Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 7. April 9 1979

Levett on Education Spending

Levett on Education Spending

His attack on education spending was even less cohesive, the fact that the proportion of Government spending on Education has doubled from 6% to 12% was somehow implied to mean too much was being spent on education. Then the fact that less was spent on primary than on tertiary education was brought forward as a conclusive argument against the bursary system. Of course more attention needs to be paid to primary education but not at the cost of some other aspects of education.

Drawing of a graduate receiving education debt

There was element of contradiction in Levett's arguments; on one hand he seemed to be saying it was the fault of the bursaries that there was a declining proportion of students with working class backgrounds at university and then he said that monetary considerations play a very small part in class access to universtiy. Levitt also brought up the example of a timber mill worker who suffers comparative disadvantage all his life relative to the student who is comparatively advantaged. It was difficult to know what he wanted—all timbermill workers to become students, all students to become timbermill workers or students to cry me a culpa for their comparative advantage.

Levett definitely had a point when he said that New Zealand looses a third of its Medical Graduates overseas each year, and this represents a large investment loss, but he had no reply when someone cried out that there weren't enough jobs for their here.

Levett's view of education as a commodity was not at all popular, especially as he proposed that students suffer the cost directly. It is difficult to see how such a system will promote initiative it is more likely to promote a dependence of a particular kind - on money and getting it as quickly as possible.

Levett did not take into account future contributions of students to society at all. As tax payers (if they get jobs) students do in fact return money to the system. There is a need for a serious look at Education at all levels but whatever changes are necessary should not come about at cost to the student Why Levett thinks making the lot of the students more difficult will substantially improve our economy is something only known to him.