Tertiary Education Policy

The Million Dollar Question.

If you mean the Free Tertiary Education policy in itself. Back in 2014 the internet party put forward that instead of proposed tax cuts by national we would not cut taxes and invest the difference that we would have lost into this policy, a bit vague but that is what we had back then. Labour has actually said the same as what we did back then (i.e copying us) for this year in there working futures plan, not to mention getting there priorities wrong. Though I am hoping that we can come up with something better in terms of that question in time.

Labour Working Futures plan.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/3958/attachments/original/1454188801/Working_Futures_Plan_factsheet.pdf?1454188801

IP 2014 FTP
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dtG3Bc5r3j-8fj2Zp-BdcYqoFhz8qB9OPndPB1mIiJw/edit

Just thinking about it, If we implemented the Universal Basic Income (UBI) policy then the Universal Student Allowance (USA) may not be necessary and we would simply allow students to borrow on top of that (Whilst paying for the UBI as set out in the policy). Whats important is that students get enough that they don't have to live on 2 minute noodles and Luncheon (Though Josh Rich somehow managed to get his food costs way down somehow after talking to him on discord).

It sucks that a large portion of employers don't like taking risks with new staff. I suggested that when you go and study at a University that there be at least a 3 month work experience component to give them experience in the workforce. There was an incentive put forward that meant a person starting in the workforce could be paid less than minimum wage but there must be someway to create incentive for employers to hire without subsidizing workers or allowing them to pay less than minimum wage to them. Ill work on a theory of some sort.

Current Minimum Wage rulings

https://www.business.govt.nz/hiring-and-managing/hiring-people/minimum-pay-rules/

@colinengland I agree with you that this is a non-sense. Employers do not invest in training like they used to do. An incentive to Employers to invest in training, growing, nurturing kiwi staff would be good .. Many employers will subsidise one or two employees to gain qualifications that the comapany needs, if we can encourage more than just a few, then we are starting to pay for the idea of free education. It might mean that instead of a monetary debt there is a time bond for the person (to the sponsoring company) .. but that also equals job security. win / win ?

@daymondgoulderhorobin ... indeed it does suck. Employers, and most recruiters are conservative and risk adverse. In my experience, there is rarely a bad risk when it comes to people who like to be given opportunity. So it takes more than money incentives it takes education too.

As for work experience, I think that many people should not go to Uni until they are in their 30's and actually know what they want to do (as opposed to what their parents or teachers want them to do) they get work experience all through their 20's. Of course this is not needed for all, but certainly for the non-committal ones. This plan will conflict with child rearing years, so something to help with that would be needed.

40 years ago when I was an electronics apprentice I was taught about valves and germanium transistors. Within 2 years I was back studying silicon transistors and integrated circuits. In another 4 years I was self teaching myself computer hardware. I was lucky enough to be paid to study for qualifications in “Electronics and Computer Technology”. I was a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer when NT4 was the flavor of the month and I was Cisco certified network engineer. Today I cannot get a job in electronics because I do not have “Mechatronics” training. To gain this qualification I would need to return to study and repeat my “previous training” that now also incorporates mechatronics. I do not have the money to resit the qualification and I do not have the time to study because I HAVE to work to pay my mortgage. All of my current qualifications are worth next to zip and all jobs that suit my qualifications are now low paid. What type of occupation do you think I would be in today if I had stopped studying when I first became trade certified? Valves and Germanium transistors were VERY high tech in the day.

In America a Radiographer can earn around $800K. IBM are currently teaching Watson how to interpret radiography scans. Molemap here in NZ (https://molemap.co.nz/) already uses Watson for diagnostic purposes. It is highly accurate. People who are currently studying radiology are spending their money and time training for an occupation that will have extremely limited opportunities available when they finish their training.

As of last year computers can now be self programming and capable of generating their own code. (Sorry Colin). I have an avid interest in AI and know that it is going to have a very heavy impact on business and their staff globally. It will replace many individual’s skill sets. There is much talk of human/robot co-operation in the work place and there will be for a while. That simply reflects the current state of robotics, it will not last. We cannot look to companies to retrain their staff; they will be looking to replace them with an automated system. If they do not do that then their competitors that do will have a financial and production advantage and that they must guard against.

Our current conversation is referring to youth. They are only one small part of a much larger issue. There will be/are tens of thousands of individuals of all ages who will need to retrain. However, they have financial commitments that they cannot ignore. Then comes the question of what are they going to be retrained in and how long will that job be in existence before they need to go through more training. This assumes that all these individuals have the mental capacity to study to the level these new tasks require. There are going to be a lot of unemployed truck and taxi drivers in the very near future who were in that job because of a lack higher skills. For those who are unable to be retrained then the state will have to cover their financial costs or be happy for them to become homeless.

The statement has been made that as new technologies emerge then this creates more jobs. This is, at best, a half truth. The jobs that new technology creates are likely to be high tech; it is highly likely that it will be multi disciplinary as technology merges. It is most likely to create jobs for a few individuals who LUCKILY just happen to have the right skill set AND just happened to be in the right location at the right time. The Greek government were criticised because there are no high tech companies based there. Ask yourself what high tech product they could produce there that is not already produced for a fraction of the cost in other countries. There are thousands of young people with impressive qualifications who just want a job, any job. They are the youth of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Venezuela – the ones you see rioting in the streets.

This conversation we are having is about what colour the band aid is going to be to repair a leg that is suffering from multiple fractures. Education needs to be free for everyone. We need to be able to support individuals who have financial commitments such as a home and family to support. Even assuming that we could find the money - what are the most suitable areas of occupation to train in for a world where technology is changing daily? NZ does not have the financial capacity to do that (I do not think any country has the capacity to do that).

Today I cannot get a job in electronics because I do not have “Mechatronics” training. To gain this qualification I would need to return to study and repeat my “previous training” that now also incorporates mechatronics. I do not have the money to resit the qualification and I do not have the time to study because I HAVE to work to pay my mortgage.

That's something that I've been considering for awhile and the conclusion is that our present system is preventing the ongoing development of our people and thus preventing the ongoing development of our society and our economy. This seems to be an inherent nature of capitalism and will, eventually, bring about societal collapse.

If we want to address it then we need to address the entire system.

As of last year computers can now be self programming and capable of generating their own code. (Sorry Colin).
I already knew that but there's still going to be places for humans in getting that self programming even better - for awhile.

There are going to be a lot of unemployed truck and taxi drivers in the very near future who were in that job because of a lack higher skills.

Just because they don't have higher skills doesn't mean that they can't develop them. It may take them longer but that just means that we need to support them longer.

And I'm sure that those truck and taxi drivers would be an absolute boon to the people researching and developing self-drive vehicles - if we had anyone in NZ doing so.

I believe that we should be developing our economy so that we can produce all that we need in automated factories and shift everyone into R&D. Computers may be able to write their own code but they still can't do research.

Ask yourself what high tech product they could produce there that is not already produced for a fraction of the cost in other countries.

Ask yourself if that statement when considered in real terms (in terms of resource use) makes any sense.

When I was thinking about this stuff I was indeed more concerned about Youth at the time since I was working with the assumption that you would get a Bachelor's Degree then either continue down the academic track or go into the workforce without having to worry about going back ever again. The idea of "Credential-ism and educational inflation" seems to apply here and it is likely as you imply much worse in Technology. Perhaps in the degrees that are created there should be a component which teaches people how to adapt to new technology rather than only simply learning how to use something in itself.

There's always a fear of corporatism relying on AI and Robotics to do what they need as robots do not have wants like humans do, only what they need to run. As Colin England Mentions I agree that eventually there will be and should be a shift towards more R&D and programming roles, there are things that robots cannot do that humans can and hopefully humans won't be completely written off (reminds me of the recent Doctor Who Episode).

Going straight into work in the 20's is possible and usually comes from going into an apprenticeship or simply going all in, but with all that work experience the incentive to go and study after working for that long would theoretically disappear, plus you would be out of that academic mindset after 10+ years of not studying at an educational institution. Generally a degree is supposed to give you something to work with as well as 2-3 years to get some accomplishments behind you to improve your chances of going into the workforce and getting a career underway as many entry level careers require that degree. I always tell my students do go out and do more than just "get a degree" such as work part time or participate in groups to increase there value.

At the end of the day the job market is the competitive game and we need to balance it out so the youth have a chance against the veterans with decades of work experience behind them, perhaps by getting employers to think and value the future of the labor market as if employers do not change there values then we will have a market in the future that overall has a lower level of experience behind them (From the vets retiring), A tough sell to those who only care about short term gains.

Degree Inflation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism_and_educational_inflation

Fourth Industrial Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Industrial_Revolution

Just some simple wiki stuff to look at

This link just turned up in my Facebook stream. It is not from VP but from a site called Hubspot.
https://www.facebook.com/hubspot/videos/10155142099414394/
They are a software company that builds marketing software and strategies using AI and even they are concerned about coming changes.
Watch the video and then take some time to read through the comments left by visitors. The issues they concerned with are the ones we need to be basing policy around.

@colinsmith .. indeed that is scary and why I think that companies should be concerned with upskilling their employees. On the other hand, as individuals we do not have to stay in the same field of work all the time do we? Companies do better when they diversify, and the same would go for people. AI was supposed to make our lives easier, so why are we not working towards that? ... caring for the environment and working out a sustainable way to live. I went to a lecture recently that said the world could manage, I think, 2 or 3 billion more people and still feed them, if we organise it right. I digress from education, or do I? aren't these the things we should be valuing and educating??

I do not disagree with the motivation on what you are proposing; the problem is that I see it as simply perpetuating the situation and the level of debt people face. I agree that students are facing financial issues but they are just the more visible aspect of the situation the whole of our population is encountering. Technology advances faster and makes skills gained useless overnight,

The parents who are unable to assist their off spring generally will be in lower paid employment. That also makes them the ones who are more likely to be the ones who are made redundant. If they are unable to support their child through higher education then they are not going to be able to support themselves to get further training. There may be options for them to study if they take out student loans however they will be extremely reluctant because of their current level of debt from home mortgages / rent / car payments and similar ongoing expenses.

Individuals are going to have multiple job/skill set changes through their working lives and be retrained many times. People I have spoken with have little issue with needing to retrain them selves. The issue for them is the amount of debt they are going to encounter along with existing debts will become crippling.

Depending on there new skill levels they may not even have succeeded in paying off the previous study loan before they are forced to seek further debt.
It is much more than just helping the current batch of students.
We need to be able to teach/train all Kiwis without burdening them with the costs.

We cannot expect or mandate employers to train staff. New business will look for existing qualified staff. If existing business are automating their processes to stay competitive then what skills are they going to train the redundant staff in. (They are redundant - there is no positions for them.) If the business becomes obsolete or is forced to move overseas again what skills can they train there staff in?

I can see no upside to just focusing on one segment of society because they are currently the most visible. Helping them until they become trapped in the system is not helping them at all.

Free education should be based on need and applicability.

If there's a critical skills shortage, why are we changing immigration policy to meet it, but not changing education policy to meet it?

So I'd propose 0% interest loans for education, with pay-back being linked to demand of degree and work history:
A critical skills shortage would pay back 1 year of loans for every 1 year worked in NZ.
A "regular" skills shortage would pay back 1 year every 2 years worked in NZ.
A non-shortage area would pay back 1 year of loans every 5 years.

Note, this does not address some of the other points given, such as whether to loan on tuition and fees only, or more generous allowances for living costs.

For those, the education plan would be more closely tied with other plans.

Take for example, the transportation plan. NZTA does a very bad job of managing transportation. Because the NZTA is a political body, under the MoT Minister of Transportation. The whims of the government determine policy, not scientific means of setting speed limits, analysis of crashes by road and drivers to focus enforcement efforts on areas that need improvement, but on politically "interesting" areas.

To cut education costs for all, the NZTA should be disbanded, and replaced with the NZTI, NZ Transportation institute, and a second body called the same NZTA as before. Though now, rather than the old NTZTA setting policy based on political whims and enforcing it as well, the new NZTA will be enforcement only (building roads, managing the inspections, and other duties like that).

The NZTI would be formed in partnership with one or more universities. A neutral area, not too far from Auckland, where most of the traffic is, and let the NZTI be formed by all the universities that want to participate. The universities would then be partially funded from the transportation budget, and students would work on actual government policy when getting an education.

I'm basing this partnership based on TTI, a respected transportation institute that the NZTA (And others worldwide) cite that's located on a university campus, run like a department in the university, and funded with grants and regular funding from the government.

That same partnership idea could be used to share costs for other parts of the government as well.

And it also improves the education of the students participating.

Sort of a mix of unpaid intern, employee, and student.

There are classroom assistants in my children's school. Why isn't a local education student from uni filling that task? That would cut costs for the schools/MoE, as well as increase the in-class time for uni students, as well as improve the availability of classroom assistants/helpers.

The general idea I have of cutting the education costs is to find ways to tie education into everything else. Since almost everyone goes to uni these days, treat it like a social service program. What can students contribute? Not as employees in their off-time, but in a manner consistent with the education they are seeking to cut costs and improve the country as a whole?

Novopay is still having trouble years after the expensive and late delivery. It was contracted out to an Australian firm. It would have been much cheaper to create a CCO to "own" the delivery of Novopay, then contract out the creation of it to NZ students. They'd get real-world experience, and we'd have gotten a better product for less.

That kind of thinking is what the Internet Party should be about. Doing things differently. Doing things better.

The whims of the government determine policy, not scientific means of setting speed limits, analysis of crashes by road and drivers to focus enforcement efforts on areas that need improvement, but on politically "interesting" areas.

To a large degree that's only true because National are in power. Under the guidelines that existed before National's Roads of National Significance would never have been built because of the high benefit to cost ratio required.

That said, I believe that there's a valid case for the government to give direction but it would be a broad directive such as focussing on public transport but even that should have scientific backing.

I'm going to leave the rest of your ranting about the NZTA alone because it's off thread.

The general idea I have of cutting the education costs is to find ways to tie education into everything else. Since almost everyone goes to uni these days, treat it like a social service program. What can students contribute? Not as employees in their off-time, but in a manner consistent with the education they are seeking to cut costs and improve the country as a whole?

We used to have these things called apprenticeships which got people to learn on the job. I have a trade cert from the one I did for Telecom back when it was still government owned.

I have two points here:

1. That people can provide service while getting their education
2. That government service is a great way to build skills for the country

Instead of a CCO for Novopay I'd have a government department responsible for supplying all software that the government needs across all of it. This works as a centre for education, research for innovation and providing what the government needs specifically around software and possibly even computer hardware.

All of which can filter out into the private sector as it used to.

There are classroom assistants in my children's school. Why isn't a local education student from uni filling that task?

Because they don't have the education necessary to fulfil that role.

I think, it's a good idea.