You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 09:35):More STEM students are a good thing, right? Which is why the Australian government has just used this rationale to promote its reform of higher education funding --- claiming it'd create more "job-ready" graduates --- that will actually cut funding for the STEM (and other "job-ready") disciplines, and potentially encourage universities to enrol more students whose course fees would rise under the reform.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Jun 26 2020 at 10:02):I find it difficult to fully assess the `net change in per-student funding' data in the second article you linked to, since there is no information about the current total per-student funding. Nonetheless, those numbers are utterly astounding. After the impact of climate change on Australia (land and sea) over the past five years, how do they have the gall to so utterly wreck the funding for environmental studies??
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 14:36):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
I find it difficult to fully assess the `net change in per-student funding' data in the second article you linked to, since there is no information about the current total per-student funding.
That column is the sum of the previous two to the left.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 14:40):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
Nonetheless, those numbers are utterly astounding.
Look at the "Maths" line: the increase in federal government (i.e. "Commonwealth") contribution is outweighed by the decrease in student contribution, for an overall cut in funding.
"But but but... we like maths! Look, we're giving you more money and we're making it cheaper for the students! Why are you complaining?!" :upside_down:
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 14:41):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
After the impact of climate change on Australia (land and sea) over the past five years, how do they have the gall to so utterly wreck the funding for environmental studies??
It's a very long story. You might want to put the kettle on.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 14:46):The thing is, neither the Coalition (Liberals + Nationals: think Tories, mostly) nor Labor (Labour without "u") really care that much about climate change, even though a majority of Australians profess their enthusiasm for climate action, and hence their frustration at the major political parties for their inaction.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 14:51):For the Coalition, who have been in power for most of the 21st century, they are strongly in favour of fossil fuels because Australia has a lot of good quality coal that is in demand around the world: mostly China, but India also buys it as well. There was the mining boom in the 2000s, but mining has always been a major industry for Australia. So the Coalition, being the business-friendly centre-right type, have tended to pursue policies that are friendly to mining operations.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 15:03):For Labor, I think the analysis of Jeremy GIlbert applies: they suffer from "Laborism" in the same way Labour suffers from "Labourism". When they come to power, they have always done so without an official coalition, so much so that in Australia, the word "coalition" has come to mean "the" Coalition of the Liberals and the Nationals.
When the Australian Greens became a new political force, the first instinct of Labor was to sabotage that rise. Consequently, that meant attacking the environmentalist policies of the Greens, which were perceived to cost jobs earlier on.
After the 2019 election, they have decided that green policies don't win elections, and the current Labor leader seems to be more conciliatory towards new mining projects, in an attempt to win rural voters... who're divided, incidentally, on environmental issues, because the mining agenda is in conflict with the agricultural agenda.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 15:19):However, the popular perception, thanks to the Murdoch press (which has its roots in Adelaide), is that environmental issues are the province of inner-city types. This is why, when the Deputy PM (and Nationals leader) Michael McCormack belittled the bushfire concerns late last year as "the ravings of some pure, enlightened and woke capital-city greenies", it took a concerted campaign to get people to realise that "greenies" can also be rural voters (e.g. farmers) as well. Agriculture is also another major (export) industry of Australia, but somehow the Coalition doesn't seem to care as much about the environmental impact on agriculture. I'm not sure why that's the case.
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 15:25):So, how do they have the gall? The Coalition, because they can, and they're only "listening to the voters" who'd given them the mandate during the last election; Labor, because they're still cautious from losing the election that was "theirs to lose".
(=_=) (Jun 26 2020 at 15:30):Well, not exactly. The Coalition campaign had good spin doctors (Morrison is one himself) who went on to work for Johnson's campaign. That was probably why Tony Blair came out so strongly against an early election.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Jun 26 2020 at 17:31):Rongmin Lu said:
[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
I find it difficult to fully assess the `net change in per-student funding' data in the second article you linked to, since there is no information about the current total per-student funding.
That column is the sum of the previous two to the left.
Universities will not be receiving a negative total per-student income :upside_down: the table only shows the net change.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Jun 26 2020 at 17:36):It's so depressing that governments which are elected on the basis of their stance on a handful of current issues are in charge of the full scope of legislation. :expressionless:
John Baez (Jun 26 2020 at 18:23):It's a primitive society.
John Baez (Jun 26 2020 at 18:23):Thanks for the long explanation, Rongmin.
Daniel Geisler (Jun 26 2020 at 18:49):Although it is frustrating, one needs to understand how the machinery of government operates to get desirable results. You see what the available programs are and you apply for them. I've been connected with the Dept of Ed for almost four decades and I believe they are looking for creative solutions for STEM projects. NOTE: I only speak for myself. The Dept of Ed is interested in technical vocational training. Personally I question whether these people would benefit more from a semester of CT than the standard three semesters of calculus. What this group of people has to sell is their ability to reason about systems and systems of systems.
(=_=) (Jun 27 2020 at 09:42):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
Universities will not be receiving a negative total per-student income :upside_down: the table only shows the net change.
The point was that there would be a negative net change in total per-student income, i.e. a funding cut, for most STEM courses. I'm rather confused as to why you're confused.
(=_=) (Jun 27 2020 at 09:46):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
It's so depressing that governments which are elected on the basis of their stance on a handful of current issues are in charge of the full scope of legislation. :expressionless:
That's representative democracy for you. Citizens of such regimes only get to vote on who their representatives are, not on what the policies would be.
(=_=) (Jun 27 2020 at 09:51):Daniel Geisler said:
Although it is frustrating, one needs to understand how the machinery of government operates to get desirable results. You see what the available programs are and you apply for them.
I agree, but a lot of people apply for the available programs without that understanding, which is why you get a lot of frustrated academics.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Jun 27 2020 at 10:22):Rongmin Lu said:
[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
Universities will not be receiving a negative total per-student income :upside_down: the table only shows the net change.
The point was that there would be a negative net change in total per-student income, i.e. a funding cut, for most STEM courses. I'm rather confused as to why you're confused.
I'm not confused, my point is that I have no way of knowing either the current per-student course costs or other relevant data to assess the concrete impact of these changes, which are bound to vary between courses. A net loss of 9,000 dollars per student to environmental studies is going to matter a lot more if their current income is 10,000 than if it's (to take an extreme value) 100,000. I also have no way of knowing what biases previous legislation had introduced to the relative incomes for these courses: maybe dental care degrees were already getting a disproportionate amount of funding and that disparity has just grown even more? I can't extract that kind of information from this data.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Jun 27 2020 at 10:24):It doesn't matter too much. None of those details would change the big picture of this being an attack on universities. :hurt:
(=_=) (Jun 27 2020 at 13:05):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
my point is that I have no way of knowing either the current per-student course costs or other relevant data to assess the concrete impact of these changes, which are bound to vary between courses.
Got it. Here's where you can get the document summarising the current and new funding levels.
(=_=) (Jun 27 2020 at 13:14):[Mod] Morgan Rogers said:
None of those details would change the big picture of this being an attack on universities. :hurt:
Mostly STEM departments, with the notable exception of "IT". I don't think this is the final word on it, though. Usually, if people make enough of a fuss, the government tends to back off a little. The Coalition probably still remembers how they lost to Labor over WorkChoices.