I am totally in favour of free college tuition. But who pays? If it is private companies then never. I will never support the Coca Cola UofT or the GM u of Windsor, or the Sleeman's Uof Guelph.
If it is government then what programs will be cut to pay for it.
All three provincial parties have agreed to not go crazy with expenditures for the next election.
So if we are against private universities which I am then where does the money come from
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]But the kids these days, they just won't believe you even if you tell them how fortunate they are to have a mortgage and no house when they're done university. No sirree. I tell you, things were different in MY day. We ate dust for supper every night, worked three jobs, and took five courses per semester. And we LIKED it![/b]
Come on now ,I think you're exaggerating just a little ?. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I miss my overpriced school. What a great four years!
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]josh, the point of this thread is for everyone with university degrees to brag about the hardships they had to endure to get them[/b]
I never viewed working for college as a “hardship”. Certainly not bragging about what I had to do. Nothing really to brag about. Like I said, the generation that really had it tough is rapidly leaving our presence: the WWII/Depression-era people.
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b] and then support the idea of making university more and more expensive so that all those rotten kids nowadays who have it so easy can learn what it REALLY feels like to have to work for something. [/b]
How on earth do you infer that, Michelle??? What I’m saying is not intended as an object lesson to learn the virtues of hard work—although it would, indeed, do that. The question is, why should someone like me who pays very large tax bills (and who works very hard and very long hours to earn the money to pay those taxes) be expect to pay for something for someone who isn’t willing to work just as hard as I do for something they want? It’s an equity issue. And, it’s far different that helping someone pay for college based on [b][i]need[/b][/i].
But hawks down there are always crying poor mouth, Sven. Republicans are always on the [url=http://www.truemajorityaction.org/oreos/]defensive[/url] about socialism for the rich in America. And our poodles in Ottawa just wanna lick their boots with holding back on the phony EI surplus and defunding social programs in general.
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
[b]Why is pse more of a perk than what education is currently paid for?[/b]
Because K-12 is fundamental education. It's very hard to find employment without it.
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]Because K-12 is fundamental education. It's very hard to find employment without it.[/b]
What they are creating is a large, unskilled labour force that will end up chasing too few jobs in future which do not require PSE or higher education in general. I imagine this is part of the conservative nanny state plan for Canada which Dean Baker described is happening in the U.S.
For many years in Canada, and since Ottawa signed on the UN Declaration of Human Rights, PSE was somewhat affordable for all Canadians, and now it's not. Students are $20 Billion dollars in student debt alone today. Last year, the U.S. reported over 200, 000 American students couldn't afford to attend college or university. There are similarities in Canada today.
Canada has well-educated people coming from developing countries with one and two undergraduate degrees and who don't understand what Canadian student debt means. A grade twelve highschool diploma in Canada isn't worth twhat it was 25 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]What they are creating is a large, unskilled labour force that will end up chasing too few jobs in future which do not require PSE or higher education in general. I imagine this is part of the conservative nanny state plan for Canada which Dean Baker described is happening in the U.S. [/b]
You must be thinking of Germany and France, which each have a perpetual state of unemployement of about 10%. The USA's rate is about 4.4% (Canada's rate is only slightly higher). So, if you're looking for countries with workers that will end up "chasing too few jobs in future", the future is now: in Germany and France.
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]You must be thinking of Germany and France, which each have a perpetual state of unemployement of about 10%. [/b]
It's all in the way we count the unemployed, Sven.
Some countries do a better job of counting than others. They can live on a waiter's or waitress' wages in France or Germany. That's not true for North Americans today.
And next to the U.S. in a comparison of richest conutries, Canada has the largest low skill, lowly paid workforce. Germany probably has the most highly skilled workforce in the world today. Even though that country has to import almost all its raw materials, Germany typically exports around $900 billion dollars worth of finished goods and services. Germany and France are rich countries, Sven. And they aren't selling off natural resources to pad GDP figures like the abusive Canada-U.S. economic relationship.
But the U.S. doesn't include the homeless, the down and out and those whose unemployment benefits have run out and are still jobless in unemployment statistics.
Orwellian jobless statistics in the U.S. also don't include incarcerated Americans or those on parole. And, voting in democratic elections is considered a basic human right in over 80 nations. The USA is an exception and denies that right to its poorest citizens warehoused in what is the largest state-run and privatized for-profit gulag system in the world today. I think California is said to have built one new university and 21 new supermax super-duper prisons in the last fifteen years. Just goes to show there's more taxpayer's money to be had in warehousing poor people than educating them.
quote:
The 1.5 million American men in jail and the 8.1 million on parole make up nearly 10 per cent of that country's male workforce. By not including them in its labour force survey, the U.S. is able to reduce its official unemployment rate by more than [url=http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/carryon/dcharbon/forum/usa.htm]more than five percent[/url].
And your country's gulag population is now more than [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_prison_population][b]2.2 million[/b][/url] Americans incarcerated in state-run and for-profit gulags, so what's the real unemployment rate in the States, Sven ?. Your prison industrial complex has more people in its private and public gulags than China does, a country with four times the population.
In Canada we have a [url=http://www.yvongodin.ca/ndp.php/61/aen46128836dc54a][b]$51 BILLION dollar EI "surplus"[/b][/url]. Only 37 percent of unemployed Canadians actually qualify for unemployment benefits today compared with over 80 percent 25 or 30 years ago, a time when Canadians chose full-time work over what were much more accessable and more generous UI and social welfare benefits available then.
[url=http://rabble.ca/for_the_sake_of_argument.shtml?x=51069][b]A left turn on the road to Rome[/b] -- Jim Stanford[/url]
As it turns out, there are valid alternatives to American-style flexible labour markets.
[ 18 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Post secondary education? Whatever happened to trade work? What do we need more of? University grads or welders? I could easily get any number of trade apprenticeships, once I explained the to tradespeople that they are paid for me to work for them. Carpentry, stone masonry, welders, tool and die, etc.
A college recruiter from the States I ran into told me he was graduating electrians who would make much more than the doctors, immediately and the job-earning prospectus.
There's a subtle class distinction going on in this thread.
Training that leads to certification for welders, fitters, mechanics, air condioning etc are all categorized as post-secondary education.
What's at issue here is that the top jobs and most rewarding career employment has become a privilege of those who can afford to pay in Canada. We are short of family doctors at the same time Alberta claims they are short of electricians and welders. I think it's bullshit coming out of Wild Rose County as per usual, but so do a lot of people.
Fidel: "What's at issue here is that the top jobs and most rewarding career employment has become a privilege of those who can afford to pay in Canada."
Agree and disagree. What the fuck is a rewarding career? We can't all be activists, writers, perpetual students, and other assorted bullshit artists, including gov employees.
Have you ever worked with a good stone mason? A true chef? A real farmer?? Most blissed out people I know, and often they don't need to go to school.
Upwards mobility with a degree is true in the corporate world. But who wants to work in that sphere when there's value in professions more rewarding?
[ 18 May 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]
That's fine, we do need welders and fitters and ironworkers and plumbers in Canada. No one's contesting this isn't the case. But asshole employers across Canada tend not to want to pay for training someone through five years of an apprenticeship either if they can help it. Alberta is NOT short of electricians. They just don't want to have to pay existing unionized electricians their journeyman wage rates.
What's also at issue here is Canada dropping from 13th to 16th on the list of most economically competitive nations. And we're not going to be as competitive as the social democracies or even Singapore if our colonial administrators in the two dirty old line parties continue to withold EI allowances for living and training benefits from unemployed and under-employed Canadian workers.
BTW, do you have a family doctor, FP ?. Because if you do, then stop complaining eh.
[ 18 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Fair points. But, coming from an employer's standpoint and listening to the many small business in this area, I've found that good employees, ie those willing to work, are hard to come by. If an able young person approaches tradework properly, there are openings.
I think that perhaps some Locals are unwilling to accept new people, young people who may have more skillset potential.
The problem is likely educational. The trades are Very poorly taught at lower levels. It's grade school classism. How many kids have the opprotunity to learn labour skills?
And, no, I don't have a family doctor. My old one, who used to work here on the farm for my grandfather, retired. But I don't go to the sawbones without a serious reason, and I hadn't seen him in years.
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]The problem is likely educational. The trades are Very poorly taught at lower levels. It's grade school classism. How many kids have the opprotunity to learn labour skills?[/b]
I think that community college instructors who teach trade skills are actually certified journeymen themselves and typically have years of valuable on the job experience to share with apprenticing students. Like any sector of the economy, the job offers are either there or they aren't.
It's estimated that by 2015, about half our labour force will be aged 45 to 64 years-old.
Our economy has become less diversified in recent years not "knowledge-based" high tech as other rich G8 economies are pursuing. Canada is relying too much on the resource sector with exports of raw materials, fossil fuels and GHG-intensive energy increasing by 40% to 50% of total Canadian exports in recent years.
quote:
[b]And, no, I don't have a family doctor. My old one, who used to work here on the farm for my grandfather, retired. But I don't go to the sawbones without a serious reason, and I hadn't seen him in years.[/b]
It's a sad situation with more than five million Canadians who don't participate in their own preventative medicine because there is a shortage of doctors in Canada, about 500 a year. Preventative medicine was supposed to be a cornerstone of medicare in Canada. Our two old line parties are fucking up on purpose in order to prepare us, to soften us up for the eventual introduction of American-style health care. It's happening now with defunding post-secondary so as to produce shortages of medical people, and we are short of infrastructure for foreign-trained doctors to do their practicums in clinical settings before they are able to practive medicine in this frozen Puerto Rico. And this is happening against the will of Canadians by and large.
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]There's a subtle class distinction going on in this thread.[/b]
Like a sledgehammer.
Well if we support Canadian workers rights and free choice to pursue trades apprenticeships, then why would we not see it the same way for ALL areas of employment?.
Why should rich people's kids become family doctors and lawyers and news reporters and not everybody elses ?. If students from well off families were stepping into medical schools in the numbers needed, then we probably wouldn't be concerned about our two autocratic old line parties dismantling health care like they've been doing. It takes a few years of on the job training to produce a bricklayer, but that person is not going to decide that you've got a health issue, perhaps the beginnings of a cancerous growth somewhere.
Just an on-the-ground note for you folks -
Simon Fraser University has taken the (apparently unusual, AFAIK) step of deciding to deny bursaries to anyone who does not have a student loan.
Spot the perverse debt-incurring incentive there, folks.
In addition, spot all the ways students can get screwed, too.
So much for "easily available grants" and "plain old hard work gettin' you through school". [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Immediate reaction: which of the following is most in need of a bursary?
- Someone who needs to borrow money to go to university.
- Someone who doesn't need to borrow money to go to university.
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Immediate reaction: which of the following is most in need of a bursary?- Someone who needs to borrow money to go to university.
- Someone who doesn't need to borrow money to go to university.[/b]
I just got screwed by this dumb logic.
Quebec has a social program, that if you graduated on time, and got bursaries every year, they ay off 15% of your student loans.
For me, that would have been around 2700$.
I finished my program on time.
I got bursaries every year... except the last.
I made just a bit too much money. Had I made say 1000$ less, I would get that 2800$ loan pardon. Additionally, it's stupid, because I made that high salary on a job in BC, which has a higher cost of living and I had moving costs and rent costs so it's not as though I made that much money.
Fair enough. I agree that it makes no sense to penalise student who work.
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]Just an on-the-ground note for you folks -Simon Fraser University has taken the (apparently unusual, AFAIK) step of deciding to deny bursaries to anyone who does not have a student loan.
Spot the perverse debt-incurring incentive there, folks.
In addition, spot all the ways students can get screwed, too.
So much for "easily available grants" and "plain old hard work gettin' you through school". [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
DrConway - since when?
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Immediate reaction: which of the following is most in need of a bursary?- Someone who needs to borrow money to go to university.
- Someone who doesn't need to borrow money to go to university.[/b]
What if the person who doesn't need to borrow money is someone who slaved away all summer to save up $10000 to last him or her through the 8 months of the fall/spring semester?
Should that person be penalized because he or she managed to save up just as much as someone on a student loan would get?
A bursary has always been defined as being for someone in financial need, regardless of the source of income, at least until this rather bizarre policy came into play.
Canada has one of the most complicated and inflexible student loan systems in the world. Canadian students pay some of the highest interest rates on loans in the developed world. And good students like [url=http://www.edmontonsun.com/Business/News/2007/06/20/4275041-sun.html]Vin... have found that there just is no economic reward in Canada for going into student loan debt. Higher education in Canada used to be affordable for everybody at one time. Not anymore.
There's no excuse for defunding PSE, health care and infrastructure spending in Canada. We have unparalleled natural wealth being siphoned off to the States every day, and we don't have much to show for it. The two old line parties running the show in this country have been on the take for years.
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]Just an on-the-ground note for you folks -Simon Fraser University has taken the (apparently unusual, AFAIK) step of deciding to deny bursaries to anyone who does not have a student loan.
[/b]
Ottawa U has had this for years too. It discourages part-time and/or summer employment IMO.
I think I've said this before in another thread, but I am opposed to free PSE for everyone who wants it. I think there should be a minimum GPA requirement (or perhaps if you fall within the top 25% of the class etc. to account for the fact that some programs are easier than others) and students should earn free PSE. Don't countries like France and Germany have streaming programs as early as grades 8 or 9? I don't like that for Canada and I don't think we can afford to have it both ways. I prefer a system where everyone has the opportunity to pursue PSE and we reward the hard working ones who excel in their particular area.
I agree with Jrose above. There are lots of students who go through school and major in drinking with a minor in partying and sleeping in. Why should they get a free ride? What benefit is their "education" to society or even themselves?
quote:
Many of my peers who have flunked out of school, had to retake classes time after time, slept through class, handed in essays late, are the ones who had a free-ride through school, thus it wasn't their money invested in it, and they somewhat took the education system for granted. VAST STEREOTYPE, I know! But I do think there is value in working your ass off through university, just to get that degree to hang on your wall. But if tuition was slightly lower, grants were more accessible and scholarships were handed out more often, some of the burden would be lessened for hard working students out there.
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b] agree with Jrose above. There are lots of students who go through school and major in drinking with a minor in partying and sleeping in. Why should they get a free ride? What benefit is their "education" to society or even themselves?[/b]
I'd like to see free education for all Canadians simply because we can afford to do that and more on top of giving away the oil and natural gas, oceans of timber and massive amounts of hydro-electric power to the Yanks for a song.
Besides, there are countries where PSE is free or incredibly cheap and accessible and which don't have all this unparalleled natural wealth being taken off their hands by corporate friends of government, and those countries actually rate in the top ten most economically competitive while Canada drops further down the list.
So I, for one, don't buy into the moralistic, Puritan rhetoric about never giving a sucker an even break. We should all be driving Cadillacs and have big-giant savings accounts with the amount of natural resources that have been carted away, trucked south and siphoned off over the years and with Canada's youth having to accept a quarter century worth of student loan debt and thousands of capable students being denied student loans every year. Canadians need a god damn revolution in this frozen Puerto Rico, and to tell the feds and their corporate and banking friends that their free ride in Canada is over.
[ 28 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Just curious what Babblers thoughts are on something like they do in Finland, where post secondary education is free, but all men are required to do 6 months of military service, or 13 months of non-military service, then be part of the reserves. Apparently for women its not mandatory (yet).
Linus Torvalds says the free schooling helped him to develop Linux way back when he was a student. Though I don't think he had anything good to say about the mandatory service part.
Of course you still have to pay you own expenses, and are limited in hours available to work and what not.
I'd be happy to do 6 months of military service to erase my ever growing student debt. That is assuming I wasn't one of the maximum 2000 of ~900,000 that can be shipped abroad at a time.
[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: gonzo ]
How much student loan debt did you accrue that you would be willing to give up six years of your life for? Personally, it would have to be three or four hundred thousand, at leat, for me to give up six years. It's six years in the prime of your life.
Might not be so bad considering that Finland doesn't go around starting or getting involved with stupid wars. I think it's pretty sexist, though, that men are required and women are not.
500_Apples, sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... Its 6 Months, not years.
Damn, that would have to be one hefty bill to get me to have a buzz cut and call people sir or ma'am or whatever for 6 years!
[ 29 June 2007: Message edited by: gonzo ]
Well,
Poor reading skills!
I think it's appalling the way our feds allow Canadian student loan debtor's credit ratings to suffer when defaulting on what have to be the strictest and most complicated loan repayment schemes in the developed world, right here in Canada.
It's appalling when we realize that even resident Dubya and the paleocons have passed legislation in this decade allowing indebted U.S. students to work it off with volunteer work in the peace corp, "Americorp", public service, and with more opportunities than are generally available to young people in this frozen Puerto Rico aside from joining the fascist occupation in Afghanistan in order to access a taxpayer-funded education. The feds should be ashamed of their bad selves.
Our Liberal stoogeocrats in Ottawa have governed further to the right than U.S. paleocons, fcs.
[ 01 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]It's appalling when we realize that even resident Dubya and the paleocons have passed legislation in this decade allowing indebted U.S. students to work it off with volunteer work in the peace corp, "Americorp", public service, and with more opportunities than are generally available to young people in this frozen Puerto Rico aside from joining the fascist occupation in Afghanistan in order to access a taxpayer-funded education. The feds should be ashamed of their bad selves.[/b]
Oh my god, are you serious? Americans are allowed to work off their student debt by doing volunteer work!?
I could cry.
Michelle,
There are lots of positions with the Canadian government that would give you a tuition credit. Additionally, a high salary is completely equivalent.
I doubt the peace corps take anybody.
The BC government is also paying off the student loans of at least some of their employees. The problem is, there's no positions in the government for researchers of fundamental nuclear structure.
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]The BC government is also paying off the student loans of at least some of their employees. The problem is, there's no positions in the government for researchers of fundamental nuclear structure.[/b]
Is that a serious counterargument, or comedy?
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]I doubt the peace corps take anybody.[/b]
I could be wrong. It's something I read at 60 miles an hour and didn't fully understand it all. But it sounds like "AmeriCorps" accepts volunteers of all ages.
[url=http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/09/news/inland/23_19_136_8_07.tx... volunteers tutor, teach, lead[/b][/url]
quote:
AmeriCorps is a federally funded program that gives people of all ages job experience and training through public service in education, public safety, health and the environment. In return, AmeriCorps members receive an $11,100 living allowance and $4,725 in scholarships or funds to help pay student loans.
Does Canada have anything like this ?. We can be sure the Republicans down there have gutted the funding for these kinds of programs, but what a damned good idea. And they think [i]Canada[/i] is socialist.
[ 01 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Is that a serious counterargument, or comedy?[/b]
Well, if I become a professor somewhere, to get the kind of salaries commonly associated with being one, I have to... wait for it...
[i]get tenure[/i]
which is way harder to do now than it was even 20 years ago, and so I would have to start out making about $25k a year as a constantly-on-the-go sessional instructor or assistant professor at first. Try paying your student loans on that!
Now, were I a research chemist for the BC government as a government employee, I'd get my debts liquidated in 3 years, and then after that I'd be golden.
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]
So I would have to start out making about $25k a year as a constantly-on-the-go sessional instructor or assistant professor at first. Try paying your student loans on that![/b]
Um, I know of no assistant prof who makes anywhere near that little. Sessionals - maybe, though that's not intended to be full-time work (not that I'm defending the low rates paid to most sessionals, but still).
[ 02 July 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]Just an on-the-ground note for you folks -Simon Fraser University has taken the (apparently unusual, AFAIK) step of deciding to deny bursaries to anyone who does not have a student loan.
Spot the perverse debt-incurring incentive there, folks.
In addition, spot all the ways students can get screwed, too.[/b]
Or at Langara College, where the student work (SWAP) is only available to students with student loans.
In my case I didn't need the SWAP work to pay my tuition for the Library Technician program, but I could have used the experience of SWAP work in the Langara Library. Unfortunately, I was denied the chance to obtain that experience because I wasn't on student loans. Thanks Langara. NOT.
[ 02 July 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]Well, if I become a professor somewhere, to get the kind of salaries commonly associated with being one, I have to... wait for it...
[i]get tenure[/i]
which is way harder to do now than it was even 20 years ago, and so I would have to start out making about $25k a year as a constantly-on-the-go sessional instructor or assistant professor at first. Try paying your student loans on that!
Now, were I a research chemist for the BC government as a government employee, I'd get my debts liquidated in 3 years, and then after that I'd be golden.[/b]
Don't study something extremely theoretical unless you know what you want to do. I took one of the most theoretical undergraduate programs available at my university, and I'd be no good to work as a technician for hydro quebec. I will however be a good graduate student, where I'll be paid 22, 000 stipend in addition to the tuition waiver. (Over five years, that's certainly enough to pay off undergrad student loans if that were what I was planning to do). Post Docs typically get paid minimum 40, 000; and assistant professors in the sciences start at 60, 000.
Nuclear physics should be in high demand from places like the US military and the chinese government, universities are not your only option.
It is not a provincial government's responsibility to find a need to hire every single possible type of expertise. You knew what you were doing at the start.
I think the problem is that Canada is saturated with highly educated people. Over 84 percent of new people to Canada have a university degree. And there are a lot more people in Asia accessing university educations than here. Recent federal governments have done a lousy job of matching highly educated immigrants with job opportunities in Canada. The points system for immigration has no bearing on the economic situation whatsoever. CBC News a month or so ago featured a story about army recruitment for Afghanistan. One of their new recruits is a man who's come from China with a graduate degree in physics.
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]Well, if I become a professor somewhere, to get the kind of salaries commonly associated with being one, I have to... wait for it...
[i]get tenure[/i]
[/b]
Sorry, skipped over this part. FYI tenure does not generally affect salary; ie you don't automatically get more money once you get tenure. Salaries are generally set according to experience, years in position and so forth. I suppose in a technical sense one could say that because failure to get tenure will result in dismissal, you are thus shut out of the very highest pay scales, but it is possible to get access to some of those pay scales without tenure (e.g., in many places one can be promoted to assoc. professor without tenure) at least for a period of time.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch for ridiculously high post-seondary costs for Canadians seeking their first diplomas and degrees in this Northern Puerto Rico ...
[ 02 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Alright I deserved that.
I wonder if you can apply the same analysis to all PSE given the very different outcomes. E.g., law school tuition has risen dramatically in the last few years, but so has the economic benefits attached to that degree for the average student. Is free PSE a good idea for people who, on graduating, will immediately join the echelons of the highest paid members of society?
Now, before anyone starts yelling, I KNOW that not every law student makes the big bucks. At the same time, I think that enough of them do (and this true of many professional programs) to make it a legitimate consideration.
[ 02 July 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:
[b] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Alright I deserved that.I wonder if you can apply the same analysis to all PSE given the very different outcomes. E.g., law school tuition has risen dramatically in the last few years, but so has the economic benefits attached to that degree for the average student. Is free PSE a good idea for people who, on graduating, will immediately join the echelons of the highest paid members of society?
Now, before anyone starts yelling, I KNOW that not every law student makes the big bucks. At the same time, I think that enough of them do (and this true of many professional programs) to make it a legitimate consideration.
[ 02 July 2007: Message edited by: pookie ][/b]
It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that your position is that the student's financial burden to attent post-secondary education should be proportional to hi salary upon graduation.
I disagree with that position. But if it were to be applied, the fairest way would be through retroactive tuition following graduation, say 15% of after-tax salary for the first five years.
Now, I think this is immoral. Yes, someone who studies dentistry or accounting will make more money than someone studying certain other fields. But there's a good chance they're working harder, or that they're taking it for a reason. I don't think we should be implementing economic disincentives that discourage people from making wise economic decisions.
No, someone pursuing a double major in philosophy and history might not make as much starting salary as someone pursuing a medical degree. But they're doing that as a choice based on the other benefits; they might find their major more interesting, or more fun, or less challenging.
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that your position is that the student's financial burden to attent post-secondary education should be proportional to hi salary upon graduation.[/b]
Not precisely. What I am saying is that where students in very high-yield ($) programs argue for tuition support, the reason why they should be treated exactly the same as other students who are not in such programs is something that they should think about and be prepared to explain.
quote:
[b]I disagree with that position. But if it were to be applied, the fairest way would be through retroactive tuition following graduation, say 15% of after-tax salary for the first five years.[/b]
In a way, some tuition forgiveness programs operate somewhat along the same lines, by forgiving student debt where the graduate enters into a more "social justice" or "community service" type position.
quote:
[b] Now, I think this is immoral. [/b]
Immoral is a strong term, don't you think?
quote:
[b]Yes, someone who studies dentistry or accounting will make more money than someone studying certain other fields. But there's a good chance they're working harder, or that they're taking it for a reason. I don't think we should be implementing economic disincentives that discourage people from making wise economic decisions. [/b]
I think many would disagree with the basis you cite for the higher pay. In any event, it is debatable the extent to which high tuition for these programs acts as a disincentive given that these programs routinely receive far more applications than positions.
quote:
[b] No, someone pursuing a double major in philosophy and history might not make as much starting salary as someone pursuing a medical degree. But they're doing that as a choice based on the other benefits; they might find their major more interesting, or more fun, or less challenging.[/b]
Yes, and they're also likely to be making less money. The personal benefits are great, but I don't see why that has a bearing on whether all PSE tuition should receive the same kind of subsidy.
[ 02 July 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]
For both Canada and provincial student loans, the interest is a floating rate of prime plus 2.5 per cent, for a rate currently at 8.5 percent. Or students can choose a fixed rate of prime plus five per cent, or over 11 percent interest. These are the highest interest rates on student loans among richest nations.
And all of the richest nations would envy the unparalleled amount of natural resources, fossil fuels and massive amounts of hydro-electric power this country allows to be taken off our hands, carted away, trucked off, siphoned off and stolen from this frozen Puerto Rico at a frenzied pace 24-7-365. We know who is being subsidized.
[ 03 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
For the record: I do like what I'm doing. I just wish the government wouldn't play favorites especially when it's known that BC Liberals like screwing government employees when they feel like it.
