University of New England
This year, it’s time for action on campuses. NTEU with NUS and CAPA will use Bluestocking Week to highlight the importance of women speaking out and sharing our stories and views.
We need to hear the stories of the women in our universities as we "cross the line" and challenge attitudes that seek to restrict women's freedom and opportunities. In short, we want to hear diverse and contemporary ‘bluestocking’ experiences.
We can create a human tapestry that describes the experiences of women who work and study in our universities, as women ‘cross the line’ and challenge attitudes that seek to restrict our freedom and opportunities.
We want to hear from all women in the university community:
- professional and general staff
Tell us your stories of the value of education and opportunity, and what you are doing to challenge the status
Crossbench senators with an ear to popular opinion could become even less co-operative when university cuts come before them, with new polling showing the Coalition’s changes are poison in voter-land.
Extensive automated phone polling across 23 federal electorates taking in all states has found cuts in federal funding and changes to allow increased fees, higher loan charges, and access to limited federal funding by non-university course providers, have not gone over well with households.Sixty-nine per cent of those polled said they opposed “significant increases in fees” and 65 per cent said they opposed a 20 per cent funding
The Federal Budget contained a number of nasty surprises for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Cuts were expected, and pre-empted to a certain degree, but when the news came through that a total of $500 million had been cut from essential Indigenous services, the shock in the community was apparent.
In particular, equity measures within Indigenous education, health and legal services have been the hardest hit and there seems little opportunity for response. In short, we have a huge fight ahead in a hostile
If any one aspect of Minister for Education Pyne’s plans for Australian higher education sends shivers down the collective spines of university staff, students and Vice-Chancellors, it is his proclamation that the United States higher education system is his inspiration.
Not surprisingly, the prospect of the Americanisation of our universities also horrifies the general public, as confirmed in the NTEU’s latest polling (see p. 22). People know about the American system from popular culture. Just think about the many plot lines that draw upon the millstone of student loans hanging over young (and not so young) professionals, tales of glorious but also terrible colleges, of the scramble to get into a decent college, abuse of scholarship systems, of university collusion with big pharma and the military industrial complex, of persecution of dissident academics, rip off for-profit outfits, bankrupt colleges and so
How often do you hear NTEU representatives mumble ‘General – oh and/or Professional staff’? For our first two decades, the NTEU had two major sections of membership – academic and general. Academics are easily identified as members of that profession and classified as such. Two unions covering academic staff in universities and colleges were part of the original merger to form the NTEU. There were also three General Staff unions covering university and associated staff, and Victorian TAFE staff who were called PACCT staff. Over time, allied sections of other unions in universities joined us along with research and other allied institutions’ staff.
Describing staff who cover many occupations with many qualifications has become more complex. Universities are favouring the term ‘Professional’, but not everyone has a professional position. There is a ‘third space’ but this is of concern to academics particularly as there is more talk of ‘unbundling’ the academic role. We asked three leading General Staff members to
The Minister for Education Christopher Pyne has dismissed modelling of the impacts of deregulating university fees and imposing real interest on student debt undertaken by the National Centre for ...
Some of the more questions frequently asked about the impacts of Christopher Pyne’s proposed changes to higher education include what impact they are likely to have on the cost of getting an Australian university degree and how this will compare to the rest of the world.
While we do not know exactly how much the cost of university degree in Australia will increases as rest of the government allowing universities and other providers offering Commonwealth supported places to charge whatever price they think the market will bear. The NTEU’s analysis of factors determining likely prices rises and what impact this will have on students is the subject of a fact sheet called How much will a uni degree cost?
The purpose of this note however, is compare how much it costs to undertake an undergraduate university degree in Australia compared to the rest of the world. In order to ensure that we are comparing universities of similar standing we have used data on university fees included in QS World University Ranking Top 500 for 2013. The data presented in Figure 1 (also see Table 1) show both the average fee charged to undergraduate students by universities in the Top 500 in each country with at least 3 universities in the top 500. It also shows range (top and bottom) of average fees charged by the different universities in each country.
On 25 March 2014 – a watershed day in the debate of freedom of speech versus the right for all Australian citizens to be protected from acts of racial discrimination – Attorney-General George Brandis announced the Government intended to repeal Sections 18.B, C, D and E from the Racial Discrimination Act (1975), replacing them with a ‘strengthened’ version.
This brought passionate pleas from many community organisations and individuals to immediately withdraw the proposal.
While it would appear that the Government is forging ahead with this move on the basis that they see fault with these sections of the Act, the explanations from the Attorney-General on why his new proposed wording would be beneficial fall far short of the existing protections in the Act.