by David Clendon
Oh dear. Anyone who felt a wee bit nervous when Steven Joyce became Tertiary Education Minister has a right to feel justified in their fears after his last couple of annoucements.
First, we hear there are plans to link funding for tertiary institutions to the pass rates of their students from 2012. This is a terrible idea.
It could actually make the problem the Government is trying to fix – supposedly “poor quality” courses and “low standards” – worse, by encouraging funding-starved insititutions to pass everyone in order to secure their funding. Universities are starved of funding enough as it is, without creating a perverse incentive like this.
It could also make institutions wary about accepting students who are “less likely” to pass, like Maori, Pacifica, and adult students without previous qualifications, creating a serious equity issue around access to education for these groups.
Finally, it totally fails to take into account the fact that there are numerous factors influencing pass rates. As I blogged when John Key hinted at this in his speech a few weeks ago, included among “failures” could be people upgrading from a sub-degree course to a degree course because they learn that they are up to the challenge, or people moving out of education and straight into work. I would argue that scenarios like this actually constitute “success”, not failure. But linking funding to pass rates is too blunt an instrument to take this into account.
We also learned that the Government wants to review and reduce the number of tertiary qualifications on offer. This shows that they just don’t understand what higher education is all about.
Higher education is not only about churning out the type of “work-ready” graduates that industries say they want. It’s also about teaching life skills, critical thought, research, and other skills which enhance employability in any industry.
We can’t predict now what skills industries will demand in two, three, or five years time when people graduate, so we’re better off focusing on quality higher education that can be adapted to different jobs. I mentioned this in my last blog on tertiary issues too.
While its good to avoid replication of qualifications that are substantially the same, it’s important to remember that a diversity of courses reflects our diverse society, skills, and needs.
With these latest announcements, Stephen Joyce has shown his failure to grasp these key concepts.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Featured | Parliament | Society & Culture by David Clendon on Wed, March 10th, 2010
Tags: funding, steven joyce, Tertiary, tertiary education, university
More posts by David Clendon | more about David Clendon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
“..and adult students without previous qualifications..”
as one who left school with a (just scraped-through school certificate..(by 5 points..)..
and after a somewhat colourful life..went back to university..
..and got a masters(hons 2nd class)..in the minimum time possibe..
i gotta say this idea both sucks and blows..
(and there you see the benefit of a masters degree..
had i just a batchelors degree..
i would have just said:..
‘that really sucks..!’
(q.e.d..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I was relieved to see Hopeless Anne Tolley relieved of the portfolio, and thought Joyce would do better. Now I’m not so sure.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
A question then – how are we going to address the problem of a large number of students who are going to University and not finishing their degrees?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
The current system is an appalling waste of taxpayers money.
Currently thousands of students waste thousands of dollars of their own money (that they have to pay back in loans), approximately twice as much in taxpayers money (as most students are only charged 30-40% of the real costs of their course), years of their time, space in classes and their lecturers time.
They do this by not putting in the effort needed to attain their degrees. Why should the taxpayer have to fork out for this?
A much bigger waste however are students on courses where there are no jobs. Most years 40-60% of people with law degrees don’t get work in law. 97% of students in photography courses don’t get work as photographers (and that was before the recession).
Courses need to be subsidised according to need for those graduates. You can still do a degree in the history of underwater planes, but if there are no likely jobs in that field you should not be able to expect someone else (taxpayers) to pay for most of it.
After years and years of vast wastage, and government criminally doing nothing about it, it’s good to finally see someone starting to think about solutions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
“Courses need to be subsidised according to need for those graduates. You can still do a degree in the history of underwater planes, but if there are no likely jobs in that field you should not be able to expect someone else (taxpayers) to pay for most of it.”
That I agree with; the impression I get is that many students pick what seem to be fashionable courses – a few years ago, studying Psychology seemed to be the thing to do.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
john-ston, a good question – we won’t increase the numbers finishing degrees by cutting out those who fail some of their courses, we will reduce the rate completing their courses still further.
For someone pretending to be doing a job as infrastructure minister, cutting back on the numbers of people in education is dumb. Any country with any ambition to have sustainable growth in the future invests in its people. Apparently this lot can know that cutting back on apprenticeships creates skills shortages, but even so they still won’t invest to do anything about that.
When you have unemployment there should be plenty of people in education, and some should be failing some of their courses – that’s a sign of standards being maintained.
This lot is choosing the worst of all options – less people in education and an incentive for people to be passed to maintain funding. Dumb real dumb.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
photonz, tertiary education is not just about specific training for jobs in the market place. For example many graduates can go on to train as academics or secondary school teachers (literature, drama, classics, history etc) and then there are those who find work overseas (our commerce and law surplus).
Then there are those who go into “international” skills employment areas – arts, music, film etc. How many people who now work in “Wellywood” got their “non job” skills at uni?
And trying to ration out places based on local job needs would include identifying the numbers who choose to go overseas even though they had local jobs (doctors, nurses scientists etc) – that is not possible.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
SPC says “And trying to ration out places based on local job needs”
I’m not suggesting rationing places – just taking some funding from where it is most wasted, and giving to those areas where it is most needed.
I’ve heard the same arguement over and over, and all it ever does is make excuses for the facts that –
1/ there is massive waste of money and time in tertiary education
2/ that money could be better spent
3/ we’re educating a lot of people in qualifications that are useless to them
4/ we don’t have enough qualified people in many areas.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Here’s another idea. How about studenst pay for 100% of their course instead of the current 30-40%.
That way they’d choose courses more sensibly so they were more likely to get work, AND they’d make a better effort at passing. Two big advantages.
Then they could pay back by being taxed at the same rate as everyone else, but half their tax is targeted to pay off their loan.
It puts in place incentives to
a/ get qualifications that are useful and needed.
b/ complete the degree
c/ stay in NZ
All aspects that are no only beneficial to the individual, but are also beneficial to New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
The problem with making the student pay for 100% of their courses is the sheer sums that would be involved – a student that has paid $100,000 for their education is more likely to demand a higher wage; of course, any student of economics would tell you that would simply lead to a decrease in demand for those fields.
What I would prefer is a system where a certain number of places are offered every year for every major and every degree (i.e. a number of places for accounting students, economics students, law students, medical students, &c.) and those places are free – the catch being that it would be based on your Year 13 Academic performance and that alone. Anyone who doesn’t make the cut has the option of paying the full cost of their fees. It would not only ensure that our universities have the best quality students (and that in itself might help drag our universities up – as it is, New Zealand doesn’t have a single University that would be considered to be part of the global top 50), but it would also give our students an incentive to work harder at school.
“john-ston, a good question”
It wasn’t directed at the government, it was directed at the author of this blog post. It is all well and good criticising a proposal without presenting alternatives.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
john-ston – that’s a good idea, and probably a lot simpler. Anything that shifts some funding from useless qualifications to useful qualifications is a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
When i was at University it was very clear the “best quality students” were in fact mature students, many of whom did not have the equivalent of year 13 secondary schooling. Often in class i would watch school leavers struggle with concepts that were obvious to people who had a bit more life experience.
I think the biggest waste of money is the money spent on people who come straight from school under pressure from their parents and take degrees basically for the sake of it, but then find that they want to do something unrelated with their lives.
I don’t see a problem with people going to University and not completing a degree. Students need to pass at least half of their programme of study to get automatic re-entry, so those who are not coping are soon identified.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Solkta makes a very good point – that at 17-19, most school leavers don’t really know enough about life to be choosing a tertiary course that will stand them in good stead.
Here’s a newsflash – the big change in vocational education happened when we realised that adults change careers and need re-training, in a modern employment context, and we started to gear up for that in the mid-90′s.
A tertiary qualification may be a plumber’s trade course, a carpenter’s skills course, all the way up to a PhD in Theology – for which we have Professors employed, thus there are jobs in that field, albeit only for the very keen!
I’d love to meet the National party policy analyst who owns the crystal ball that tells her/him just what skillsets our employment sector will be hunting for in five years time, when the lastest batch of undergrad’s has made it through a Bachelor’s degree, Honours and Masters degrees, for the talented few who follow that track.
I certainly didn’t expect some of the outcomes that have occurred in the past 18 months, when I began post-graduate papers in 2006, and I doubt that many of today’s graduates know where they’ll be and what they’ll be doing in another two years’ time.
What we do know is that NZ graduates are always in demand overseas, as we do a pretty fine job educating at tertiary level.
Now, if employers here could just repay the effort with decent salary rates, we wouldn’t see such a lot bolting overseas straight after graduation, in order to pay off their startlingly high student loan debts.
It’s not a shuffle of the seats on campus that’s needed, but a complete revision of local employers’ understanding of the laws of ‘supply and demand’. Expecting that paying minimum wage to students while they work part-time through their study years, will set them up to be coerced into low salaries upon starting employemnt after graduation, is just delusional; and our young people are smart enough to vote with their feet.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
John-ston wrote:
“What I would prefer is a system where a certain number of places are offered every year for every major and every degree (i.e. a number of places for accounting students, economics students, law students, medical students, &c.) and those places are free – the catch being that it would be based on your Year 13 Academic performance and that alone”
In the interests of opportunities for people from all walks of life, and assessing people on the basis of how well they do at university study in the subject(s) they intend to major in, I would give out the scholarships at the end of the first year of university, based on academic performance in that year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with katie that it is hard to predict what skills will be required in a future labour market. Several of my mates at Uni were majoring in Film and Television Studies and i would often discuss with them why they had made that choice. It turns out i was being visionless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie says – “Now, if employers here could just repay the effort with decent salary rates, we wouldn’t see such a lot bolting overseas straight after graduation, in order to pay off their startlingly high student loan debts.”
The majority of businesses have a profit margin of a bit over 5% and not often than 10%.
Our of these low profits, you want to take money for higher wages. Others want more tax from businesses, and more spent on R&D, less hours for workers and more holidays. All this when productivity of NZ workers is well below comparible countries.
Profit margins are dangerously low now – not far from being negative. Squeeze them further and you send busineeses under, and throw away thousands of peoples jobs.
Who did you say was being delusional?
solkta – I worked with some very experienced production crew a month ago and they said it was rediculous how over-subscribed film and tv courses were in Australia and NZ. They said there was only work for a small percentage of graduates.
The “don’t know what the future will bring” arguement sounds like a hollow excuse for doing nothing about courses which year after year take money from students (and more from taxpayers) as well as years of time, knowing full well that many (and in some cases most) of their students will never get work in that field.
And most of these courses never give an indication to students what their chances are – it’s a disgrace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1, i was at Uni in the early 1990s and from what i understand Film and Television Studies was quite a new thing then. The courses could have been said to be over-subscribed then, but that was at the time of the birth of an industry. I suspect that there is many more people taking such courses now and it may well be that they could still be said to be over-subscribed, but then the potential of this industry is huge and it is impossible to predict which student will be the next Jackson. Aside from all that, i can’t see in a general sense that a degree in F and T Studies is any more or less useful than other Arts degrees (ie they all useful).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
David, you’ve assumed the worst outcomes and a poorly designed policy, whereas the incremental changes proposed (eg slowing increasing at-risk funding and initially low performance targets) are likely to focus on the worst performing courses, which will either be fixed or dropped. It’s unlikely that the changes will have a marked effect on most courses, especially at university level where completion rates are already quite high. The arguments you’ve raised would be on the whiteboard within 5 minutes of a months-long policy development process and would be addressed. In terms of qualifications, the changes proposed are focused on sub-degree courses where there are often a high number of very similar sounding qualifications that can confuse students and employers alike. Most people in tertiary education can see that the numbers should come down, although obviously the end number is up for debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
solkta – all I know is that people in the industry told me that there are large numbers of students who after spending years of their life and thousands of dollars, there is no work for them.
I don’t know the exact statistics of how many get work and how many don’t – but neither do they.
That is a major part of the problem. Students are kept in the dark about their employment chances – sometimes deliberately.
I think institutions have a duty to let students know BEFORE they take a course, of the current job prospects, if not also an estimate of future prospects.
I gave a talk a couple of years ago to a group of photography students who all thought they were going to get work as photographers. I don’t know of a single one who did. In fact there would be LESS photographers working now than back then.
But the institution keeps advertising it’s photography courses, taking students money, and pouring out class after class of graduates who will never get a job in what they have just spend years training in.
It’s a massive waste of time and money for students and the country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There seems to be thread that the only purpose of tertiary study is to obtain a degree that leads directly to a paid job. I suspect there is more to attending a tertiary institution, and gaining a qualificatuion IF that is the end result. What about our ability to question our politicians (MPs,and spokespersons from the Employer Association, Federated Farmers, Trade Unions, NGOs). What about increased willingness/confidence to take part in civic society. What about our improved research skills so so answer and analyse situations whetehr directly related to the degree or sub-degree or major? These are richess that would be reduced if the institutions are ounished for providing courses some may regard as unnecessary r of limited value ADn dtermining who is worthy of such hnaces to “improve” themselves.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@photonz1 I don’t know if you have a degree or not but to call any degree useless is to be ignorant to the roll of tertiary study plays in expanding people horizons and teaching them the essential skills of critical thinking. There is a heap of personal development that goes on during the course of study towards a bachelors degree no matter what the subject is. Such development can only create a country of more informed citizens and be good for our country and democracy as a whole.
As for media/film grads, more and more we are seeing that peoples blog/youtube channel/etc are becoming part of our personal identity, the face we present to the rest of the world, The skills people have learned are in no way useless.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Graham – perhaps we should all just go to varsity, do the courses we want ragardless of if they have any use in the real world or not.
Then we can leave it up to everyone else to pay for it – and they can also pay for our journey through life, because we don’t have any useful qualifications.
At tens of thousands of dollars per student, that takes a lot of people working hard full time to pay the tax for just ONE student who does a qualification that will not likly get them any work.
There is a limit to how many people can be subsidised through qualifications that will not lead to work. Currently we have the rediculous situation where the option to do these courses is open ended.
And our ability to question MPs, etc, isn’t going to go away because a few less people do art degrees, and do something more useful instead.
In fact those with a degree and some real work experience are probably better prepared to question polititians, compared to those who have done a degree but never done a real days work in their life.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
skinsinc – yours is a very tired arguement, and misses the point.
It makes no allowance at all, for the fact that people who do degrees that ARE useful give a hugely better return on taxypayers funding.
To borrow your words, “There is a heap of personal development..” but that doesn’t just apply to young adults doing degrees – but for most of the population at that same stage in their life – whether they are bringing up a family, studying, doing an apprentiship or whatever.
Schools, health system, roading, etc ALL have to give the best value for money. But tertiary education can push students into courses where many will never find work.
If all we get is a lightly better looking blog site or utube video after spending tens of thousands of dollars – then that money would have been better spent on a few heart operations, or at the very least on the cream of the crop of media students.
There would be few areas of govenment spending where so much time and money is spent for such a negligable return.
We have so much funding put into courses that are not needed, instead of into courses that are needed.
It’s bad for the whole country to have shortages of some skills, and excesses in skills that are not needed – not to mention the economic cost of the waste at both ends.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1, sinsinc’s argument is not tired and it is you who misses the point. What sinsinc describes IS what University has always been about. To suggest that University study is comparable to other life experiences is just naive.
It seems to me that what you are actually arguing for is the abolition of Universities. Perhaps at the same time you could look at abolishing Secondary Schooling as that also only provides “useless qualifications”.
What is most striking about your posts is a complete lack of any mention of what skills you believe are being called for by the current job market, and what direction(s) you think the New Zealand economy will take over the medium term. Should everybody train as Dairy Farm Technicians?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Yes, what is ‘useful’ as defined by Photonz1 and the minister? Probably the most ‘useful’ training is trade training as we will need builders, plumbers and so forth.
Is it more useful to have mathematicians or accountants? Scientists or doctors? Thinkers or teachers? We need all of them, they are all useful.
However, I get the feeling you think of the arts (and I include philosophy in this) mainly as not ‘useful’ – you wouldn’t be the first or last person, including some ministers of education, to have difficulty with the idea that the arts are actually work or contribute to society.
That depends on whether you understand creativity on any of its levels and its effect on both individuals and society as a whole. I suspect not. Arts education is not about stuffing facts into people, but about stretching minds, making people think and question and express themselves. It’s about offering technique, insight and critique into the things that make us human.
It’s true that many arts graduates don’t go into nine-to-five jobs in the arts field they have studied, but it is also true that most of them gain a tremendous amount of intellectual and physical capability and creativity that they can then apply to other fields.
As for the original topic: right now, if students fail, they are not automatically accepted into other courses. If a course does not deliver, students can and do complain. If the numbers aren’t there to support the programme, it doesn’t run.
This is the opposite of picking winners – it is simply about cutting costs. Unfortunately, with lower investment in education, society as a whole will suffer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1 – your comment “perhaps we should all just go to varsity, do the courses we want ragardless of if they have any use in the real world or not.
Then we can leave it up to everyone else to pay for it..” reminds of the changes the first Labour Government made which opened up secondary school to all. Walter Nash has a wonderful speach attributed to him (written by CC Beeby, perhaps the worlds most emanent educational administrators) talking of allowing each of us to be educated to the level and in the manner best fitted to us. This followed on this country’s Education Act of 1877 which made our primary education system “free, compulsory and secular.
Educating ourselves, and being in environments that challenges our assumptions (and tertiary institutions are often the best place for this to be fostered)is necessary to maintain a civil society. Sadly too few want to be engaged or feel able to be involved in this process. Sometimes because they are told to mind their place, others know best – be it the boss or Prime Minister.
My concern with the Nats-ACTs policy is that will either restrict the numbers of potential questioners in society because they would not become involved in a setting where questioning is not only accepted but expected, BUT it might also dumb down the process as all the minows strive for A-passes by regurgitating in their essays their tutors thesis/books simply in an effort to get a job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)