A new sandpit for long side discussions, idees fixes and so on. Unless directly responding to the OP, all discussions of nuclear power, MMT and conspiracy theories should be directed to sandpits (or, if none is open, message boards).
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
@J-D
What you meant was wrong. It lacks rigor. It implies something at variance with reality.
If you tell someone with a Bachelors degree that they did not complete higher education – they may well regard this as a rude accusation.
Similarly with school leaving certificates holders.
This is up to the beholder – not the originator.
@Ikonoclast
Gawd I hope you don’t have kids. Your tanties are embarrassing. I’m not sure why the good Professor, who is your intellectual superior by many orders of magnitude, puts up with it.
@jt
A lot of your comments seem to be personal insults. Have you read this blog’s discussion policy?
Yes, jt, I was just about to pull you up on that. Absolutely no further critical remarks about other commenters (no matter how mild you perceive them to be)
To restate, existing “standards” aren’t designed to check ability to do the course. They are designed to ration a limited number of places. Unis pride themselves on boosting demand so that they can set the limit higher.
I have no problem with course prerequisites which are, of course, a standard part of the system at every level. If you don’t do well enough in your course to go on, you are held back and required to repeat it.
On another point, there has never been a general attempt to match the number of places in particular degrees to the demand for the workers in question. The one recent attempt to do that, restricting the number of doctors in the early 1990s, was a total disaster. No one has the knowledge to do this, and in any case, most people end up doing something other than what their degree name might suggest to the unwary.
Of course, back in the day, there was a clear assumption that most kids should get the minimum education, and be turfed out at the end of Year 10, rather than create an oversupply of white-collar employees or, worse still, workers with ideas above their station.
The idea that education policy should look back to the past for inspiration is both wrong and elitist.
@John Quiggin
Speaking for myself, that wasn’t at all what my initial post on the thread said. It is a mischaracterization.
In a nutshell: the point made in the OP was that privatized free-market for-profit tertiary education (the direction Australia has been taken in) was a complete failure. It was stated that, however, the answer wasn’t to go back to the “past”.
My initial question was directed at that last bit. In other words, the system we got after lots of “reform” of the system how it used to be is a failure – so if we wanted to fix the failed system at the very least going back to the way it was before the neo-liberals messed it up seems at least an improvement.
On the other hand, as JQ clarified above, it is an even better idea to skip that step and just go directly to “free” universally available unrestricted access for all to at least attempt a tertiary qualification or trade.
I don’t disagree with that, my issue was with the general idea (not just on education but every other sphere which neo-liberalism has infected deleteriously) that “we can’t go back to how it was”.
A statement that tertiary education should be fee free as it was in the Whitlam is not the same as saying everything about tertiary education should be as it was in the Whitlam era. I don’t see how that misconstruction can be placed on it. Clearly, even in the Whitlam era, Australia was still attempting to increase tertiary education intakes from a very low historical base.
“The idea that education policy should look back to the past for inspiration is both wrong and elitist.” This is only the case if you misconstrue that looking at one element and taking it as an inspiration is the same as looking back and saying absolutely everything now should be set back as it was then. Again this is a misconstruction.
I have made it patently clear I want to see a fee free tertiary system funded at or above current intake levels. I have made it patently clear I want this system to be universal (available to all citizens) with entry based solely on course pre-requisites (to use J.Q.’s terminology). I have made it patently clear that I would see funding problems (if any) overcome by progressive measures like removing fossil fuel subsidies, removing negative gearing and removing corporate welfare. I made it patently clear I was open to argument and/or persuasion on the idea of attempting to match graduate professionals to projected economic need. I accept J.Q.’s argument on that proposition.
I am not sure how much clearer I can be. How all this makes me wrong and elitist (from a left-ish democratic-soc perspective) I am at a loss to know.
@Ivor
Even if an accurate statement is rude that does not stop it from being accurate.
High school education in New South Wales consists of six years, and has done since the 1960s: I make that statement on the authority of the source I cited previously, and I haven’t seen you cite any more reliable source.
I see Dr. Karl has backed away from the flawed Intergenerational Report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/dr-karl-backs-away-from-political-intergenerational-report/6393152
I was a strident critic of Dr. Karl for promoting that report (though I voiced that criticism only on this blog site). Whatever his faults and mistakes (and we all have them), I give him credit for seeing his mistake in this case and admitting to it.
@Ikonoclast
I’ll need proof as Dr Karl is the type of person who can go into a revolving door behind you and come out in front.
Ten refugees have given up all hope of settlement in Australia, and are going to be resettled in Cambodia, given a bank account with some cash, health insurance, and some assistance in learning the language(s), and support by a case officer who will be co-located in Cambodia.
This strikes me as bizarre: if these people are of sufficient veracity to be accepted in Cambodia, and for the Australian government to provide financial and other assistance in Cambodia, then why aren’t these individuals just the kind of people Australia could safely welcome?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-16/dr-karl-donate-intergenerational-report-money-needy-schools/6396824
@Donald Oats
Because our fascist duopoly political class has decided that “they” must not be able to come here under any circumstances whatsoever.
Informed public opinion is against Australia’s treatment of refugees by the duopoly, but because we don’t have a functioning democracy we are going to get more of this.
I listened to today’s Senate Committee on the new amendments to the Immigration law which will give absolute immunity for the killing of refugees in our concentration camps.
We need to ask ourselves: “Am I doing everything I can to stop this?”
Just in case anyone wants to suggest that is hyperbole, here is the proposed amendment.
The Navy is secretly, forcefully delivering a load of refugees to Vietnam according to the ‘West Australian’.
What would happen if the ALP adopted a new and harsher anti-refugee policy involving live broadcasts of daily executions of, say, 10 refugees by machine gunning? It obviously wouldn’t affect the consciences of them or their voters.
Apparently the Abbottians are looking at blocking VPNs, the purpose being to stop those pesky people purchasing video or music content cheaper than here in Oz. The Abbottians have failed to appreciate—or simply don’t care—that VPNs are also used for very legitimate purposes, especially for keeping confidential information…confidential. Or to extend a private network out into the wild world of the internet—virtually.
The irony is that when people use a VPN to spoof their geo-location in order to purchase a movie/series they otherwise cannot get in Australia, the overseas media company complains that the Aussies are making the purchase…in…Australia; when the Australian Taxation Office finds the company has sent all its profits back to country Y, the company says that the parent company holds all the digital rights…in country Y, not in Australia, and so that’s where the buckets of digital cash are to be taxed.
This is risible: if geo-location of physical customer determines the country-of-point-of-sale, then that’s also where the income should be taxed. Unbelievable.
@Megan
That’s a good question.
I can’t think of anything I can do to stop this. Can you think of anything I can do to stop this?
If it is to be stopped it will likely be because of many different factors or actions. Protests, non-violent direct action, civil disobedience, letter writing, discussing with and alerting others of the situation, using social media etc… – different people will want to do different things, whatever the individual is capable of or willing to try.
Crazy.
What would happen if Megan adopted a new and harsher anti-refugee policy involving live broadcasts of daily executions of, say, 10 refugees by machine gunning? It obviously wouldn’t affect her conscience or sect of voters.
@Ivor
The refugee who was bashed to death was put into offshore detention in a concentration camp opened by the ALP, under an ALP policy.
The ALP doesn’t care about refugees, and in fact has a policy already which leads to their torture and deaths.
“Crazy”, indeed.
@Megan
People in prisons unfortunately are bashed to death in a wide range of detention centres, jails and etc.
As you know this is not ALP policy.
It is not a policy involving live broadscasts of daily executions
It does not involve machine gunning 10 refugees.
And to suggest that such invented events would not affect ALP consciousness is a pure:
Obscenity.
Crazy indeed.
@Ivor
Are you suggesting there is a limit to the atrocities the ALP is willing to subject refugees to?
I’ve seen no sign of it. Where do you suppose the limit is?
Megan
This sort of baiting is far too typical of this blog.
As you knew when you wrote it – obviously, the answer was and is no.
Democracy in action.
Megan
This sort of baiting is far too typical of this blog.
As you knew when you wrote it – obviously, the answer was and is no.
@Ivor
So, in your view the ALP has gone absolutely as far as it is willing to go in the cruel and inhumane treatment of refugees and will go no further.
I can’t see any basis for that view. The ALP has shown its willingness to be even crueler than the LNP previously.
Megan
This sort of baiting is far too typical of this blog.
As you knew when you wrote it – the fabricated view you tried to hang around my neck is a black-propagandist fantasy of your own creation.
@Ivor
You obviously are aware of the ALP refugee policies that relate to incarceration of refugees.
Maybe a direct question: Do you believe the ALP will alter those policies?
@Megan
This entirely depends on the strength of the ALP Left and progressives in the ALP and the various possibilities for changing mass community attitudes.
Asylum seeker policy, in Australia, is broken. Many prisoners in Australia have better facilities, and they are convicted criminals. We don’t pack 30 prisoners to a room in domicile fashion, but for asylum seekers coming by boat we rack ’em and pack ’em. Some of these people will be in these facilities for longer than some criminals in prison, and yet they are packed into what should be last resort and extremely short term accommodation, the kind you might expect for flood or bushfire victims.
Our government, and I don’t care who is in power on this, should take the asylum seeker issue and put it to a truly independent group to construct a workable policy that means we meet our international humanitarian obligations (rather than trying to legislate them away). No refoulment, no dodging our responsibilities. If the policy has some strategy for deterrence, or is a free-for-all, however that dial is set, it must not use people’s horrific misfortunes or maltreatment (in the camps) as a means of deterrence, whether deliberately or secondarily (i.e. incidentally). Surely some group of smart people can come up with something that could work and meet those minimal requirements?
@Ivor
I don’t hold any hope for anything “inside” the ALP.
“Labor For Refugees” started in 2001 in response to the ‘Tampa’ affair, and they have remained staunch ALP supporters ever since – a period during which the ALP went from being opposed to offshore detention to implementing a policy of mandatory, indefinite, offshore detention and an absolute bar on settlement in Australia.
The ALP policy is now even more cruel and inhumane than the worst treatment under Howard.
I follow this closely and I see no hope whatsoever of improvement coming from within the ALP.
To be in, or a supporter of, the ALP is to support those policies – the two things go together, they cannot be separated.
Community attitudes are correct and not in need of change. I disagree with the Coalition on 95% of issues but they have successfully stopped people trafficking and the deaths at sea that were a direct and obvious result of a pro-asylum seeker policy.
My only criticism is that we should be accepting more people who are suffering in poor countries on humanitarian grounds. But we should not privilege middle class asylum seekers over the hungry and malnutritioned.
Since 2000, over 1,500 people have died at sea while trying to get to Australia, according to the Australian Border Deaths Database. Not one asylum seeker has died at sea since the Abbott government came to power. The asylum seeker who died in PNG was not the Coalition’s fault.
Morrison and Abbott may well deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for successfully smashing the people smuggling racket and saving lives.
It would be immoral to implement the mass murder asylum seeker policies favoured by the Green Death Squads.
We have no idea how many asylum seekers have died at sea since the LNP took over.
Could be hundreds, could be thousands…the secrecy means we’ll probably never know.
@Megan
There are a range of sectarian micro-groups who sprout that line.
All their accusations, characterisations, baiting and provocations are false and self serving.
Their understanding of Marxism, capitalism and the mass movement is little and their impact so minute that they amplify their voices to compensate but to such levels of stridency that they become further isolated.
They then blame everyone but themselves.
@Ivor
Sorry, I’m not clear on that, could you say what “line” you refer to?
@Megan
How strange – you recited it…
@Ivor
OK, thanks. I had said a few things and I wasn’t clear which “line” your comment referred to.
So, you disagree with that assertion?
I want to be clear so that you don’t think I am misrepresenting your thoughts.
Are you saying that supporting the ALP is possible without supporting their policy of mandatory, indefinite, offshore detention and no settlement in Australia?
@Megan
Yes.
@Ivor
I’ve expressed this view before on this topic:
The ALP says “Can we have a cruel and inhumane refugee policy and still count on your support?” and the supporter you describe says “Yes.”
And the ALP says: “Great. Thanks. We’ll keep that policy then.”
In practice, supporting the ALP is support for the policy.
@Megan
The ALP never said:
This was deliberate political falsification.
The ALP never said:
This was a deliberate political falsification.
@Ivor
The ALP refugee policy is as I have described it.
How can you argue that supporting the ALP is possible without – in practice – supporting that policy?
@Megan
The ALP policy is not remotely as you described it.
Nothing you have said matches anything in the ALP policy.
Masses of people support the ALP.
@Ivor
The APH has a paper about the refugee policies of both duopoly parties on its website.
An extract:
Here is how I described the policy [at #87]:
Do you see that the ALP policy is exactly as I described it?
If you accept that fact, can you answer the question I asked:
“How can you argue that supporting the ALP is possible without – in practice – supporting that policy?”
@Megan
If you operated honestly then you would have been arguably correct in describing the ALP’s policy under Rudd as “mandatory, indefinite, offshore detention and no settlement in Australia”.
However your conduct was not this. You ran a dirty sectarian campaign of snide false political innuendo.
Mandatory indefinite detention only applies to some refugees.
Why did you deliberately ignore the other options in your attempted description?
@Megan
Why did you ignore the actual policy which contains at various points:
@Ivor
What confidence does Labor’s recent history give us that they will implement any of these policies? I would say none?
The first point is a cop-out. “Labor will explore options other than indefnite detention including third country resettlement to deal with refugees with adverse security assessments in a way that does not jeopardise Australia’s national security interests.”
The correct required policy is clear. Receive and process all refugees promptly and properly in Australia as per the UN conventions we are signatory to. Settle genuine refugees and repatriate those not found genuine under UN guidlines. Put in adequate resources to expedite this. It really would be very simple.
There is no need to “explore options”. That is neocon code for “We are going to drag our feet and we aren’t going to make any substantial changes on this policy. The options are already clear.
I am with Megan on this one. Labor has zero economic and moral credibility just like the LNP. Voting for either major party is voting for extreme right-wing neocon policies. One has to vote Green or Socialist if one wants to oppose neoconservatism.
@Ikonoclast
Whether ALP policy is adequate, or the extent it is implemented by departments and contracts, or legislation etc is an entirely different matter compared to the to the odious conduct of Megan.
Policy can change, practices can change, community attitudes can change.
Sectarians never do.
@Ivor
The issue was whether by supporting the ALP a person is, in practical effect, supporting the ALP refugee policy.
Do you support the ALP refugee policy (either the really existing one, or the one they say they will “explore” in the future)?