Vale Gough Whitlam
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
As a species of rationality, PTID’s post certainly didn’t do it for me. A few quick examples, because a two-page refutation will bore all of us :
The fact that housing is unaffordable (a real national scandal) has no bearing on whether those who enjoy the privilege of university education should make some contribution to it or not. It’s a complete fallacy to connect the two. Fix the housing problem, rather than muddying independent issues.
The idea that providing incentives for areas of national priority amounts to a “communist curriculum” is worthy of the Tea Party. If it is true, then much of government policy is communist. Oh dear.
The idea that Arts graduates are especially qualified in “interdisciplinary connectionism” is certainly a fallacy in the UK. I’ve supervised literally hundreds of graduates over the past 15 years. In fact, the average science graduate is very capable of mounting a strong, logical argument outside his or her specific field. The average engineer can use the English language more than adequately, and usually has a sound grasp of economics and project management. The average Arts graduate is clueless about chemistry, computing or mathematics. Outstanding Arts graduates are gold dust, but at the averages, a graduate in a STEM discipline will make more interdisciplinary connections, in my experience.
In PTID's post, those who disagree apparently display “sour grapes”, “existential immaturity”, “personal bitterness”, “exploitation and abuse”, “supporting [their] interests”. This is not the material that goes with rational debate. Whatever else PTID was taught at university, he was apparently not taught that others may disagree for reasons other than moral degeneracy.
Tertiary education undoubtedly confers great benefit on the recipient, and on the wider society. That benefit to society justifies a subsidy, which – at the old HECS Level – it amply received from the public purse. However, it seems to me just, that the private benefit accruing to the graduate should be properly reflected in some contribution once their income exceeds a certain level. There is no reason why someone who was unable to benefit from tertiary education (the tram driver, say) should subsidise the entire vocational education of the lawyer or the dentist, who then charges the tram driver for their services based on private profit maximisation. That does not seem economically rational or fair to me.
Finally, I agree that tertiary education is a broadly-diffusing good thing, and if a modest level of HECS deterred tertiary entry overall, I would consider it undesirable ; but this is simply not borne out by the vast expansion of tertiary study since the Hawke Government introduced the scheme in the 1980s. I don’t support the new levels, as they seem likely to deter those who would benefit and who do not have mummy and daddy’s money to support them - and like many, I am suspicious of this Government's bona fides. But at a modest level, HECS is balanced and fair.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | As a species of rationality, PTID’s post certainly didn’t do it for me.
• Well, it wouldn't, because post-Darwinian rationality is apparently not your concern here.
A few quick examples, because a two-page refutation will bore all of us :
The fact that housing is unaffordable (a real national scandal) has no bearing on whether those who enjoy the privilege of university education should make some contribution to it or not.
• And it has even less bearing on the economics argument being made. I do worry about your reading comprehension when that point was specifically used to show why a future tax is a disincentive; young people know full well they'll be struggling in the future, so your future tax most certainly won't slip past their calculations.
The idea that providing incentives for areas of national priority amounts to a “communist curriculum” is worthy of the Tea Party. If it is true, then much of government policy is communist. Oh dear.
• And now in the next breath you pretend to care about economic signals when the most overwhelming signal of all is your general disincentive to all young people through HECS.
Your punishment of all but "a few high achievers in the arts" is nothing but authoritarian education, while your trivial "pick and choose between arts and sciences" dichotomy is something from the dusty archives of the 1950s.
Reform the curriculum by all means (something I strongly support), and get more kids into science and technology, but if you think you can punish people at that age into the sciences you haven't got the first clue about the psychology of young people or Homo sapiens per se.
The idea that Arts graduates are especially qualified in “interdisciplinary connectionism” is certainly a fallacy in the UK. I’ve supervised literally hundreds of graduates over the past 15 years. In fact, the average science graduate is very capable of mounting a strong, logical argument outside his or her specific field. The average engineer can use the English language more than adequately, and usually has a sound grasp of economics and project management. The average Arts graduate is clueless about chemistry, computing or mathematics. Outstanding Arts graduates are gold dust, but at the averages, a graduate in a STEM discipline will make more interdisciplinary connections, in my experience.
• Yes, it is a fallacy, so we can discuss it in another thread where that odd claim is the topic of interest. As for what I said, that arts courses encourage interdisciplinary connections and a connectionist cognition, well, that's just an explicit truism (as with the social sciences, which heavily overlap with arts subjects and in possibly most cases can be grouped with them).
And who said people being educated need to be "outstanding?" That's just more authoritarian, elitist key holding; I thought we had moved on from that rubbish when HECS was introduced, but apparently not.
The economy fundamentally runs on increased productivity within a context of social stability; who cares if someone isn't "excellent"? That's just cringeworthy elitism. Let's allow them to become more productive and satisfied than they otherwise would've been. Let's enable them to increase our productivity and stability even if they're not "excellent".
You seem to be confusing general intellectual ability (higher in the sciences), with the point of the education exercise, which is to develop the individual and better society through increased productivity, both direct and indirect, and both narrowly (as a specific skill and knowledge set) and broadly (as a general social spillover of skills and knowledge). This is not an attack on science—a bizarre turn of argument, especially with given the esteem people like Tannin and myself hold the sciences—but rather a general argument about the need to stop deterring people from improving themselves and society through education.
The arts (and social sciences) explicitly encourage connectionism, not between the physics and chemistry of a molecule, but between humans and organisations of humans, and that facilitates endless professional interactions and has enormous value at the human interface.
But for you, apparently, education is a way of punishing "time wasters", and sorting out the "excellent" from the average. And therein lies the fundamental difference between us I would guess, and why your view is so worthy of a dusty basement archive somewhere, or perhaps an entirely different epoch, one prior to the advent of enlarged fore brains, the ability to discern mind, and social calculation. You would rather a worse society overall than an average Joe getting through an arts course. And that, as I say, is simply primitive.
(On a side note, as you felt the need to flag this, I have strong doubts your career has involved helping more young graduates and older professionals secure real-world employment than my own, possibly by a very large margin).
In PTID's post, those who disagree apparently display “sour grapes”, “existential immaturity”, “personal bitterness”, “exploitation and abuse”, “supporting [their] interests”. This is not the material that goes with rational debate. Whatever else PTID was taught at university, he was apparently not taught that others may disagree for reasons other than moral degeneracy.
• And now you can add "primitive" to that list. But, actually, it was more a case of you blindly gabbing on without consideration for the lives of those you were pontificating over, and letting some narrow, petty elitist stance take hold of your senses.
Tertiary education undoubtedly confers great benefit on the recipient, and on the wider society. That benefit to society justifies a subsidy, which – at the old HECS Level – it amply received from the public purse. However, it seems to me just, that the private benefit accruing to the graduate should be properly reflected in some contribution once their income exceeds a certain level. There is no reason why someone who was unable to benefit from tertiary education (the tram driver, say) should subsidise the entire vocational education of the lawyer or the dentist, who then charges the tram driver for their services based on private profit maximisation. That does not seem economically rational or fair to me.
• Okay, that's going from bad to worse. The tram driver couldn't afford a tertiary education, so your solution is to deter other people from pursuing one, punishing them for conferring spillover benefits to society while improving their own levels of productivity?
I mean, that's just a hash of an argument. How divorced from reality could you get? Go and ask those tram drivers if they want their kids to get into debt before even getting a job? I mean, which feudal lords have you been hanging out with? The same ones who think the American health system pre-Obama was a marvel of modern human achievement?
Finally, I agree that tertiary education is a broadly-diffusing good thing, and if a modest level of HECS deterred tertiary entry overall, I would consider it undesirable ; but this is simply not borne out by the vast expansion of tertiary study since the Hawke Government introduced the scheme in the 1980s. I don’t support the new levels, as they seem likely to deter those who would benefit and who do not have mummy and daddy’s money to support them - and like many, I am suspicious of this Government's bona fides. But at a modest level, HECS is balanced and fair.
• No, it is not "modest" and it is now irrational. The 1989 decision to introduce HECS was a huge improvement over policy in the 1960s. But to stand still on this in 2014 is to go backwards in tandem with the decline in growth of real wages.
The vast expansion of the education system through HECS does not bear out the fact that HECS has long crossed the line from post-elitist facilitator to social disincentive and/or social punishment, because it has been accompanied by a vastly better knowledge of the benefits of education in a professionalising information economy, as well as declining real incomes as expressed through political buttons such as housing affordability and cost of living.
In the Australian context, the current graduation rate might seem high, but that's part of Australia's success; not something to curtail, but something to enhance. Once again, I am all for the German-style traineeship system, which is just another form of education, and I am all for updating education wherever and whenever required. But what I'm not for is making it harder for people to be educated, and punishing people for improving themselves and society. And, even worse, I'm certainly not for punishing "non-excellent" performers, having many of them wither away in a pool of discouragement in a dole queue.
The 2014 socio-psychological context matters; you might think young people are too dumb to notice the signals, but its pretty obvious to anyone who thinks it through that young people will sure as hell get the message when they're considering studying at a time in their lives when many of them would rather be earning money in a natural-resources funded job and going out with friends. Now, they not only have to forgo present income, but they have to incur a future debt.
You don't take 1989 as your basis for an argument about education needs and incentives in 2014 any more than you take the standard of living in 1989 as your basis for economic need and social psychology in 2014.
• In sum, your argument is a mess and your conception of this problem is hopelessly outdated. HECS is a disincentive to a highly productive activity, and its marginal effect at the level of payback income is far, far higher than you imagine in the context of the social psychology and cost of living and real income growth of 2014. Australia is not a nation coming out of hardship where people will accept whatever penalties are thrown at them.
Moreover, you're intent on pushing non-science, non "excellent" young people into dole queues, and punishing "tram drivers" twice: Once themselves when they're kids, and then a second time when they have kids.
A total hash, as I say. And an unsavoury, primitive hash, fried in sour grapeseed oil and protectionism where some with your views are concerned, and in your case an elitism HECS was originally designed to overcome.
|
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | As a species of rationality, PTID’s post certainly didn’t do it for me. A few quick examples, because a two-page refutation will bore all of us :
The fact that housing is unaffordable (a real national scandal) has no bearing on whether those who enjoy the privilege of university education should make some contribution to it or not. It’s a complete fallacy to connect the two. Fix the housing problem, rather than muddying independent issues.
The idea that providing incentives for areas of national priority amounts to a “communist curriculum” is worthy of the Tea Party. If it is true, then much of government policy is communist. Oh dear.
The idea that Arts graduates are especially qualified in “interdisciplinary connectionism” is certainly a fallacy in the UK. I’ve supervised literally hundreds of graduates over the past 15 years. In fact, the average science graduate is very capable of mounting a strong, logical argument outside his or her specific field. The average engineer can use the English language more than adequately, and usually has a sound grasp of economics and project management. The average Arts graduate is clueless about chemistry, computing or mathematics. Outstanding Arts graduates are gold dust, but at the averages, a graduate in a STEM discipline will make more interdisciplinary connections, in my experience.
In PTID's post, those who disagree apparently display “sour grapes”, “existential immaturity”, “personal bitterness”, “exploitation and abuse”, “supporting [their] interests”. This is not the material that goes with rational debate. Whatever else PTID was taught at university, he was apparently not taught that others may disagree for reasons other than moral degeneracy.
Tertiary education undoubtedly confers great benefit on the recipient, and on the wider society. That benefit to society justifies a subsidy, which – at the old HECS Level – it amply received from the public purse. However, it seems to me just, that the private benefit accruing to the graduate should be properly reflected in some contribution once their income exceeds a certain level. There is no reason why someone who was unable to benefit from tertiary education (the tram driver, say) should subsidise the entire vocational education of the lawyer or the dentist, who then charges the tram driver for their services based on private profit maximisation. That does not seem economically rational or fair to me.
Finally, I agree that tertiary education is a broadly-diffusing good thing, and if a modest level of HECS deterred tertiary entry overall, I would consider it undesirable ; but this is simply not borne out by the vast expansion of tertiary study since the Hawke Government introduced the scheme in the 1980s. I don’t support the new levels, as they seem likely to deter those who would benefit and who do not have mummy and daddy’s money to support them - and like many, I am suspicious of this Government's bona fides. But at a modest level, HECS is balanced and fair. |
Great post,
And I read it all the way through, it's amazing what happens when there is no nasty condescending canotations in a long post. It's actually interesting.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | As a species of rationality, PTID’s post certainly didn’t do it for me. A few quick examples, because a two-page refutation will bore all of us :
The fact that housing is unaffordable (a real national scandal) has no bearing on whether those who enjoy the privilege of university education should make some contribution to it or not. It’s a complete fallacy to connect the two. Fix the housing problem, rather than muddying independent issues.
The idea that providing incentives for areas of national priority amounts to a “communist curriculum” is worthy of the Tea Party. If it is true, then much of government policy is communist. Oh dear.
The idea that Arts graduates are especially qualified in “interdisciplinary connectionism” is certainly a fallacy in the UK. I’ve supervised literally hundreds of graduates over the past 15 years. In fact, the average science graduate is very capable of mounting a strong, logical argument outside his or her specific field. The average engineer can use the English language more than adequately, and usually has a sound grasp of economics and project management. The average Arts graduate is clueless about chemistry, computing or mathematics. Outstanding Arts graduates are gold dust, but at the averages, a graduate in a STEM discipline will make more interdisciplinary connections, in my experience.
In PTID's post, those who disagree apparently display “sour grapes”, “existential immaturity”, “personal bitterness”, “exploitation and abuse”, “supporting [their] interests”. This is not the material that goes with rational debate. Whatever else PTID was taught at university, he was apparently not taught that others may disagree for reasons other than moral degeneracy.
Tertiary education undoubtedly confers great benefit on the recipient, and on the wider society. That benefit to society justifies a subsidy, which – at the old HECS Level – it amply received from the public purse. However, it seems to me just, that the private benefit accruing to the graduate should be properly reflected in some contribution once their income exceeds a certain level. There is no reason why someone who was unable to benefit from tertiary education (the tram driver, say) should subsidise the entire vocational education of the lawyer or the dentist, who then charges the tram driver for their services based on private profit maximisation. That does not seem economically rational or fair to me.
Finally, I agree that tertiary education is a broadly-diffusing good thing, and if a modest level of HECS deterred tertiary entry overall, I would consider it undesirable ; but this is simply not borne out by the vast expansion of tertiary study since the Hawke Government introduced the scheme in the 1980s. I don’t support the new levels, as they seem likely to deter those who would benefit and who do not have mummy and daddy’s money to support them - and like many, I am suspicious of this Government's bona fides. But at a modest level, HECS is balanced and fair. |
Well done, I guess you must have a degree. At least you didn't get yours from the university of condescension. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | 1-2-7-8-4-5-6-3 for Holden V8s, but it varies for Cadillacs and Ferraris.
The firing order is the sequence of power delivery of each cylinder in a multi-cylinder reciprocating engine.
This is achieved by sparking of the spark plugs in a gasoline engine in the correct order, or by the sequence of fuel injection in a Diesel engine. When designing an engine, choosing an appropriate firing order is critical to minimizing vibration, to improve engine balance and achieving smooth running, for long engine fatigue life and user comfort, and heavily influences crankshaft design.
I learned this through my degree in plagiarism from the University of Wikipedia. |
I bet it won't teach you why it's misfiring. |
These days we just plug it in and let the computer tell us. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Guess you don't need apprenticeships anymore then 
Well see how that works out!
hope you like things smelly!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | Guess you don't need apprenticeships anymore then
Well see how that works out! |
Well the LNP virtually killed off TAFE colleges that supported Apprenticeships. Maybe those who made their money as blue collar workers but vote for the Lib's so their investments will be looked after should think about that next time they vote  |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | think positive wrote: | Guess you don't need apprenticeships anymore then
Well see how that works out! |
Well the LNP virtually killed off TAFE colleges that supported Apprenticeships. Maybe those who made their money as blue collar workers but vote for the Lib's so their investments will be looked after should think about that next time they vote |
I didn't vote for them
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| off TAFE colleges that supported Apprenticeships was killed? |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | 1061 wrote: | | think positive wrote: | Guess you don't need apprenticeships anymore then
Well see how that works out! |
Well the LNP virtually killed off TAFE colleges that supported Apprenticeships. Maybe those who made their money as blue collar workers but vote for the Lib's so their investments will be looked after should think about that next time they vote |
I didn't vote for them |
I don't ask people who they vote for because it's not my business. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | 1061 wrote: | | think positive wrote: | Guess you don't need apprenticeships anymore then
Well see how that works out! |
Well the LNP virtually killed off TAFE colleges that supported Apprenticeships. Maybe those who made their money as blue collar workers but vote for the Lib's so their investments will be looked after should think about that next time they vote |
I didn't vote for them |
I don't ask people who they vote for because it's not my business. |
but you make assumptions
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167 
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | 1-2-7-8-4-5-6-3 for Holden V8s, but it varies for Cadillacs and Ferraris.
The firing order is the sequence of power delivery of each cylinder in a multi-cylinder reciprocating engine.
This is achieved by sparking of the spark plugs in a gasoline engine in the correct order, or by the sequence of fuel injection in a Diesel engine. When designing an engine, choosing an appropriate firing order is critical to minimizing vibration, to improve engine balance and achieving smooth running, for long engine fatigue life and user comfort, and heavily influences crankshaft design.
I learned this through my degree in plagiarism from the University of Wikipedia. |
I bet it won't teach you why it's misfiring. |
These days we just plug it in and let the computer tell us. |
But the best mechanics are those that know what makes it tick and can diagnose from a very fundamental level. Much of the time the computer just tell you part of the story. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Member 7167 wrote: | | But the best mechanics are those that know what makes it tick and can diagnose from a very fundamental level. Much of the time the computer just tell you part of the story. |
Good mechanics have a stethoscope handy.
| think positive wrote: | | but you make assumptions |
If you say so old girl, I can't control how you read what I post just as you can't control how I read your posts. But you can always text for help. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
And I read it all the way through, it's amazing what happens when there is no nasty condescending canotations in a long post. It's actually interesting. |
Because pushing "non excellent" young people into dole queues, punishing people for improving the nation, extorting payment from powerless minorities, and winding the clock back on a successful reform process which began in 1989 are far less disturbing phenomena than condescension, that truly great social menace. (Don't you have a cloth for wiping the condensation off your side mirrors at this time of year?).
You want to see real condescension? Just take a look at what Australia is doing to its young people while it parasites off international students in order to protect old capital from new competition:
| Universities Australia wrote: | The quality, performance, competitiveness and reputation of Australia's higher education sector will be condemned to a path of inevitable decline if, in the absence of increased public investment, the Government's higher education proposals are discarded in their entirety, according to peak university body, Universities Australia.
This is the centrepiece warning of Universities Australia's submission to the Senate inquiry into the Government's Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, which was made public by the Senate Committee this afternoon.
"Against a backdrop of successive governments unable or unwilling to invest in universities and research at the level needed to keep the system strong in an increasingly intense and globally competitive environment, a new approach is required," said Belinda Robinson, Chief Executive of Universities Australia.
"With amendments to improve fairness and affordability for students, the Bill will allow universities to build more predictable and durable business models, less vulnerable to government funding instability and frequently changing policy and budget priorities," Ms Robinson said.
Australia is now in second last place amongst developed countries for the level of public investment in tertiary education (30th out of 31 OECD countries), and public investment per student has declined in real terms by 16.7 per cent between 1994 and 2012.
"Australia's university sector is approaching a crossroads. Our universities will increasingly struggle to meet the quality and performance expectations of students, and our national research capability will continue to erode, if funding remains inadequate," said Ms Robinson.
"An under-funded university system isn't serving students, it isn't serving families, and it certainly isn't serving our economy or Australia's ability to remain globally competitive. Australia can't afford to be left behind." |
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/media-releases/Inevitable-decline-in-higher-education-without-change--Submission#.VE7OKfmsVSg
That there is what real condescension, nay utter contempt, looks like.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | think positive wrote: |
And I read it all the way through, it's amazing what happens when there is no nasty condescending canotations in a long post. It's actually interesting. |
Because pushing "non excellent" young people into dole queues, punishing people for improving the nation, extorting payment from powerless minorities, and winding the clock back on a successful reform process which began in 1989 are far less disturbing phenomena than condescension, that truly great social menace. (Don't you have a cloth for wiping the condensation off your side mirrors at this time of year?).
You want to see real condescension? Just take a look at what Australia is doing to its young people while it parasites off international students in order to protect old capital from new competition:
| Universities Australia wrote: | The quality, performance, competitiveness and reputation of Australia's higher education sector will be condemned to a path of inevitable decline if, in the absence of increased public investment, the Government's higher education proposals are discarded in their entirety, according to peak university body, Universities Australia.
This is the centrepiece warning of Universities Australia's submission to the Senate inquiry into the Government's Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, which was made public by the Senate Committee this afternoon.
"Against a backdrop of successive governments unable or unwilling to invest in universities and research at the level needed to keep the system strong in an increasingly intense and globally competitive environment, a new approach is required," said Belinda Robinson, Chief Executive of Universities Australia.
"With amendments to improve fairness and affordability for students, the Bill will allow universities to build more predictable and durable business models, less vulnerable to government funding instability and frequently changing policy and budget priorities," Ms Robinson said.
Australia is now in second last place amongst developed countries for the level of public investment in tertiary education (30th out of 31 OECD countries), and public investment per student has declined in real terms by 16.7 per cent between 1994 and 2012.
"Australia's university sector is approaching a crossroads. Our universities will increasingly struggle to meet the quality and performance expectations of students, and our national research capability will continue to erode, if funding remains inadequate," said Ms Robinson.
"An under-funded university system isn't serving students, it isn't serving families, and it certainly isn't serving our economy or Australia's ability to remain globally competitive. Australia can't afford to be left behind." |
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/media-releases/Inevitable-decline-in-higher-education-without-change--Submission#.VE7OKfmsVSg
That there is what real condescension, nay utter contempt, looks like. |
don't need one, I drive a german import
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
