|
Mad Katter posted:This article is from the Australian, not linked for obvious reasons. A point to note is that while community colleges are cheaper, they don't give you a bachelors. After 2 years you typically get an associate degree, and then need to finish the other 2 years (4 year degrees in the US) at a private uni. I suspect a lot of the dropouts are those stuck between the two systems. I'll (probably forget to) hit up my US-educated partner for more dirt tonight.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Ricky Muir is saving the carbon tax 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Apparently Simon Sheikh, the Great Green Hope for the ACT, has just shut down a bunch of the branches of the business he owns outside the ACT, kicking out a bunch of young employees with 1-2 days notice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:34
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Captain Pissweak posted:Ricky Muir is saving the carbon tax I'll be honest, I didn't think I'd be adding him to the list of people smarter than the Coalition and with more integrity than Alan Moran, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Lol at the phrase "attempting to hold us over a moral barrel" If Tony was dropped into a moral barrel wouldn't he just bob to the top and float like any other piece of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Hooray for the American University Model! http://debtandsociety.org/publication/borrowing_against_the_future/
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Captain Pissweak posted:Ricky Muir is saving the carbon tax He's saving ARENA not the carbon tax 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Bompacho posted:If Tony was dropped into a moral barrel wouldn't he just bob to the top and float like any other piece of poo poo? A harrowing tale, if true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:He's saving ARENA not the carbon tax There was apparently a snap vote this morning and Muir held the line to not totally murder it according to Seven.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Thirty six to thirty six.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Politics are weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Politics RULES.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
As far as I know, Palmer is just holding to the idea of not axing it before the release of the senate report into it which has already had all the work done. I can not imagine why Tony would want to get rid of it before the facts are known.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Shame we couldn't get the sports party candidate as well, mircoparty outsiders make politics fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
I mean, we can overanalyse the situation all we like but really this "decision" comes down to one of two factors: Procedure or Substance. He could have voted against shutting down debate as a procedural "gently caress you" to stop the government pressuring the crossbenchers to not consider things in their own time. The senate is perfectly within their rights to do so and it's a good idea just from a reputation and power perpsective to start off this way. It could also be because he doesn't want to shut down the Carbon Tax. This would be news, as every indication since the election has been that he will vote as a bloc to remove it. Could he have had a change of heart recently? Not likely - but if he has, that would be extraordinary and completely change the dynamics of the Senate, not to mention put him offside with the PUP and automatically onside with the Greens and to a lesser extent Labor. Fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Wow. Gotta give the guy some credit. This really does seem like a principled stand based on personal ideals. I'll be interested to see how long he can hold that line in the face of political pressure in the senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:As far as I know, Palmer is just holding to the idea of not axing it before the release of the senate report into it which has already had all the work done. I can not imagine why Tony would want to get rid of it before the facts are known. Palmer told all of them to kill it now and everyone but Muir crossed the floor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
This is really amazing and I can't wait to see how the media reacts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
abc.net.au posted:South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon issued a "plea" to his fellow crossbenchers to allow debate to continue until tomorrow morning. Doesnt exactly sound like a vote to save the CT, just a vote to give him more time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
John Madigan? WTF?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/backbencher-likens-climate-change-to-science-fiction-film-plot/5583734ABC posted:One of the Prime Minister's backbenchers has likened the climate change debate to a science fiction film plot, but says "alarmist" claims are more comedic than frightening. I will forbear to comment as I have nothing to add that the article does not shout loudly while wearing a clown costume
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:John Madigan? WTF? Madigan will vote to repeal the tax, but believes really strongly in the processes and procedures of the senate. Hence opposing the gag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
ROFLBOT posted:Doesnt exactly sound like a vote to save the CT, just a vote to give him more time? It saves the CT temporarily. This is the time when we goonrush his office with flowery explosive praise for saving the carbon price and hoping that he will continue his principled and thoughtful stance for Australia's future
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
hooman posted:Madigan will vote to repeal the tax, but believes really strongly in the processes and procedures of the senate. Hence opposing the gag. I thought Madigan had said he'd changed position on the carbon price in the last couple of months? Am I just making that up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:It saves the CT temporarily. This is the time when we goonrush his office with flowery explosive praise for saving the carbon price and hoping that he will continue his principled and thoughtful stance for Australia's future Yeah someone needs to be massaging this guy's ego over this, now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Guy that throws poop more forward-thinking than entire Liberal party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Yeah someone needs to be massaging this guy's ego over this, now. Here's the link to do a quickie contact through the Parliament website: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Contact_Senator_or_Member?MPID=250024 If you're actually in his state of Victoria though, a proper letter might be worth the extra effort. I can't seem to find any postal address, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Mad Katter posted:Can someone from the States comment on the quality of these institutions and whether or not they’re comparable to the universities here in Australia? Sure. As you have no doubt surmised, the speech is essentially misleading bullshit. There's a whole lot of correlation/causation misunderstanding (no doubt deliberate) stuff going on with regard to quality and high costs. Costs are high at lots of schools because a college education is seen as an absolute necessity for success in life in the US and they realise that people are willing to go into crippling debt in order to have a chance (but only a chance!) at escaping poverty. My university has tens of billions of dollars in endowment, but tuition sticker price is around $50k a year. They don't even make most of their money from tuition fees. They charge this because they can, and people are willing to pay for the brandname. Now it is true that there is significant financial aid at my school. Anyone who's parents earn less than $60k a year don't pay tuition at all, for example. Issue is, with the way US college admissions work, there aren't a whole lot of people from a low socioeconomic status who ever get in here. For every plumbers son, there are 5 sons of senators. More than this, as I mentioned, I got to an elite university with absurd amounts of money. It can afford the generous financial aid. The reason there is still an issue is that this quote quote:To be sure, some of the better private universities in the US advertise prices of more than $40,000 a year for tuition. , while technically true, is incredibly misleading to the point that it may as well be a lie. Some of the better private universities in the US have tuition more than $40k a year. But so do really crappy private universities, most of which don't provide anywhere near the amount of financial aid as the elite universities. NYU for example, has astronomical tuition costs (around $50k), practically no financial aid, and extremely high living costs due to New York. NYU isn't really crappy, but it's pretty meh as far as private colleges go. There are significantly worse private colleges which are just as expensive (though I don't know exact tuition costs like I do for NYU; I know people who went there for undergrad). Unlike Bebbington would have you believe, massive tuition and crap all financial aid is the standard for private universities. As for the "hey, everyone goes to public universities" thing, there's a whole lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation going on there also. To begin with, Australian universities are public. So if we are to follow the American university system, shouldn't Australian universities only be the charging $9000 a year that public American universities are charging? You know, roughly the amount we currently pay?  Furthermore, this guy is lumping in community college with colleges. Community college is not university, it is the TAFE equivalent. So representing them as being equivalent is very misleading. Anyway, the $9000 thing is actually really misleading. Because public universities in the US distinguish between in-state and out-of-state students (since each state has a public university system as education is a state dependent thing), have a guess what out-of-state students pay, who make up a substantial proportion of students in public schools? Yep, that same $40,000+ a year Now this is important, because practically every public university system in every state except for California, Virginia, Texas and maybe two or three more, is complete shithouse. So students in these states essentially have no choice. A private university with $40,000+ in tuition a year, or a public university in another state with $40,000+ a year. Yes, they can go to their public state schools for much less, but they are shooting themselves in the foot in terms of future prospects (because school brand name, prestige and old boys networks matter so much in the US). This kind of stratification of colleges is something that should definitely be avoided in Australia, it's had demonstrably awful affects on the US economy and wealth disparity. What you didn't go to an Ivy league school? What are you, some kind of hobo? Ok, now for Carleton College. This is cherry picking at its finest. First, to your question about if it's comparable to universities in Australia. The answer is that no, it absolutely isn't. Carleton College is a liberal arts college that focuses on teaching rather than research, and so is a completely different beast. It's the kind of college that focuses on education for its own sake, rather than for employment (and so you won't hear the Libs using the same college as an example, assuming they had a lick of sense). In terms of it being used as an example of a "better private university"? Sketchy. While by all accounts it provides a strong education, is isn't typically thought of as being prestigious (liberal arts colleges in general aren't), which has a strong impact on graduates, it isn't difficult to get into, and very few Americans will have ever heard of the place. I assure you that the "80% of students are given on campus jobs" thing is VERY unusual. Like, no other university I have ever heard of has enough jobs for 80% of its undergrads, let alone guaranteeing them to students. In general, the speech also completely ignores one of the main problems, the growth rate of tuition. It's all well and good to point to prices now, but when costs increase 30% every 4-5 years it's not exactly a strong argument for deregulation. Of course, this was realised and so it isn't mentioned. quote:Many leave university with debts of less than $10,000 This is probably the biggest lie (but technical truth) in the whole article in terms of what it implies versus the reality. Because parents in the US have children knowing they have to put away money for their college funds. Saying that someone graduates with a debt of $10,000 means nothing if their parents saved up for 20 years and forked out $150,000 for the degree (because paying upfront is much better than paying massive amounts of interest). The cost of the degree is therefore $160,000, not $10,000 as the speech by Vice-Chancellor Asshat is implying. The US tertiary education system is hosed. It doesn't matter that the schools here provide the best education (at elite schools, for those lucky or fortunate enough to gain admission) if you leave with debt that will cripple you for the rest of your life. Arcanen fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
quote:But it needed one more vote from the micro-party crossbench, and the remaining three senators - Victoria's Senator Muir, Senator Xenophon and John Madigan from the Democratic Labour Party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:The US tertiary education system is hosed. Awesome post, thanks for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Ricky Muir and John Madigan. So basically even the lunatic fringe of Victoria is better than the other states centre right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
My wife and I are originally from the US, and did our undergrads at a state university, and everything Shakugan is pretty much dead on. Though I will say that just quoting tuition costs in the US doesn't quite get the whole picture, since a huge percentage of students also live on campus, which means additional housing and meal expenses, all of which must be paid at the beginning of each semester, which means more loans. In the case of my alma mater, these additional costs are basically equal to tuition. Running through their calculator for this year, tuition for a freshman engineering student is $8000/year, and housing/meals is another $8200/year. So without adding any additional expenses like books, that's 65k minimum for a 4-year degree. There is the option of off-campus housing like is the norm here, but in general you find the poorer the student, the more likely they're staying on-campus, since their student loans will just be increased to cover it. There's no such thing as Youth Allowance/Austudy to help pay living expenses during school, so on-campus is really their only option if they can't live at home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Here's the link to do a quickie contact through the Parliament website: Level 4, Treasury Place Melbourne, VIC, 3002
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
OPEN FOR BUSINESS! quote:The main reason for loss of confidence in June was the decline in the proportion of businesses feeling that economic conditions in Australia would improve over the next five years. This is now at its lowest level since August 2011. Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTmddS8yrds Puppet government rules with an iron rod (up it's bottom).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:This is probably the biggest lie (but technical truth) in the whole article in terms of what it implies versus the reality. I knew it seemed like a load of poo poo. Thanks so much for an awesome and informative post. I learnt a lot from this, and it confirmed many of my suspicions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Occam's razor says Muir accidentally saved the carbon tax and didn't mean to vote the way he did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
I thought I'd offer a little more insight into the current senate as well. In a "normal" situation where one of the major parties has a large majority, the power of an individual senator within a major party in vetoing or amending bills is very much diminished because of the weight of numbers. If you have 48 senators out of 72 within your side, if you cross the floor it is more out of principle than necessarily blocking the vote. In the new senate however, each of the government senators has a lot more power to have their sway, because while the government can pick off individual senators on the crossbench, it still needs to ensure unity within its own ranks. This is a lot harder to achieve when those in the government have that power but also are aware of it. Take today's votes for example. Ian McDonald crossed the floor to vote with the Greens and Labor on an amendment. The government may have stitched up enough support from the crossbench to win the vote, but that doesn't mean one of its own Senators won't just wander over and stop it too. Interestingly enough, crossing the floor is traditionally regarded as acceptable within the Coalition, whereas in Labor it's a big no-no unless there's express permission granted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Smegmatron posted:Occam's razor says Muir accidentally saved the carbon tax and didn't mean to vote the way he did. Hanlon's razor also supports this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Murodese posted:Guy that throws poop more forward-thinking than entire Liberal party. Not entire... but I'd pay more than the agreed position of the Federal Parliamentary Wing of the Party. Smegmatron posted:Occam's razor says Muir accidentally saved the carbon tax and didn't mean to vote the way he did. Procedural motions can be tricky: A vote on the motion to call a vote to repeal an act ... Ummm, yeah well I want No Carbon Tax - so I vote "nay". Wait ... what just happened? Hypation fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Smegmatron posted:Occam's razor says Muir accidentally saved the carbon tax and didn't mean to vote the way he did. He didn't saved it, he just kept the vote from being held until more debate has occurred. Meanwhile, let me tell you what enhanced screening means: quote:"They gave me a phone to speak with someone I did not know," said Nilantha, a former shop owner. "I could not understand the language and the line was also very bad. I never had an opportunity to tell them what I wanted." https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24415200/returned-sri-lanka-migrants-vent-fury-at-australia/ So here's what I want to know from shitfucks like Negligent. If you're so sure that these people are economic migrants, if you so sure they don't deserve protection and aren't real refugees, why are you so scared of properly processing their claims?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 06:00
|
|
