that would not be achieved without a subsidy. I seriously doubt that this is the case across all disciplines. If public money is to be spent, I want more evidence that some good will come of it.

“We envisage that individuals wishing to undertake additional studies, beyond those supported through national scholarships, should have access on a fee-paying basis, with loan assistance available up to the cap of $80,000.”

So if a teacher or librarian would like to add to their skills by enrolling, for example, in a language course, they would pay the whole full-fee amount, out of their not very large income. I would like to think that teachers (and librarians, and people in other professions too probably) could continue to study their whole professional lives, becoming better and better at what they do. You couldn’t do it under this scheme. We in Australia have enough wealth to have free education, and that’s what we should have.

I don’t entirely agree the the Group of Eight have most to gain from a voucher system. So far as I know, none want to expand and I would not be surprised if most would rather be smaller (though they may prefer to diversify risk, and take fewer international and more domestic students).

Institutionally, the biggest winners are likely to be private higher education providers and perhaps places like RMIT, which have strong demand and are not concerned to protect their ‘exclusive’ nature.

Shame Andrew! It’s not the Government’s job to pick which areas of study need assistance because of a lack of graduates, low salaries etc. If they have a flat voucher, and universities are allowed to charge top-up fees, low-demand courses (perhaps because of low salary after graduation) will have prices closest to the voucher value, and courses which have high graduate salaries will have higher demand and therefore charge the most top-up fees.

Regardless, it is a welcome development from the Universities - a big step from the kind of thinking that pervaded campuses just 5-10 years ago. We should remember though that this is the G8, who would benefit most from a voucher/scholarship scheme, and not a group which represents smaller universities, who are likely to oppose such moves. Politically, it’s a step in the right direction - towards a comprehensive voucher system.