It has, by all accounts, failed to achieve it's objective.
Did we see floods of people charging into lecture halls and studying at university?
No.
Did we see loads of poorer students benefit?
No.
What did it cost us, again? $2.6 billion. $350-million last year alone.
That's one and half brand new Dunedin hospitals.
This is what it got us.
No increase in participation.
230 students from poor schools were helped. That's 1.3%.
A whopping 70% of the kids who had their university fees paid for (up to $12,000 each) were from above-average socio-economic schools.
They were the wealthier kids.
Did they need it? No.
I've always backed the interest-free student loan idea. You can borrow, not stress about interest, and work hard to pay it down once you finish.
But clearly fees free was too much of a free lunch. Not enough discipline or focus.
Now the problem is Winston and national have kept this policy alive. They've just changed it to the final year of study.
The idea is this will encourage students to finish their studies.
Problem? It's not doing that either. No evidence.
So, you've got to ask, with such a high price tag, is the whole thing worth having at all?
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Perhaps some questions should be asked about the product being offered by universities?
What are those degrees actually worth?
Once the pageantry of the graduation ceremony ends comes the reality for many that those pretty little scrolls wrapped in ribbons might not open as many doors to a better life as they thought it might.
Perhaps they never really did, and universities are just peddling a dream?
I find it interesting how the author of this complains about.
"No increase in participation".
Perhaps the concept that "everyone gets a trophy" no longer appeals and the watered-down academic credentials on offer.
Fees-free was just a rort on the taxpayer, instigated initially by the neo-Marxists to garner votes from the young - just like the calls to lower the voting age. It remains only as an appeasement, because the Nats and NZF have no courage.
We can't afford it; it's not needed; and we need more people trade-qualified, rather than expanding our unemployed workforce that is already awash with fringe social science type degrees.
It makes slightly more sense than “free” GP visits … slightly 🤦♂️
It's clear to me that this was a way to get more bums on seats at university with aim of increasing government flow of money to flagging universities. Whatever the above-line fees are, the government fees subsidy is multiples of that. Similar to the 'Road to Zero' campaign to prop up favoured media - just follow the money when analysing such largesse.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.