Public Funding Mismanagement

Welcome to the day, seven past six. I've learned a lot about kids in university. Having had two attend and graduate, one still immersed in the experience as we speak. The takeouts are as follows. Generally, you go for a reason. You've got an idea of what you want to achieve. Those who don't flounder quickly. I've got many examples over the years of kids who enrolled because that's what you do. Schools too often give university as a default. It's got a snobbery about it because successful people go on to tertiary learning. Seems the wider lesson we've all learned as Jacinda Adun's next year's On Me was fatally flawed, one because funding the first year was literally a waste of money, and two. Even when it got put to the back end of study, it would seem the world hasn't changed either, and so they're scrapping it. The reality is people on a path will incur debt in the belief that whatever it is they're studying will serve them well, provide challenge and enjoyment, and hopefully pay a wage that allows them to pay back the loan and get on with their lives. Uni's always been heavily subsidized anyway, of course, on the idea that we all benefit. But I've always thought to suggest you study for anyone other than your own personal satisfaction and enhancement is farcical. So no more first year last year artificiality. The money, apparently, will be put elsewhere, or at least some of it, perhaps into the more practical side of the workforce. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the whole lot was saved. It's not like we actually have the money in the first place anyway. But the Peters argument appears to be the traits, which makes it yet another of those debates that's constantly tinkered with and never really resolved. I mean, is paying an employer to train a person any more or less wasteful or artificial than paying a university to train a doctor? I mean, we need doctors as much, if not more, than we need plumbers or engineers, both are valuable, both are in short supply. The Peter's argument will, of course, be driven by the immigration part of all of this. If we don't train who we need, we need to bring them in, and before you know it, you've got a butter to check in tsunami. It is, of course, a government, again, picking winners. And I would have thought we've already learned that lesson. Peter's other idea, if you remember, was bonding students to regions, or indeed immigrants to regions. That didn't work either. The trick here is not to repeat the past mistakes, and yet it would appear the budget is destined to include at least one. For more from the Mike Asking Breakfast, listen live to News Talks Ed B from 6 a.m. weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.