We need more tradespeople, not academic professionals. Where are the next generation of builders, electricians, plumbers, etc? These people should be held in as high regard as accountants or lawyers. That's the problem with the education system - they convince us that kids nowadays need to get 'further education' and tertiary studies at university is the best option, but they seem to forget that doing an apprenticeship IS tertiary studies. So all the kids who didn't fit into the education mould did the trades or service jobs while those who did fit, went on to the more socially accepted professions. Now the kids who don't fit the mould get kicked to the kerb and left high and dry on benefits while we experience a serious shortage in tradespeople. Maybe we need to redefine our interpretation of 'education'. Go figure.

I currently study via distance education. The course I chose was based solely on cost of the course - SIT Zero Fees scheme. The thing is that I do not want to do the entire course - only certain sections for the practical experience it gives me one specific aspect of the course. The course is a great course - very practical and shouldn't be ditched yet under these requirements it could as I would be one of the students who do not get the full qualification.

For me, study is about getting skills. Completing a course just to get a piece of paper doesn't make sense and yet many courses are like that. Only a portion of the papers may actually be relevant to the qualification - the rest are fillers and to my view a waste of time. It's what you do with the qualification that counts.

I know of "students" who took the student loans to fund overseas trips, cars, and lifestyle. One has admitted she never intends to pay back her loan and she never intends to obtain work in NZ. Labour made it too easy to get the money. Student fees should never go to individual students but to the accredited course provider only. Channelling funding to courses which lead to graduates obtaining jobs has merit. Anything else is a "nice-to-have" qualification and in that case the student should pay from their own resources, not from my tax-payer pocket!

Charlie1 #43, I can only try to explain. Mr Joyce was quoted as suggesting it’s time for the removal of “duplication and poor quality” courses as well as moving from “funding purely on enrolments to an enrolment and results” basis. Bizarrely to some people’s minds implementation of those suggestions conjures up ideas of the removal of introductory courses within highly competitive programs of study that are designed to weed out poor candidates who ultimately will not complete those degrees. Others think that high failure rates couldn’t possibly be the result of lazy or incapable students and it’s much more likely a case of “lack of tutors” presumably rectified by further non-result producing funding. Some people who can manage to complete 5 years to a Masters level are suddenly surprised when they can’t find a job in “their chosen field”. Sadly in hind sight they don’t see a need to have educated them selves about job availably and selected a more job focused field of study but prefer to now feel quite put upon and “improperly educated on what their chosen qualification will allow them to achieve”. Other people simplistically think universities will blindly lower all standards across the board so a higher percentage of students will pass. I on the other hand think Mr. Joyce’s suggestion might just result in duplicate and poor quality qualifications being reduced and eliminated. Do taxpayers really need to be footing the bill for scuba diving certifications not only up one but down the other side of the country? It seems entirely possible to me that tying access to student funding to student achievement might eliminate those student who fail and fail from failing one more time. Surely taxpayers can expect that state funded students perform to at least a passing level at some point can’t they?

It's not just the number of qualifications on offer that's the problem. Some tertiary providers throw courses together simply to improve their income from student numbers and funding. Examining the quality of courses remaining after this 'cull' should be a priority for the government.

James#51 On what research do you base your assertion that Massey has lower standards for Education students than Massey? Really this is merely your personal opinion isn't it? And you are a graduate of ...?

@wtf #42 Department of Political Studies http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/departments/index.cfm?S=D_POLITICS

However like many jobs, you don't NEED the qualification. It's just everyone else who has them gets a massive advantage.

A lot of course providers are milking the system for money. You can get a student loan to become a scuba diving instructor for example. I've seen dive shops completely renovate and expand their facilities on two classes worth of govt funding. There's no jobs at the end of it of course - but you have a lot of fun at the tax payers expense.

Re: Kat #45

And yet, while they sit that paper 3 times and continue to pass say 75% of their papers a year the government subsidises their study costs (whether they are paying upfront or through Student Loans) and in some cases can claim a Student Allowance that they won't have to pay back. But yeah, you're right, the system is perfect as is.

Also, students who fail as you suggest are more likely to be put on Academic Probation first, giving them further opportunities to fail and waste everyone's money because at the end of the day - the University is still a business and wants their money.

I am currently completing an industry qualification that my employer pays for. If I fail a paper, I have to pay for it. I think that is fair and think that the Student Loan scheme should work in a similar manner.

As a lecturer in a tertiary institution - I can tell everyone right here and now. Individual lecturers are usually held to account for their pass/failure/retention rates (as the funding model has slowly changed over the years).

So, if I have a class where 50% of the students fail, I'm usually dragged in front of my head of school for a "please explain".

I can add - this has only happened to me once. I'm a fast learner. I have a mortgage to pay, I have a child to support. I need to keep my job, I prefer to be under the radar - I'm not interested in principles over pragmatics at the risk of being the "victim" in the next round of redundancies.

It is relatively trivial to convert a 50% failure rate to 25% failure rates. Government is off your back, student is happy they passed, head of school ticks off the end of the semester marks, lecturer remains under the radar.

I encourage people (particularly the Minister proposing such changes) to read between my lines.