The proposed Job-ready Graduate Package : A misguided arrow missing its target

In June 2020 the Minister for Education, Dan Tehan announced the Job-ready Graduate Package which aimed to provide the price signals the Coalition Government believes are necessary to generate the skills required in the Australian labour market in the post-COVID-19 world. This paper uses existing ev...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian journal of labour economics 2020-01, Vol.23 (2), p.231-251
Main Authors: Daly, Anne, Lewis, Phil
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Coalition governments
College campuses
Colleges & universities
Coronaviruses
Costs
COVID-19
Economic factors
Employment
Employment patterns
Financial support
Funding
Graduate attributes
Higher education
Job readiness
Labor market
Labour market
Medical research
Metropolitan areas
Occupations
Pandemics
Political science
Politics
Rate of return
Recessions
Social studies
Students
Tehan, Dan
University graduates
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In June 2020 the Minister for Education, Dan Tehan announced the Job-ready Graduate Package which aimed to provide the price signals the Coalition Government believes are necessary to generate the skills required in the Australian labour market in the post-COVID-19 world. This paper uses existing evidence to argue that the proposed Job-ready Graduate Package is likely to miss its mark, crucially with respect to having a medium-term impact on student choice. The paper draws on evidence of employment patterns of new graduates and established graduates in the Australian labour market to assess the economic argument that certain degree disciplines are more 'job ready' than others; the rationale behind 'picking winners' and the economic case for the proposed funding structure. The evidence from previous changes in the HECS/HELP rates, which were not as large as the proposed ones, suggests that they are unlikely to have a significant effect on student choices. This is not surprising given the wide range of factors that influence choice of discipline including student preferences, educational background, the employment and income of existing graduates, socio-economic background, career guidance and school experience, occupational expectations, psychological attributes and university entrance scores. The idea of 'picking winners' among disciplines for study to generate 'job-ready' graduates faces many difficulties in the uncertain post-COVID-19 world against a background of long-term changes in the economic structure of the economy. Working lives can last for over 40 years and people can move between occupations, adapting skills and retraining over time. Individuals are best placed to make these choices for themselves rather than relying on government direction. [Author abstract]
ISSN:1328-1143