Paul, Joyce hasn’t actually released any details. I believe that you could include some element of labour market outcomes in funding at the margin. I can’t see any insuperable reason against it. It will be complex, but what isn’t?

And a zero interest income contingent loan scheme has very little labour market impact, probably other than mildly depressing any incentive to work.

At the margins, possibly. Labour market conditions, migration, economic cycles all impact employment of grads and their salaries, I’d hope wages wasn’t the proxy. Perhaps you might set targets for employment after 6 months – this is reported in the Australian VET system – but it still seems a solution in search of a problem (what did Joyce say was the problem precisely). Perhaps, as you may not have intended to imply, this is the solution you propose to problems you have with the student loans scheme but can’t touch it politically?

Paul, Joyce hasn’t actually released any details. I believe that you could include some element of labour market outcomes in funding at the margin. I can’t see any insuperable reason against it. It will be complex, but what isn’t?

And a zero interest income contingent loan scheme has very little labour market impact, probably other than mildly depressing any incentive to work.

“He seems to imply that an institution that actually pays attention to delivering courses that might help people get ahead in life through giving them better career options is ipso facto not capable of high academic standards.”

Dr Ede has no reason for such an inference. What Dr Ryan actually said was:

“A big risk in this approach is that institutions will be encouraged to divert funding into qualifications that offer mainly short-term employment prospects for students. Meanwhile, investment will be diverted away from teaching and research in more ‘traditional’ areas which may have greater relevance to students’ long-term intellectual development and to this country’s long-term economic and social development”.

In other words, a funding system that promotes employment outcomes risks suffering from perverse consequences (just like the perverse consequences resulting from many other market interventions!) In this case Minister Joyce needs to be wary that his proposal does not unintentionally end up with institutions turning out graduates that quickly end up in short term jobs without significant long-term career prospects. Because funding is limited institutions that do take this path *may* end up doing so at the expense of other investments e.g. academic standards.

That has got nothing to do with universities vs. polytechnics or vocational vs. non-vocational courses or any of the other false dichotomies that Dr Ede sets up in his opinion piece. Rather it simply states the rather obvious truism that for every action you get an equal reaction… and *sometimes* not the reaction that was intended.