60 to 50 points for ICT....
Feb 10th 2003, 11:02 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 60 to 50 points for ICT....
Not if it's from a less prestigious university.
It seems that the majority of onshore students getting PR (especially
those with IT degrees) end up working in petrol stations or as
security guards. The onshore student program has been 'successful' in
terms of pure numbers able to meet the skilled criteria, but the lack
of a work experience requirement means that it cannot sift out those
who will never cut it in the skilled job market in Australia.
Jeremy
>On 10 Feb 2003 02:13:13 -0800, [email protected] (Thunder Ace) wrote:
>> More likely is a crackdown on onshore students getting PR, many of
>> whom have (Australian) IT degrees that prove useless in the job
>> market.
>Assuming you are still referring to the IT job market, I'm surprised
>you think an Australian IT degree is useless. Surely it's a very
>useful thing to have?
>Thunder Ace
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
It seems that the majority of onshore students getting PR (especially
those with IT degrees) end up working in petrol stations or as
security guards. The onshore student program has been 'successful' in
terms of pure numbers able to meet the skilled criteria, but the lack
of a work experience requirement means that it cannot sift out those
who will never cut it in the skilled job market in Australia.
Jeremy
>On 10 Feb 2003 02:13:13 -0800, [email protected] (Thunder Ace) wrote:
>> More likely is a crackdown on onshore students getting PR, many of
>> whom have (Australian) IT degrees that prove useless in the job
>> market.
>Assuming you are still referring to the IT job market, I'm surprised
>you think an Australian IT degree is useless. Surely it's a very
>useful thing to have?
>Thunder Ace
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
Feb 10th 2003, 6:00 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 60 to 50 points for ICT....
Most legislation changes take place on one of three dates each year -
1 March, 1 July and 1 November.
That doesn't mean you should believe every wild rumour you hear on
forums.
Jeremy
>On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:54:19 +0000, sherman wrote:
>Just heard from another forum, Aussie perhaps will change a lot on Immi
>regulations again in this Mar. or Apr., God!!! Is that true?
>Originally posted by Jaj
>> The October 2002 changes to the ACS guidelines and the new deeming
>> date policy have already made it a lot harder for ICT people from
>> overseas to qualify.
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
1 March, 1 July and 1 November.
That doesn't mean you should believe every wild rumour you hear on
forums.
Jeremy
>On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:54:19 +0000, sherman wrote:
>Just heard from another forum, Aussie perhaps will change a lot on Immi
>regulations again in this Mar. or Apr., God!!! Is that true?
>Originally posted by Jaj
>> The October 2002 changes to the ACS guidelines and the new deeming
>> date policy have already made it a lot harder for ICT people from
>> overseas to qualify.
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
Feb 10th 2003, 6:02 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 60 to 50 points for ICT....
If they do decide to pull the rug from under ICT applicants and not to
exempt existing applications then there's going to be little you can
do about it.
An ICT application in the pool has very little chance of a state
nomination, so refusal after 2 years is the most likely outcome.
However, I personally think other changes would come first. There are
still some IT specialisations on the MODL, I would not be surprised if
these get removed completely.
Jeremy
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:30:19 +0000, beefourrm wrote:
>Incase one is faced with such a situation where the DIMA brings down
>the points and thereby the points tally gets decreased considerably for
>an applicant, what are the other options, if any that one is left with?
>one being that the application itself goes into the pool...and pray that
>the passmark is brought down.
>--
>Posted via http://britishexpats.com
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
exempt existing applications then there's going to be little you can
do about it.
An ICT application in the pool has very little chance of a state
nomination, so refusal after 2 years is the most likely outcome.
However, I personally think other changes would come first. There are
still some IT specialisations on the MODL, I would not be surprised if
these get removed completely.
Jeremy
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:30:19 +0000, beefourrm wrote:
>Incase one is faced with such a situation where the DIMA brings down
>the points and thereby the points tally gets decreased considerably for
>an applicant, what are the other options, if any that one is left with?
>one being that the application itself goes into the pool...and pray that
>the passmark is brought down.
>--
>Posted via http://britishexpats.com
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
Feb 10th 2003, 6:12 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 60 to 50 points for ICT....
PS Changes concerning pass marks, SOL and MODL are dealt with by
gazette notice rather than legislation and can happen anytime.
As can any changes by skill assessing bodies such as ACS.
Jeremy
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:00:02 GMT, [email protected] (JAJ) wrote:
>Most legislation changes take place on one of three dates each year -
>1 March, 1 July and 1 November.
>That doesn't mean you should believe every wild rumour you hear on
>forums.
>Jeremy
>>On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:54:19 +0000, sherman wrote:
>>Just heard from another forum, Aussie perhaps will change a lot on Immi
>>regulations again in this Mar. or Apr., God!!! Is that true?
>>Originally posted by Jaj
>>> The October 2002 changes to the ACS guidelines and the new deeming
>>> date policy have already made it a lot harder for ICT people from
>>> overseas to qualify.
>This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
gazette notice rather than legislation and can happen anytime.
As can any changes by skill assessing bodies such as ACS.
Jeremy
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:00:02 GMT, [email protected] (JAJ) wrote:
>Most legislation changes take place on one of three dates each year -
>1 March, 1 July and 1 November.
>That doesn't mean you should believe every wild rumour you hear on
>forums.
>Jeremy
>>On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:54:19 +0000, sherman wrote:
>>Just heard from another forum, Aussie perhaps will change a lot on Immi
>>regulations again in this Mar. or Apr., God!!! Is that true?
>>Originally posted by Jaj
>>> The October 2002 changes to the ACS guidelines and the new deeming
>>> date policy have already made it a lot harder for ICT people from
>>> overseas to qualify.
>This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
Feb 12th 2003, 3:42 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 60 to 50 points for ICT....
>
> More likely is a crackdown on onshore students getting PR, many of
> whom have (Australian) IT degrees that prove useless in the job
> market.
Not necessarily. Your reasons are not substantiative. You are making
assumptions based on your personal observation; provide some facts.
It would be best if you could point us to some source with hard
numbers or some quatitive analysis on the subject. Simply put,
international students are cash cows for the Oz government. And they
are not about to risk the reduction of national GDP by losing
potential students to the US, Canada, UK, etc. In terms of students
having experience, I would like to see them giving preference to
Masters and PhD students as they tend to have some experience under
their belt rather than undergrads. While you seem to tout
relinquishing the student to PR program you are a bit negligent in
this aspect: how many former Oz students who are recipient of this
program have helped to boost the Oz economy, created jobs for others,
etc.?
Armand
> More likely is a crackdown on onshore students getting PR, many of
> whom have (Australian) IT degrees that prove useless in the job
> market.
Not necessarily. Your reasons are not substantiative. You are making
assumptions based on your personal observation; provide some facts.
It would be best if you could point us to some source with hard
numbers or some quatitive analysis on the subject. Simply put,
international students are cash cows for the Oz government. And they
are not about to risk the reduction of national GDP by losing
potential students to the US, Canada, UK, etc. In terms of students
having experience, I would like to see them giving preference to
Masters and PhD students as they tend to have some experience under
their belt rather than undergrads. While you seem to tout
relinquishing the student to PR program you are a bit negligent in
this aspect: how many former Oz students who are recipient of this
program have helped to boost the Oz economy, created jobs for others,
etc.?
Armand
Feb 13th 2003, 8:09 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 60 to 50 points for ICT....
The onshore student program is a fairly recent innovation, and
unbiased factual research is not easy to come by.
The Department has noticed the fact that some students come to
Australia for a year, get PR and then continue as students with
taxpayer funding. This was given in evidence recently by the
Department to the parliamentary committee reviewing the skilled
migration system at the moment (a transcript is on the parliamentary
website - http://www.aph.gov.au)
The other difficulty with the scheme is that it places all Australian
degrees on the same level. While in fact there is a vast difference
between a top-class degree - in terms of skilled employability - from
Sydney Uni (or another Go8 institution) and a mediocre degree from
some of the lesser respected institutions, of which there are quite a
few.
It would be impossible for any government scheme to try and classify
all Australian degrees appropriately. For that reason, it would be
preferable that graduating students be given temporary visas
initially. After a period of say 6 months, they could get PR visas
*if* they have found skilled employment. This would impose a
labour-market based test on all Australian degrees.
No-one is suggesting that the onshore students who take advantage of
the scheme as it is are bad people, nor that it's inappropriate for
people to take advantage of opportunities that they are given.
Whether the scheme as it is currently set up serves Australia's
national interest is another question.
Reduction of pressure on the system from onshore students is one way
to get the pass mark back down to 110. The 115 figure is excluding
many well qualified overseas people with a lot of work experience, as
these people tend to be in their late 30s/early 40s.
Jeremy
>On 11 Feb 2003 20:42:29 -0800, [email protected] (Armand Pizzoni) wrote:
>>
>> More likely is a crackdown on onshore students getting PR, many of
>> whom have (Australian) IT degrees that prove useless in the job
>> market.
>Not necessarily. Your reasons are not substantiative. You are making
>assumptions based on your personal observation; provide some facts.
>It would be best if you could point us to some source with hard
>numbers or some quatitive analysis on the subject. Simply put,
>international students are cash cows for the Oz government. And they
>are not about to risk the reduction of national GDP by losing
>potential students to the US, Canada, UK, etc. In terms of students
>having experience, I would like to see them giving preference to
>Masters and PhD students as they tend to have some experience under
>their belt rather than undergrads. While you seem to tout
>relinquishing the student to PR program you are a bit negligent in
>this aspect: how many former Oz students who are recipient of this
>program have helped to boost the Oz economy, created jobs for others,
>etc.?
>Armand
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
unbiased factual research is not easy to come by.
The Department has noticed the fact that some students come to
Australia for a year, get PR and then continue as students with
taxpayer funding. This was given in evidence recently by the
Department to the parliamentary committee reviewing the skilled
migration system at the moment (a transcript is on the parliamentary
website - http://www.aph.gov.au)
The other difficulty with the scheme is that it places all Australian
degrees on the same level. While in fact there is a vast difference
between a top-class degree - in terms of skilled employability - from
Sydney Uni (or another Go8 institution) and a mediocre degree from
some of the lesser respected institutions, of which there are quite a
few.
It would be impossible for any government scheme to try and classify
all Australian degrees appropriately. For that reason, it would be
preferable that graduating students be given temporary visas
initially. After a period of say 6 months, they could get PR visas
*if* they have found skilled employment. This would impose a
labour-market based test on all Australian degrees.
No-one is suggesting that the onshore students who take advantage of
the scheme as it is are bad people, nor that it's inappropriate for
people to take advantage of opportunities that they are given.
Whether the scheme as it is currently set up serves Australia's
national interest is another question.
Reduction of pressure on the system from onshore students is one way
to get the pass mark back down to 110. The 115 figure is excluding
many well qualified overseas people with a lot of work experience, as
these people tend to be in their late 30s/early 40s.
Jeremy
>On 11 Feb 2003 20:42:29 -0800, [email protected] (Armand Pizzoni) wrote:
>>
>> More likely is a crackdown on onshore students getting PR, many of
>> whom have (Australian) IT degrees that prove useless in the job
>> market.
>Not necessarily. Your reasons are not substantiative. You are making
>assumptions based on your personal observation; provide some facts.
>It would be best if you could point us to some source with hard
>numbers or some quatitive analysis on the subject. Simply put,
>international students are cash cows for the Oz government. And they
>are not about to risk the reduction of national GDP by losing
>potential students to the US, Canada, UK, etc. In terms of students
>having experience, I would like to see them giving preference to
>Masters and PhD students as they tend to have some experience under
>their belt rather than undergrads. While you seem to tout
>relinquishing the student to PR program you are a bit negligent in
>this aspect: how many former Oz students who are recipient of this
>program have helped to boost the Oz economy, created jobs for others,
>etc.?
>Armand
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
