You know as well as I do that this will provide a far bigger boost to volunteer numbers than would otherwise be normal. It's nothing but a good thing for society and is entirely optional.You could always work a job part-time/full-time or casual and volunteer in your spare time. You'll probably pay off your HECs quicker and get more flexibility allowing you to volunteer somewhere you really care about.
Under Whitlam there are X university places. Hawke comes in and turns these into HECS places.
We then have X HECS places.
Howard then brings in Y DFEE places to supplement the X HECS places.
There is no extra financial pressure and to claim so is intellectual dishonest, because there's still just as many accessible places as there were under Whitlam.
I guess I'm just addressing the question in the thread title, to which I answer a definite no, and I would advise others not to participate in this scheme.It amazes me that detractors still abound.
I think most people would be happy to pay the small percentage (if any) of their income. The people who are in the higher brackets of pay are earning enough to grudgedly pay the percentage, have paid it off already, or have time much more valuable than the benefits to them.You know as well as I do that this will provide a far bigger boost to volunteer numbers than would otherwise be normal. It's nothing but a good thing for society and is entirely optional.
It amazes me that detractors still abound.
Oh don't get me wrong, DFEE places are amazing and Rudd's removal of them had zero utilitarian basis. It's 'unfair' that somebody can pay their way into university, despite the fact that DFEE's existence benefits EVERYONE.
1) When Hawke was in power he decreased funding/subsidies to tertiary education which forced universities to lower its intake due to PAYG funding systems (unlike whitlam which payed for UNI fees upfront in semester installments)
2)Rudd then PHASES OUT Y DFEE places...so every1 has to merge under the single catergory of HECS which means there are less university places for every1 which also increases financial pressure on those whose fees arnt covered under the HECS system and have to rely on Fee-help, LIKE ME (this is because with some degrees, some extra costs are incurred which arnt covered by HECS e.g. Aviation, Medicine and some Engineering degrees which must be payed upfront) that is why once DFEE and FEE-help especially are removed that many ppl that partake in these degree's will find it incredibly hard to pay the other costs. like me who has to pay 100k over 3 yrs :mad1:
no more counter claims plz..b4 this debate turns into a fight :burn:
That is what I was thinking.Well so we assume. Anything less than $20/hr isn't going to cut it amongst an apathetic youth. The opportunity cost just doesn't weigh up. You would hope that a) the 'big business' that advocated the proposal understand this and b) that Rudd listened to them.
I actually do this already and I would LOVE if the extra 8 or so hours of work I do in my week would help to eradicate my HECS debt. However I don't think I'd take up volunteer work just to pay off HECS, it's probably a lot more practical to get a paying job and pay it off that way. (and like, actually pass my degree)You could always work a job part-time/full-time or casual and volunteer in your spare time. You'll probably pay off your HECs quicker and get more flexibility allowing you to volunteer somewhere you really care about.
this is the last time im gonna post in this thread so im only gonna say this once.Oh don't get me wrong, DFEE places are amazing and Rudd's removal of them had zero utilitarian basis. It's 'unfair' that somebody can pay their way into university, despite the fact that DFEE's existence benefits EVERYONE.