Personally, I’m not surprised that NZUSA chose to focus their media release on student loans – it is there bread and butter. And, a good media release should only address one issue rather than analysing every rubbish thing that Treasury decided to put down on paper.

Personally I think the issue is less about young-old or Pakeha-Māori/PI and more about Treasury (and also the TES) focusing on picking winners, rather than investing in equitable opportunities for all potential learners.
Treasury as far as I know has no evidence to support its picks, and seems to be working on assumptions that only hold true now because Govt. is stripping apart foundation studies, pathways and opportunities for special admissions. In other words, their previous ill-conceived policy changes become the justification for their next round ill-conceived of policy changes.

Study Right was an ill-thought out policy very badly implemented. It certainly put money into administration. I would be interested to know whether it made much difference to the demographic profile of students but I suspect nobody ever researched the matter.

The new Youth Guarantee may in fact make a difference to some young people but, like Study Right, it is a policy and administrative mess. Here we are in February and TEC can’t even define a “Funded Place” with any clarity, let alone explain “Occupancy Rate” or how the EFTS-based performance measures will function, so the chances are that we will never know whether the money was well spent.

I’d suggest your main concern is that you support the rebalancing towards younger students and are using NZUSA as a proxy to make your own case. I’m agnostic on the issue as I don’t think the MOE or Treasury have fully explored the labour market effects of not supporting retraining of older people. Or indeed the probable greater likelihood that young people will go offshore after graduation. I think the argument needs more work, but I’m open to be convinced.

In terms of logic, you are arguing that the absence of a mention of the younger students issues suggests support for the policy, whereas you provide no direct evidence for that belief. I believe I have put forward some better arguments as to why the issue was not mentioned. We differ – that’s OK.

You question (am I right in saying negatively?) an organisation’s motives on something they omitted to say and unless you have further information on NZUSA which you did not include in blog … you did a Philosophy major and they specialise in Modal Logic at Victoria … . Well you get it.

Maybe, just maybe the motivation is that the Government has it right in terms of refocusing our investment and NZUSA (given its view – more to the left than the right – am i correct here?) is loathed to put out a press statement supporting the current administration. Maybe, just maybe it has nothing to do with being younger.

Is there a “stark contrast”?