Angry students say they will be left with a “lifetime of debt” following Auckland University’s decision to raise its fees by 6.3 per cent next year.

A lifetime? Really?

The increase, which was approved at a meeting this week, means some domestic students will have to pay up to $1600 extra in fees, in addition to $660 in student services fees and building levies.

If fees have gone up 6.3% then how can cflunkan some students be paying $1,600 more unless their annual fees were already $25,000 a year?

Most degrees are priced at just under $5,000 a year. So a 6% increase is an extra $300 a year. For a three year degree, that is an extra $900 of debt.

The median income for a graduate is $1,055 a week, so they will be paying off the loan at around $105 a week.

So in fact this “lifetime of debt” means an extra two months paying off the student loan!

And in case the student association flunkies try and claim they mean the total level of debt, not just the additional debt, I quote from the student loans annual report:

The median repayment time for those who left study in 2006 and remained in New Zealand was three years 11 months

Maybe they mean a lifetime of debt if humans were rats and only had a life expectancy of four years!

Mr O’Connor’s approach is even more problematic. He says a lack of guilty verdicts in the District Court had shown society and criminals that insulting the police is acceptable. It has also made the police reluctant to charge people for low-level offending using the legal provisions. “Cases show that it’s something police are expected to put up with, but it shouldn’t be,” says Mr O’Connor. His response is essentially a zero-tolerance policy that would see people shouting obscenities at the police convicted for insulting behaviour.

This raises several problems. The first is that the courts are merely reflecting societal mores in their approach to such offending. Obscenities do not have the same impact as they did, say, 30 years ago. Nor are the police alone in feeling that respect for their authority has dwindled. The teaching profession, for example, suffers from the same ailment. When it applies a zero tolerance approach, it means large-scale suspensions and expulsions.

That is as misguided as a policy that would burden overloaded courts further with low-level offences against the police for little gain. Zero tolerance does not work because its inflexibility leaves no room to deal with an out-of-character indiscretion or suchlike. Its approach to minor misdeeds is also far more likely to create a climate of fear than engender respect.

I think there is some linkage between the fact that people can now call the Police c**ts to their face, and that some of those people then also go on to assault them.

The Press focuses on irrigation:

The selection of two irrigation schemes among the four winners of a competition to find projects with a long-term potential capacity to make a significant contribution to the Canterbury economy demonstrates the significance of the appropriate use of its water resource to the region.

The fact that both schemes are extremely contentious shows also how arguments over the use of the resource are unlikely to be quickly resolved.

But if the judges are right, that these schemes are among a handful in Canterbury with the capacity to generate $100 million of revenue for Canterbury within five years and $1 billion or more in revenue within 10 years, it is obviously very important that the decisions that are reached on these projects are the right ones.

There is precious little else on the economic horizon with such potential.

I should get more excited about water issues in Canterbury as I know they are important, but frankly I don’t.

The Dominion Post looks at science funding:

In short, the Government appears to have heeded OECD criticism in 2007 that the public science system was unduly fragmented, as well as Sir Peter’s advice.

Science might be finally emerging from the shadows, its non-sexy status having long been reinforced by an often scientifically ignorant public, suspicious of the work many scientists do – take, for example, widespread distrust of genetic engineering, despite the public good it might do.

Thus, science is so often in the headlines for the wrong reasons.

Not last week, though. Then, two Wellington scientists were awarded the inaugural Prime Minister’s Science Prize for their research into the multimillion-dollar field of high-temperature superconductivity.

Both work for Industrial Research.Its chief, Shaun Coffey, says public-sector investment in the scientists’ endeavour has not only been repaid in terms of their work’s contribution to the economy, it has also positioned New Zealand “at the forefront of a new industry that is set to revolutionise the way electricity is used and distributed”. He knows the challenges ahead, however.

All eyes will be on the budget, as it has been made clear this is one of the few areas to get extra funding:

The ODT looks at the proposed tertiary education reforms:

Recent Cabinet decisions relating to funding for higher education and research suggest the Government is serious about its objective of raising knowledge standards and building a solid base for public and economic benefits from progress in science.

These are not easy decisions to make from a political perspective, since if they deliver hoped-for benefits they will do so only in the longer term.

There are few votes in such policies and it is to the Government’s credit that it is not afraid to embrace long-term goals for the greater good. …

The Government is in effect offering financial incentives for institutions tied to the improving educational performance of their students, which suggests that institutions with an aspirational goal of excellence, such as Otago university, can only benefit.

The Government needs to consider adding “a little bit of interest” to student loans to ensure it has enough money to better fund universities, University of Otago vice-chancellor Sir David Skegg says.

And he is right. Of course it won’t happen, as National promised not to reverse the policy, but logically interest should be charged at least at the rate of inflation – maintaining the value of the loan in real terms.

Prof Skegg said the “massive cost” of student loans meant little money was available for other forms of tertiary funding.

Yep – that’s it for this generation. The bribe was so huge it chewed up all the disposable money. Without it, one would have a decent chance at abolishing parental means testing but that is off the table for at least a decade also.

The university council yesterday adopted a string of fee and levy increases for most students next year, and introduced a capital development levy of $50 to help fund improvements to student social facilities such as the University Union building.

Otago University Students Association (OUSA) president Edwin Darlow “somewhat reluctantly” supported the increases, which will add $190 to $600 to most Dunedin students’ bills next year.

The other student representative on the council, Simon Wilson, opposed the increases, saying they would lead to students increasing their loans.

The capital development levy was “essentially just an additional charge on students” because the university was unable to increase tuition fees beyond the level allowed by legislation, he said.

Prof Skegg agreed.

The problem is the silly fees maxima policy. The Government is controlling both the amount of funding from the Government, and the amount a university can charge in tuition fees. Of course it will end in tears – or with universities finding a way around it. It was one of the stupider policies of Labour and should not be continued by National.

National promised not to charge interest on student loans, and that promise should be respected. But it promise on the fees maxima was simply “Retain restrictions on the amount by which institutions are able to annually increase fees for publicly funded courses” which allows the Government to increase the amount institutions can charge, while still having some restrictions.

But, he says, individual policies should change over time, and one on which he will campaign is the fee maxima.

“When I put that policy in place, it was for three years. It’s now five years and it urgently needs to be changed.

I say get rid of it for all universities except Massey

The New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee yesterday called on the National Government to view universities as national “infrastructure” that was in desperate need of investment.

The committee’s primary concern was that student financial support had been put ahead of university funding.

Victoria University vice-chancellor Pat Walsh said: “Put simply, the financial interests of students have been put ahead of the universities they attend.”

Th committee said the OECD average was for 82 per cent of government funding to be devoted to institutions and 18 per cent to student financial support. But in New Zealand 58 per cent went to institutions and 42 per cent to students.

The VCs are absolutely right. But you know they are a few years too late in complaining.

While in theory this would mean taking money from student’s allowances to give to the universities, University of Auckland chancellor Hugh Fletcher said “politically that’s not a reality, is it?”

Nope.

Professor Walsh said its preferred outcome was to get $230 million to $250 million a year from Government to avoid a “zero-sum game scenario of institutions versus students.

The VCs get 0/10 for timing. I presume they have read headlines about a decade of deficits, the recession getting worse etc.

The Vice-Chancellors’ Committee said if universities were not going to get increased funding, it would need more money from fees – which is prevented for domestic students by the “fees maxima” cap.

It said New Zealand’s fees were on average cheaper than in Canada, Australia and the United States.

Education Minister Anne Tolley said National’s policy was to retain the fees maxima “so no doubt we’ll disappoint them [vice-chancellors] with that”. She said there were no great plans to change the proportion of funding to students and to universities either.

The cap on fees tertiary institutes can charge is basically a crap policy. National I suspect knows it is a crap policy but pledged to retain it as Labour would have scaremongered about higher fees if you vote National. We have an inherited legacy of bad public policy, and sadly National has ruled out sensible reform.

The motivation behind a fees cap is to keep pressure on universities to keep costs (esp staff wages) down. But this turns universities into a competition for the lowest common denominator and makes universoty councils fall guys for the Government, just as DHBs are.

The Government sets the level of government subsidy and the level of student fees, yet leaves it to the institutions to take the blame for not being able to increase wages etc.

I prefer to keep costs down in universities by that dreaded word competition. I would let universities price their courses to meet demand. Why shouldn’t Vic Uni be able to make a commerce degree more expensive than an arts degree?

And competition is not just on price, but on quality. A law degree at Vic should cost heaps more than a law degree from Waikato, as it is far more highly regarded. Students should have the choice of a cheap B class degree or a more expensive A class degree.

Now don’t get me wrong – I don’t actually want fees on average to be increasing. I’d still want incentives to keep fees down. Some of those incentives will be competition. But the other is putting the right people on university councils. The Government should get rid of price caps, but put people on Councils who will support efficency measures, and strove to keep fees low. But at the end of the day the individual universities need to be able to control both their income and expenditure and be held accountable for it. Taking away any say over income, and making them responsible for expenditure only is not a sustainable model.