probably old as hell but I thought it was funny
What's funny about it?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
What's funny about it?
Is it really? Or is this wholly dependant on course? Not sure it was considerably less.
I remember doing 4 subs x (3x1hr lectures + 1x1hr tute) + at least 2 of those subs would have 3 hr pracs per week. Adds up pretty quick.
Full time study in theory is considerably more than that in theory. Students may do less hours, but contact hours are not the only hours you will be studying.
As I said in theory. Outside class depends on a lot of factors, like the kind of course and the individual.
Certainly I've cruised through subjects with little outside study beyond exam prep. And then with others weekends being totally taken up by study.
Aarglefarg
Member
They have me doing 16.25 hours a week WftD for 12 months a year.
845 hours a year instead of 650 hours.
845 hours a year instead of 650 hours.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Question: What are the actual numbers of long term unemployed in this country? Are we talking thousands of people? Ten of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? I'm not talking about someone who got made redundant from their factory job six months ago and has had a hard time finding a new gig, but a full-on, given-up-on-life intergenerational, unrepentant dole bludger who surfs every day he isn't huffing paint or getting multiple girls teen-pregnant.
I just want to get a sense of the scale of the problem and the actual drag this has on the rest of the economy. If conservatives get so riled up about giving these people money, surely the effect the transfers have has to be significant, right? They cannot surely be so ardently punitive about this sort of thing if the actual size of the problem were negligible.
I just want to get a sense of the scale of the problem and the actual drag this has on the rest of the economy. If conservatives get so riled up about giving these people money, surely the effect the transfers have has to be significant, right? They cannot surely be so ardently punitive about this sort of thing if the actual size of the problem were negligible.
Elaugaufein
Member
Full Time Study is theoretically defined as (at least) 30 hours per week* during program time (which is (13*2=)26 weeks of course time + (2*1) 2 Study Weeks + (2*2) 4 weeks of exams , so 32 weeks a year, which works out as 960 hours / year ) .
*Its 30 CP per semester. And 1 CP is supposed to represent one hour of time per week to Pass the course for an average student.
Most full time study will actually be ~40 CP because you won't get through the courses in the time allotted otherwise. If you're doing a double degree or extra majors you may be doing 50 at times (though you need to get special permission to do 50 or more). 60 is the maximum that most university will let you do.
But all of the above is less meaningful than it seems because the CP value of courses is frequently adjusted to fit the 30-40 CP alllocated per semester. Micro-Electronic Engineering for example is full of 5 CP courses in first year, that frequently have more than 5 hours of contact time between Lectures/Tutes/Labs and still require additionals study, so someone in that degree doing "30 CP" is really doing 40+ in other courses.
*Its 30 CP per semester. And 1 CP is supposed to represent one hour of time per week to Pass the course for an average student.
Most full time study will actually be ~40 CP because you won't get through the courses in the time allotted otherwise. If you're doing a double degree or extra majors you may be doing 50 at times (though you need to get special permission to do 50 or more). 60 is the maximum that most university will let you do.
But all of the above is less meaningful than it seems because the CP value of courses is frequently adjusted to fit the 30-40 CP alllocated per semester. Micro-Electronic Engineering for example is full of 5 CP courses in first year, that frequently have more than 5 hours of contact time between Lectures/Tutes/Labs and still require additionals study, so someone in that degree doing "30 CP" is really doing 40+ in other courses.
Elaugaufein
Member
Those people aren't actually considered unemployed (because it would demonstrate how high the unemployment rate really is and that would be politically toxic). The figure you're looking for is called the participation rate, which is the percent of the populous of working age who are actually in the employment market (ie looking for work or employed). The participation rate hangs around 65% , so ~35% of people aren't in the market for some reason or another. These aren't all "bludgers", some are independently wealthy , some are unemployed for tax / legal reasons (like NDAs that prohibit working for a competitor or being someone who's "career" is being a criminal) , some are retirees, some are students, many have gone so long without being able to find work they fall into this category (to hide the level of unemployment).
To get the number you're looking for you'd need to work out how many people of working age (16 and over) are in the other categories and subtract them (students should be relatively easy because Secondary ,University and TAFE enrolment numbers are public record), retirees can probably be approximated via the government concessions that most of them get some form of (Senior's Card , Pension, etc). The others would be really hard to get good measures of.
Edit - I should explicitly note that many people in these categories aren't eligible for the benefits discussed (eg full time students can't claim the dole, nor can retirees, etc)
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Wait a minute - What kind of shady accounting is this? How many people just fall off the wagon like that? What's the cut off? Unemployed for more than a year? What is the actual unemployment rate then? That's the percentage of the population who want to work that isn't?
Elaugaufein
Member
The unemployment rate is the percentage of the participation rate that is unemployed (so people who are actively looking for work). Once people have been unemployed so long they give up they drop out of the unemployment rate and a lot of the student pool would probably prefer to be working but see study as a "safer" option. I'm not sure how they define the cutoff for "given up", in America its after a certain period out of work (but their social safety net cuts off at that point), not sure how we handle it since our safety nets are generally less crap .
You want the underemployment rate then.
http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/underemployment-estimates
Then if you want to see people who want to work (but can't get more hours, or just can't find a job) combine with the unemployment rate.
And yes, it's pretty bad - it's actually HIGHER than in '08.
Feb's result alone is 20.3%!
Whole of '08 didn't exceed 14%.
But that's Roy Morgan's calucation not the ABS btw.
It is officially defined as someone who
-has worked for less than 1 hour a week.
-is part of the labour force (over a certain age and not a student or disabled etc)
-has looked for work within the last 4 weeks
D.Lo
Member
Yep, a pure bullshit statistic. Borderline fraudulent definition.
It's one of the things I prefer about Roy Morgan, which only has two basis for being considered unemployed.
-Are you out of work?
-Are you looking for work?
Simple and accurate.
So is Paul Keating going to be expelled as well for agreeing with Ferguson or is the ALP just looking for a scapegoat?
I would say a core tenet of any center left party should be "natural monopolies must be publicly owned" so I would have no problem expelling both Keating and Ferguson for that. We're talking about the center right ALP though, so yeah, scapegoat.
My own view is that giving Ferguson the arse has been a long time coming, hence why they are thinking about kicking him out now. Hell is should have been booted when he endorsed IR deregulation.
The NSW thing is just an excuse.
I really don't think booting Keating is fair or even good politics. Dude is responsible for many key reforms and is one of the most forward thinking PM's ever.
Martin Ferguson is nothing but a shit kicker for the oil and gas lobby.
The NSW thing is just an excuse.
I really don't think booting Keating is fair or even good politics. Dude is responsible for many key reforms and is one of the most forward thinking PM's ever.
Martin Ferguson is nothing but a shit kicker for the oil and gas lobby.
Keating or Fergusson?
Ferguson, they're basically saying they're kicking him out because he disagrees.
Being a shit kicker for the oil and gas lobby doesn't sound like individual thought and expression to me.
Surely it depends on the depth of the disagreement right? I don't have any insight into this specific example, but if someone's not in with the aims/tenants of a group than naturally they're not going to be considered part of the group, right? A political party isn't just accept whoever comes your way, theoretically at least they're supposed to have common ideals...
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious :T
What's wrong with that? If the Arksy Libertarian Front had a member who wished to seize the means the production and turn it over to the state, I think you'd be justified in kicking him out.
manipulate
Member
What do you think?
It's just one or two issues that he disagrees with, it's not like he's done an ideological about face. Not to mention the issues he disagrees with has a few other labour legends who think the same way he does.
For example, on the poles and wires fiasco we had Ferguson, Keating, Iemma and some union boss who all agreed with the coalitions plan. It's not like he's been inconsistent either, he's thought that way for years on this issue.
This just seems to be a witch hunt.
For example, on the poles and wires fiasco we had Ferguson, Keating, Iemma and some union boss who all agreed with the coalitions plan. It's not like he's been inconsistent either, he's thought that way for years on this issue.
This just seems to be a witch hunt.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Elaugaufein
Member
Did Albanese publically question them? Saw what was likely a strategic leak (from his office) late in the day but I can't find any hard evidence of public question after the ALP officially through in.
manipulate
Member
Does Fred Nile actually man that Twitter account, in the same way that Rupert Murdoch's Twitter is hilariously unfiltered?
Got to admit i know nothing about it. Just going off the quote above.
there's a bunch of fucked up shit on there, but i'm not sure if that answers your question
roosters93
Member
Nah this is the first I've heard of it, but it sounds basically like a TV version of his book The Australian Moment which I read and enjoyed.
What kind of shitty answer is this
Why don't you actually answer the question instead
But since you posed a question, I'll be polite and try to answer yours
(1) Those six individuals who comprise the graduating record are kind of pale so hahah andrew bolt is a champ hahah
(2) UNSW had to edit the comments because people probably said racially insensitive things hahaha that's so funny
Those happen p. much every week with similar turnout numbers but the media doesn't care.
bobnowhere
Member
The I'm not racist but... brigade.
Saw Pauline Hanson was at the Brisbane one, probably desperate for attention now that Jackie Lambie seems to be going after her constituency..
"Reclaim Australia rally organisers: 'We're not Neo-Nazis, we've got German sausages'."
https://twitter.com/GoldCoastBureau/status/584184606586351616
https://twitter.com/GoldCoastBureau/status/584184606586351616
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked