This week in feminism: Sex-neutral university fee changes decried as an 'attack on women'

[Metaphor]

Most universities in Australia are publically funded and most courses, for domestic students, are funded largely by the government, but also partly by student contributions (either upfront or delayed and a debt incurred that is paid back through the taxation system--a higher education loan called a HELP debt).

The amount of the student contribution varies with the course studied and is partly set based on the earning potential of graduates in the field. Therefore medicine, engineering, dentistry, and law students (currently) pay the highest student contribution, and arts and humanities students pay the lowest. The current system does not vary the student contribution amount according to the cost of the degree to the government. E.g. a bachelor of medicine costs the government several times more than a law degree, but the student contributions are the same.

The government recently overhauled its student contribution model to better serve what it believes to be Australia's future needs. Degrees in some STEM fields will now cost less, as well as nursing and teaching degrees. Humanities courses will cost significantly more (one estimate I've read shows that humanities students will now pay for 96% of the cost of their course, basically unsubsidised).

It goes without saying that the cost charged to students is sex-neutral. And of course it goes without saying that the changes are being decried as an 'attack on women' by the Greens party.

From The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-fee-overhaul-shown-to-leave-women-worse-off

Women account for two-thirds of the students in the university courses facing the biggest increase in fees under the Australian government’s proposed overhaul, according to new analysis by the Greens.


The government has proposed to more than double the student contributions for humanities, social sciences, media and communications courses – with yearly fees increasing from $6,804 to $14,500 – although this does not apply to current students.


According to analysis of education department data from 2018, while women make up about 58% of domestic bachelor students across the board, they represent about 67% students in these heavily affected fields of humanities, social sciences, media and communications.


The Greens also have calculated that if the same number of female full-time equivalent students enrolled in these particular fields in 2018 (80,516) were now subject to the Coalition’s new fee structure, they would be saddled with a collective total of $1.86bn in additional debt over the course of a three-year degree.


While the analysis does not give a full picture of the impact of the university overhaul – given some other fields of study face more modest fee increases and other areas such as teaching and nursing are subject to fee cuts – it does highlight the disproportionate impact on women of the large fee increases in humanities, social sciences, media and communications.
Greens senator and education spokesperson Mehreen Faruqi said the analysis by her office showed the government’s plan was “a travesty” and “a disgraceful attack on women as they suffer the worst impacts of the pandemic”.

“Doubling the cost of humanities and communications degrees is not just unfair and illogical, it is an anti-women move,” she said. “It will push women further into debt and lead to more long-term financial insecurity for them.”

Note that Faruqi does not say why it is unfair and illogical--she asserts only that it is so.

Faruqi said more people would want to study from next year as the Covid recession carried on and “the last thing we should be doing is burdening them with billions more in debt”.
The increase in student fees for the humanities was one part of sweeping changes unveiled by the Coalition earlier this month.

...



The Greens argued that their estimate of the number and proportion of women affected by the fee increases in humanities and communications was conservative, because the analysis was based on full-time-equivalent student numbers.
Because women were more likely to study part time than men, the raw number affected was likely to be higher. In addition, an overall increase in domestic student numbers next year due to the recession and the “baby bump” linked to Peter Costello’s baby bonus scheme in the early 2000s.

And from SMH: https://www.smh.com.au/business/wor...ars-more-for-uni-courses-20200622-p5553n.html

As a former trade commissioner and mother of three daughters, Elena Kirillova is concerned that the increase in fees for humanities courses will have a disproportionate impact on career options for women.


Her concerns come as new analysis by Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre shows that young women can expect to pay an extra $498 million each year towards their education, and young men an additional $339 million under the changes.


The federal government has announced a plan to more than double university fees for humanities subjects and reduce them for science subjects. Education Minister Dan Tehan says the government wants students to think about choosing university subjects that would boost their employment prospects.


With the benefit of a free education, Ms Kirillova graduated with a law degree from the University of Sydney in 1984. Ten years later she became one of the youngest female law partners in London.


"If STEM was the only affordable university option for me, my 18-year-old self would probably have not gone to university," she says.

Note the multiple hidden assumptions as well as deceit here: Kirillova expects us to accept that only STEM subjects are now "affordable", that her imagined counterfactual is relevant to public policy, and she is silent on the large reduction in fees to nursing and teaching students, the majority of whom are women.

Girls who did not choose STEM subjects for Years 11 and 12 looking to start university in 2021 may now face limited options.

A lie. They face the same options as before. Also, boys who did not choose STEM subjects for years 11 and 12 would face the same "limited options".

"Unless they are able to rely on the on-going financial goodwill of their parents, they are now limited to the few affordable options,

This, if true, also applies to boys, but it isn't true. Australia pioneered income-dependent debt repayment through the taxation system. Nobody has to pay university fees up front.

steered towards gender stereotypical choices of nursing, teaching and psychology," Ms Kirillova says. "One of my daughters, half-way through a history and international relations degree, feels dispirited now."

The federal government says no current student will pay increased fees. Fees will be frozen for students enrolled in courses where costs are going up.

Why is her daughter 'dispirited'? Her degree will be grandfathered in under the old fee system.

Associate Professor Rebecca Cassells, principal research fellow at Curtin University's Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, who has analysed the impact of the government's proposed changes to student and Commonwealth contributions, said the average additional cost for a female student would be $5405 compared to average savings of $2404. Average annual additional costs for men would be $4755 compared to average savings of $2158.


"While a greater number of women and men attract savings, the overall impact of the proposed changes is that both genders will be worse off due to the size of the additional costs students will now face. And women lose out by a greater margin than men," she said.

No. Individuals of either sex enrolled in the same courses will pay the same as each other.

"Combining the proposed student contribution costs and savings, we can see that overall, young women will be paying an additional $498 million each year towards their education, and young men an additional $339 million if the current education patterns and costs remain the same."

Women make up 58 per cent of university students, so of course women as a group will pay more in total. In feminist utopia, it would be even more unfair to women if 100 per cent of graduates were women--then women would be carrying 100 per cent of the university debt!!

Young women were more likely to make the decision to go on to university than young men, but receive lower returns from university education than men.


"Women with a humanities degree will earn around $1.11 million less than their male peers over their lifetime," Associate Professor Cassells said.

That's because women work less over their lifetimes.

Associate Professor Cassells said funding from both student and Commonwealth contributions would be closer to the median cost for most courses. But student contributions would increase substantially for a number of courses including law, economics, history, sociology and philosophy.


She said the increase in student contributions for society and culture would be $7696 each year – the highest dollar value increase. This field has the largest number of domestic student enrolments – around 210,000 students.


"Here, women make up two-thirds of enrolments," Associate Professor Cassells said. "Other disciplines with high female enrolment include nursing and clinical psychology, both have more than 80 per cent women, and both have seen a decrease in student contributions overall with greater government support."

Note that the decrease in fees for nursing and psychology is mentioned by Cassells, but Kirillova doesn't care where women are paying less:

Ms Kirillova fears the proposed government overhaul of university fees will mean that university education will no longer be universal. She is concerned it will be vocational and affordable for those with an aptitude for sciences, but expensive for those wishing to pursue history and social sciences.


During her time working for Austrade, Ms Kirillova, who lives in Sydney, says she was privileged to work with some of Australia’s finest diplomats, navigating geopolitical issues often in hostile environments.


"Many are historians, and a significant minority are women," she says. "I did not come across any with STEM backgrounds.

And not many scientists have a diplomacy background. What's her point? That the extremely pampered and prestigious role of being a diplomat will require a greater investment by the people benefiting from the role? Or is her point that diplomacy roles discriminate against STEM graduates?

"In this complex world, will we be well served by diplomats who have no understanding of the culture and history of our allies, and more importantly, our adversaries?"

...seriously?

Marian Baird, professor of gender and employment relations at the University of Sydney Business School said any increase in university fees would affect women because they represented 58 per cent of tertiary enrolments. The majority of enrolments in teaching and nursing were women.


"The more important issue is whether there will actually be decent jobs – properly paid – at the end of the degree," she said. "I think that’s where there is a real price signal.


"The danger is that only those who can afford to pay more for the higher cost degrees will undertake them, thus leading to more segmentation in the workforce and more of a gender pay gap later."


Under the federal government changes, the cost of humanities and communications courses will more than double from $6804 to $14,500 from next year. The cost of a law degree will increase by 28 per cent from $11,155 to $14,500 a year.


Teaching and nursing courses will be among those that drop by more than 46 per cent to around $3700 a year. Fees for science, health, architecture, environmental science, IT and engineering courses will be reduced by 20 per cent to about $7700.

Associate Professor Cassells said a number of subjects would be either better or worse off. The largest additional student costs would come from society and culture where women make up around two-thirds of total students. Women studying subjects in this field including economics, law, philosophy and history will now be paying an additional $1 billion each year and covering 96 per cent of their course costs instead of 45 per cent.


"This is by far the highest student contribution," she said.

Note that under the current system, women are far less likely to pay back their student debt than men. That's because women choose lower-paying fields and work less during their lifetimes. And, because of the way HELP debts are set up in Australia, if you have not paid back your debt at the time of your death, it doesn't come out of your estate either.

In other words, men--who pay the lion's share of income tax--are already paying for women's university debts. But a sex-neutral increase in certain subjects combined with a sex-neutral decrease in others?

That's an attack on women.

 

[Trausti]

Hurray for Australia.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How far out of your way do you need to seek out these criticisms? I looked online and there seemed to be complaints along the line of defunding of STEM degrees which flies in the face of allegedly making it cheaper.

 

[Toni]

Australia has a bachelor of medicine degree?? Da fuck you say.

Also the absolute best and most fair way to pay for higher education is to make it all free to all students who qualify and wish to attend.

 

[Toni]

How far out of your way do you need to seek out these criticisms? I looked online and there seemed to be complaints along the line of defunding of STEM degrees which flies in the face of allegedly making it cheaper.

So Australia is trying to race us to the bottom?


Too fucking late. We already have had 25 years of Rupert Murdoch’s dumbing down of America so there’s a heard start for us. Getting rid of. Murdich was a genius idea for Australia. I cannot imagine why you’d ever want to follow us down that rabbit hole..

 

[laughing dog]

Australia has a bachelor of medicine degree?? Da fuck you say.

According to  Bachelor_of_Medicine,_Bachelor_of_Surgery, it is the degree physicians receive in UK based university systems. It is basically the same as the US's Doctor of Medicine.

 

[Metaphor]

How far out of your way do you need to seek out these criticisms?

I don't consider "reading the mainstream press" to be 'far out' but perhaps the mainstream press is far out.

The Greens are the third party in Australia's two party system, but the left has a significant overrepresentation in Australia's press. For example, I have read (but not confirmed) that nearly half of ABC (Australia's nationally funded news organisation) journalists voted for a Greens party candidate, in a country where Greens candidates get less than 10% of the national vote.

I looked online and there seemed to be complaints along the line of defunding of STEM degrees which flies in the face of allegedly making it cheaper.

Students must pay part of the cost of their degree (the 'student contribution' part), and it is this part that the government has reduced. This may mean an increase, decrease or no movement on the fees government pays directly to universities for each student.

 

[Metaphor]

Australia has a bachelor of medicine degree?? Da fuck you say.

laughing dog has pointed out the equivalency of an MBBS in Australia with a medical degree in other countries. MBBS graduates in Australia are medical doctors and use the title 'doctor'.

Also the absolute best and most fair way to pay for higher education is to make it all free to all students who qualify and wish to attend.

That doesn't address whether the criticisms based on sex are valid.

I don't believe higher education should be free. Some people will never go to university nor do they need to. For the people who do qualify and do go, they benefit the most from that education and they should contribute towards it.

Australia pioneered an excellent system of interest-free loans, repaid like a progressive income tax via the taxation system.

I was the first in my family to go to university, and I am grateful for the opportunities I was given. My HELP debt (now fully repaid) was a small contribution compared to the massive contribution of the Australian taxpayer.

 

[J842P]

Australia has a bachelor of medicine degree?? Da fuck you say.

Also the absolute best and most fair way to pay for higher education is to make it all free to all students who qualify and wish to attend.

Yeah, in a lot of countries, medicine is something that you start at bachelor's degree level, and it will take something like 6 years total instead of the 8 years that is typical in the US (4 year bachelors and 4 years medical school).

Not exactly sure how the equivalent of residency works.

 

[Toni]

Australia has a bachelor of medicine degree?? Da fuck you say.

laughing dog has pointed out the equivalency of an MBBS in Australia with a medical degree in other countries. MBBS graduates in Australia are medical doctors and use the title 'doctor'.

OK, but after my post, I checked and what I read was that a premed medicine major was followed by 4 years of medical school and internship and perhaps other training for specialties.

The only countries I knew of who did medical school as basically an extended college degree (I'm simplifying here, not trying to insult but it's really late here) were...third world countries. Which Australia certainly is not.

Also the absolute best and most fair way to pay for higher education is to make it all free to all students who qualify and wish to attend.

That doesn't address whether the criticisms based on sex are valid.

It makes any such discrimination, real or perceived moot. Which is better.

I don't believe higher education should be free. Some people will never go to university nor do they need to. For the people who do qualify and do go, they benefit the most from that education and they should contribute towards it.

I agree that not all people should or need to go to university. I disagree that the people who do earn degrees benefit the most from those degrees. Society benefits from having doctors and nurses and lawyers and engineers and teachers, etc. and also benefits from having plumbers and electricians and chefs and mechanics and hair dressers, etc.

I think education should be free in order to allow everyone to reach their highest potential. Too many poor or middle class students are not able to afford to go to university--at least in the US and student debt is crippling recent graduates and holding them back from purchasing homes, forming families of their own, etc. Society benefits from all of those activities. Society should finance the foundations of those activities: education and health care for all. Access to decent housing for all. Safety for all.

Australia pioneered an excellent system of interest-free loans, repaid like a progressive income tax via the taxation system.

That is a step above the US but I suspect still prices a lot of very bright but economically disadvantaged hopefuls out of the education marketplace---to the detriment of all.

I was the first in my family to go to university, and I am grateful for the opportunities I was given. My HELP debt (now fully repaid) was a small contribution compared to the massive contribution of the Australian taxpayer.

I was able to go to university through merit scholarships (as opposed to needs scholarships which are harder to come by) and my husband had only a tiny amount of student debt. We sacrificed a lot to help our kids go to university debt free (academic scholarships are fairly rare nowadays) but too many parents do not fully realize just how much of a burden student loans will be on their kids once they graduate. I didn't care about having more 'stuff.' I cared about my kids having the best shot possible at the life they wanted and did not want to see them crippled by the cost of an education. I'm seriously talking about the cost of a house worth of student debt. It's unconscionable, imo.

 

[Metaphor]

OK, but after my post, I checked and what I read was that a premed medicine major was followed by 4 years of medical school and internship and perhaps other training for specialties.

America is not the world. Indeed, most bachelor degrees in Australia are only three years in length--not four.

Students who come straight out of high school can do a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery which usually takes six years. After that they graduate and become medical 'interns'.

Some medical schools in Australia are 'graduate' medical schools that require a bachelor degree, take four years, and award an MD.

I agree that not all people should or need to go to university. I disagree that the people who do earn degrees benefit the most from those degrees.

Of course they benefit the most. They obtain the intellectual capital from the degree, not anybody else.

Society benefits from having doctors and nurses and lawyers and engineers and teachers, etc.

Actually, I don't know how much society has benefited from some degrees. Law degrees are demanding but most law graduates do not use their degrees (in the sense that they do not go on to practise law). Some arts degrees confer almost no useful skills.

I think education should be free in order to allow everyone to reach their highest potential. Too many poor or middle class students are not able to afford to go to university--at least in the US and student debt is crippling recent graduates and holding them back from purchasing homes, forming families of their own, etc.

If I had to pay up-front for my degree, I could never have afforded it. But I didn't have to do that.

I was in debt after my degree, but the Australian taxpayer had still paid for most of my degree.

That is a step above the US but I suspect still prices a lot of very bright but economically disadvantaged hopefuls out of the education marketplace---to the detriment of all.

You 'suspect' it but you have no evidence of it. My family was working class but Australia's system allowed me to go to university. Indeed, I never had any doubt that that's where I belonged.

I was able to go to university through merit scholarships (as opposed to needs scholarships which are harder to come by) and my husband had only a tiny amount of student debt. We sacrificed a lot to help our kids go to university debt free (academic scholarships are fairly rare nowadays) but too many parents do not fully realize just how much of a burden student loans will be on their kids once they graduate. I didn't care about having more 'stuff.' I cared about my kids having the best shot possible at the life they wanted and did not want to see them crippled by the cost of an education. I'm seriously talking about the cost of a house worth of student debt. It's unconscionable, imo.

What may be unconscionable is the ever-inflating cost of a degree, and the solution is not for the government to pay it all (which would only inflate costs further still) but to impose some budget discipline on universities themselves. The cost of education has exploded not because it is harder to teach students, but because of the explosion in non-teaching administrators who add no academic value to anything.

And for some degrees - let's say a Bachelor of Arts with a major in "Gender Studies", the debt is crippling because the job prospects from it are virtually nil. Such degrees confer almost no benefit to society. They don't turn out critical thinkers (unlike say a philosophy degree, which is similarly 'non-vocational' but nevertheless teaches people how to think).

 

[bigfield]

The government's real motivation is to cut funding to university students overall, and they've found a convenient scapegoat in the humanities, which lots of people think are useless.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tem-science-maths-nursing-teaching-humanities

The policy effectively reduces the overall government contribution to degrees from 58% to 52%, with student contributions lifting from 42% to 48% to pay for more places without extra government funding.

 

[bigfield]

That is a step above the US but I suspect still prices a lot of very bright but economically disadvantaged hopefuls out of the education marketplace---to the detriment of all.

Australia's higher education loans are only repayable when the loan recipient's taxable income passes a threshold that's slightly below the median adult income, and even then the repayments start out fairly small. It's basically a "pay it back when you can" loan.

 

[ruby sparks]

Imo, the OP is spot on. The criticisms on gender discrimination grounds seem daft. This sort of thing is indeed, imo, one of the recurring problems with feminism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The government's real motivation is to cut funding to university students overall, and they've found a convenient scapegoat in the humanities, which lots of people think are useless.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tem-science-maths-nursing-teaching-humanities

The policy effectively reduces the overall government contribution to degrees from 58% to 52%, with student contributions lifting from 42% to 48% to pay for more places without extra government funding.

And in the article I read, it seemed like STEM was being cut too! So Metaphor seemed to take one article out of a sea of articles about other more important things regarding the college funding program in Australia to whine about women with little influence again.

 

[Metaphor]

The government's real motivation is to cut funding to university students overall, and they've found a convenient scapegoat in the humanities, which lots of people think are useless.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tem-science-maths-nursing-teaching-humanities

The policy effectively reduces the overall government contribution to degrees from 58% to 52%, with student contributions lifting from 42% to 48% to pay for more places without extra government funding.

And in the article I read, it seemed like STEM was being cut too! So Metaphor seemed to take one article out of a sea of articles about other more important things regarding the college funding program in Australia to whine about women with little influence again.

University funding, not 'college' funding. America is not the world.

What you regard as 'more important' is not my barometer for what I post.

Also, in what sense does having purchase on mainstream media equal 'little influence'? Do you consider a senator to have 'little influence'? Do you consider a director of the Women and Work Research Group and professor of gender and employment relations at the University of Sydney Business School 'little influence'? Principal research fellow at a business school?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And in the article I read, it seemed like STEM was being cut too! So Metaphor seemed to take one article out of a sea of articles about other more important things regarding the college funding program in Australia to whine about women with little influence again.

University funding, not 'college' funding. America is not the world.

Yes, because that is what matters in this discussion, but really that you need to resort to a pedantic retort implies little else.

What you regard as 'more important' is not my barometer for what I post.

Well yeah, that was the point. You continue to post about people in the fringes and their fringe comments as if they run Australia.
*Australia under funding secondary schooling*

Almost all people: What?! Why are they underfunding secondary schooling.
Person to the side: Sexism!!!
Metaphor: How stupid are feminists?! They think cutting funding to humanity courses is sexist.

Also, in what sense does having purchase on mainstream media equal 'little influence'? Do you consider a senator to have 'little influence'? Do you consider a director of the Women and Work Research Group and professor of gender and employment relations at the University of Sydney Business School 'little influence'? Principal research fellow at a business school?

I consider influence to be what is capable of influencing laws and regulations.

 

[laughing dog]

I appreciate how dramatically raising the expense of attending university would spark outbursts of rationality and irrationality I appreciate how a policy that does not reference gender or sex may have a de facto disparate effect on groups.

I understand that there is a depressingly growing misplaced focus on the market value of a job as the indicator of the worth or social value of that job. Which helps drive a significant group of people to ignorantly dismiss the value of a liberal arts degree.

I also find it a bit fascinating that the very same market proponents approve the decision of a non-market entity's judgment as to what will be valuable or important in the future.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, because that is what matters in this discussion, but really that you need to resort to a pedantic retort implies little else.

Actually, it does matter. College in Australia does not refer to university, and always refers to secondary education. America is not the world and your easy northern America privilege is showing.

Well yeah, that was the point. You continue to post about people in the fringes and their fringe comments as if they run Australia.

I'll post about what I post about and you'll just have to deal with it, luv.

*Australia under funding secondary schooling*

Almost all people: What?! Why are they underfunding secondary schooling.
Person to the side: Sexism!!!
Metaphor: How stupid are feminists?! They think cutting funding to humanity courses is sexist.

I'll post about what I post about and you'll just have to deal with it, luv.

I consider influence to be what is capable of influencing laws and regulations.

All people are capable of doing that. People already in government - like the Greens SENATOR - can actually do it DIRECTLY.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, there's a pretty clear answer here: fuck the crybabies.

They don't represent me. They don't represent you, either.

They can get hurt by that policy. If they wish, they can seek to repair this through a scholarship. Maybe men can opt to give up their balance of benefit and pay more so women can pay less again.

There's another great answer here: free access to higher education, for two to four years, depending on grades and scholarship programs as exist to create more diverse representation in education, with opportunities to borrow future education for graduate programs.

Maybe it delays entry into the job market. Maybe little to nothing changes and you didn't suggest an effective solution so why did you complain? The people complaining in the OP didn't either, from the looks of it. There is a lot of complaining without offering even potentially effective solutions here.

You live in Australia, Metaphor, you can call for effective change from your elected representatives, right? If you can't, why is that? Are they conservatives you helped elect?