College Tuition III
Fri, 2007-08-17 07:49
#1
College Tuition III
Fri, 2007-08-17 07:49
#2
From [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000327]h....
The interesting thing I note is that Sven keeps bringing up the figure of "$5000" as an easily-attainable, covers-the-cost-for-a-year figure.
I suspect that (a) Sven is forgetting about the fall in the value of money since the 1970s (just allowing for inflation would make that $15000 today), and (b) Sven is mixing up bottom-tier state university costs with the more desirable top-tier type universities where tuition can run into the tens of thousands per term.
Just to give some ballpark figures when I was at Michigan State recently, I happened to pick up a newspaper regarding tuition fees, and the ballpark figure quoted for the major [i]state[/i] unis in the Appalachians + Midwest was around $7500-8000 per term.
That does [b]not[/b] include residence fees and that does not include transportation or the like.
Fidel probably hammers away on this too much but even so he brings up an excellent point - if Turkey, a nation not otherwise known for much of anything except a hugely overinflated lira (I do believe one euro equals a million lira [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ), can nevertheless offer educational opportunities to students who can prove they have the academic skill to go, without charging them money for it, why can't Canada?
People used to offer the same old retreaded arguments back when universal childhood education was being bandied about. The stuck-in-the-mud conservatives at the time used to insist that it did something for a kid's moral character to have his parents sweat and scrimp and slave away to send him or her off to school.
Never mind the rather convenient fact that keeping poor kids out of school meant more servants for the rich, because they wouldn't have any other way of making money.
[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 06:40
#3
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/in_his_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=c6e8e14bad6e604b1becf... interesting article on rabble's front page:[/url]
quote:
“The costs of a university education are being downloaded from the public onto individual students,” said Amanda Aziz, National Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students.Student activism since the 1991 recession—and the 100 per cent tuition increases which followed—has focused on trying to improve access through pushing federal and provincial governments to increase transfers to universities and improve scholarships for students.
However, the key is not access, but control. Canada's two main student groups, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), have both essentially followed a political program based on attempting to increase access: through government lobbying and activism focused on tuition fees.
As the statistics on rapid tuition increases indicate, the tactics of both groups have been relatively unsuccessful. Thus, it's time for students to overhaul the fundamental parameters of their lobbying and activism to become effective in changing the political landscape of the university.
The current situation, where student tuition accounts for more than one third of most university operating budgets, has unlocked new possibilities.
At McGill, students control 8 per cent of board seats; 14.2 per cent at University of British Columbia and 6.45 per cent at the University of Ottawa.
“We are definitely concerned about the lack of student representation on boards of governors,” said Aziz. “There is also an interesting story to see who sits on these boards, membership is often dominated by corporate executives.”
Take the University of New Brunswick (UNB) as an example. This year, students will pay $56.3 million in tuition for the 2007-08 school year, accounting for 35.1 per cent of the universities' total operating budget. Meanwhile, UNB students only control three out of 44 (14.6 per cent) of seats on the board of governors, the universities' most important decision making body. If students were getting what they paid for, they'd control fifteen seats on the board, rather than the measly three they currently hold.
An editorial in the Dalhousie Gazette with the opening line, “No taxation without representation,” perfectly explains the current disconnect.
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:32
#4
Just cut a cheque today for $1,700 to McGill as first payment for No.1 son, so do I get special points in the debate ?? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
anyways, didn't follow the other threads, so I dunno if this CUP piece I saw in the McGill Daily was discused elsewhere:
[url=http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=6236]http://www.mcgilldaily.com/...
[i]It’s amazing how durable an ill-founded idea can be when it appeals to the biases of the conservative policy establishment.
How else can you explain the persistence of the claim that universal funding of college and university amounts to a subsidy of the rich, paid for by the poor?
It is true that the children of higher-income families are more likely to participate in postsecondary education than the children of lower-income families. Data provided in Bob Rae’s report show that students from the highest-income 25 per cent of families made up 31 per cent of postsecondary students in Canada; students from the lowest-income 25 per cent made up 20 per cent of postsecondary students.
But you can only get from there to the conclusion that the poor are subsidizing the rich when postsecondary education is funded publicly by ignoring the tax system. This assumption implies that the money to pay for post-secondary education is found on trees, rather than raised from a real-world tax system. [/i]
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:36
#5
quote:
Just cut a cheque today for $1,700 to McGill as first payment for No.1 son, so do I get special points in the debate ??
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Sorry, but as someone who in the near future may be cutting a check at least ten times that amount, I think not.
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:38
#6
quote:
Just to give some ballpark figures when I was at Michigan State recently, I happened to pick up a newspaper regarding tuition fees, and the ballpark figure quoted for the major state unis in the Appalachians + Midwest was around $7500-8000 per term.
This is true. In the U.S., a state school can now run you $18,000 a year or more. And that assumes that you are an in-State resident. Some, like the SUNYs in New York, are a less.
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:40
#7
oh yeah, just FIRST payment, buddy!! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
still to come: residence and board bills, 2nd term, 3rd term tuition, and on and on to ... well, about $12-14,000 total by next spring
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:43
#8
I may be paying double or triple that. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] At minimum 50% more.
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:47
#9
are you in-state?
my son lucked out when Quebec gave him resident status -- born there, lots of relatives, but not a resident in over a decade
int'l students at McGill pay a flat $15,000 Cdn tuition, non-Quebec Canadian citizens $5,000
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:49
#10
Don't know yet. Still some six months from a final decision. I'm jealous that a quality school like McGill has such low (remember, everything's relative) fees.
Thu, 2007-09-20 07:59
#11
what does for example Rutgers cost a state resident?
Thu, 2007-09-20 08:03
#12
It's up to $18,000 now.
Thu, 2007-09-20 09:48
#13
Do you have a decent student loan system? I mean, I know your kid won't qualify, of course, but what about people whose parents can't afford it?
Thu, 2007-09-20 10:27
#14
Yes, there are a number of loans that can be obtained. Usually federal loans.
[url=http://www.staffordloan.com/federal-student-loans/]http://www.staffordlo...
Thu, 2007-09-20 10:31
#15
Wow. You can borrow a whole $3500 from them for undergrad. You were saying tuition alone is around $18,000?
Thu, 2007-09-20 10:32
#16
but somehow, somehow huge percentages of Americans go to and finish college ... [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
[url=http://tinyurl.com/24udlo]http://tinyurl.com/24udlo[/url]
more than in Europe where tuition is low or no
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 20:48
#17
Geneva: what does for example Rutgers cost a state resident?
Josh: It's up to $18,000 now.
[url=http://admissions.rutgers.edu/0401.asp]For a New Jersey resident, full-time tuition + mandatory fees at Rutgers add up to $10,614 for the 2007-2008 academic year.[/url]
Of course, you have to find food and shelter, as at any university. Not to mention clothing, books, toothpaste, bandaids, maybe a computer, the occasional movie, thousands of cups of coffee and hundreds of pints of beer.
[edited to fix link]
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 22:49
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[b]but somehow, somehow huge percentages of Americans go to and finish college ... [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
[url=http://tinyurl.com/24udlo]http://tinyurl.com/24udlo[/url]more than in Europe where tuition is low or no
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ][/b]
And those U.S. states with the highest educational achievement tend to live in "blue have-states" across the North-Eastern and Northern U.S.
But there's a reason why more European kids don't feel the same pressure to go to college and take advantage of free tuition. And it's because they can live on a waiter or waitress' wages. And the U.S. and Canada, one-two, own the largest percentages of low wage workforce of any developed country.
The U.S. used to enjoy double returns on higher ed with attracting college educated immigrants from less developed countries looking for a better life. Those well-educated immigrants often-times worked hard and obtained advanced degrees and tend to contribute to the economy. Today the numbers of well-educated immigrants to the U.S. is, I believe, tapering off somewhat. And Canada has just experienced an exodus of well-educated immigrants and second generation Asian-Canadians return to Asia since the late 1990's. And a Ryerson Polytech study says it's because there is more opportunity for them in China and India and emerging economic powerhouses in the Pacific Rim of countries compared with here.
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 00:09
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart): [b] ... maybe a computer, ...[/b]
uh, lemme tell you something on that score, from recent experience:
you CANNOT be a student at a N.American university anymore without a computer, new ones are often needed, and for a kid in stats /finance /economics like mine, the fancier the better
for my son, there is a site called "mymcgill" that posts everything -- EVERYTHING -- he has to know: his course selections, class cancellations, financial statements, an in-house e-mail system, marks, etc etc.
so, indispensable, plus every course has electronic reading lists and so on
as for the $$$ element:
after studying a Dell flier in the paper, we settled on a $900 laptop, went to a FutureShop downtown Montreal and, guess what?, with add-ons add-ons add-ons, warranty for service, + GST+PST, total = close to $2,000
and to think: late 1970s, I still got away, with some profs, handing in hand-written term papers and essays [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
black Bic pen = 49 cents [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 06:21
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[b]uh, lemme tell you something on that score, from recent experience:
you CANNOT be a student at a N.American university anymore without a computer, new ones are often needed, and for a kid in stats /finance /economics like mine, the fancier the better[/b]
My experience is also quite recent -- indeed, it is current. (1) At the University of Toronto, in the humanities and many sciences, you [i]can[/i] get by with the computer clusters in Robarts Library. You can access all online materials, if you can stand to read them online then you can read them right there, you can print things off (for 10 cents a page, which can get expensive), and so on. Presumably there are similar computer clusters at McGill. The Robarts clusters are open all night. (2) You [i]can[/i] get by with a second-hand computer from a few years ago, which you can buy for about $400 at the shops up and down College Street. For example [url=http://www.alphapluscomputers.ca/]from this shop[/url], you can get a used IBM Thinkpad A31 for $399. This was state of the art in, say, 2004, and is adequate for the needs of most students, unless they need fancy graphics. (This computer will easily show movies, etc. Editing movies might require something fancier.)
Of course, I cannot speak for your son's needs, but I can speak for my own needs and the needs of my friends. Most students have computers vastly more powerful than necessary for their academic work.
Fri, 2007-09-21 06:37
#21
quote:
Josh: It's up to $18,000 now.
For a New Jersey resident, full-time tuition + mandatory fees at Rutgers add up to $10,614 for the 2007-2008 academic year.
I'm including room and board.
Fri, 2007-09-21 06:41
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
[b]Of course, I cannot speak for your son's needs, but I can speak for my own needs and the needs of my friends. Most students have computers vastly more powerful than necessary for their academic work.[/b]
you are probably right, and he is probably watching The Matrix on-line even as we speak ...
Fri, 2007-09-21 10:08
#23
I have a friend, a software engineer, and his home PC is an older Pentium 500Mhz. That's a dinosaur as PC's go. He doesn't play video games obviously.
Mind you, if the kid's away at school and his PC breaks down, and that happens sometimes, it's always nice to have parts and labour warranty on the thing.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 11:31
#24
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]I'm including room and board.[/b]
If we include room and board in the cost of going to such and such a school, then we should reckon that it costs a middle class family $10K (give or take) per year to send a teenager to the local public high school.
Fri, 2007-09-21 12:00
#25
I can't imagine what their costs are today when their is no local university to attend. Kids living at home in Canada's major cities will tend to avoid being clobbered with the highest of student loan debt sentences.
Fri, 2007-09-21 12:26
#26
Direct costs (tuition, books, etc) typically account for only something like one-quarter of the total costs of PSE. This is why it drives me up the wall when people make the equation
Free tuition for all = Equal access to PSE for all
This just isn't the case. Free tuition means nothing if you can't find a way to feed and house yourself.
Fri, 2007-09-21 12:53
#27
Yes, and I do understand that the problem lies with how to fund what was defunded by several billion dollars annually from the federal purse in the mid-1990's.
But wouldn't free tuition help more than hurt from a student's situation?. I can picture how kids might bandy together and share rent and food costs. They can't share tuition and book fees with GST though. And Howard Hampton mentioned last night during the debate that colleges and universities are trying to make up funding shortfalls by upping ancillary fees.
So now there are more than just sky-high tuition fees that are making PSE a hard bargain for Canadians: 1. rising tuition fees 2. cost of living while studying(rent, food, transportation, books, ancillary fees/technology fees etc)
Fri, 2007-09-21 12:59
#28
Free tuition would indeed help those who are facing financial difficulties. But it would also help those who [b]aren't[/b] facing financial difficulties. Something like 1/3 of university students come from families in the top income quartile, and about 40% of all students graduate without debt. (Presumably there's a significant overlap in these groups). These kids would have gone to university anyway; for them, free tuition is just free money. Instead of giving public money to rich kids who don't need it, it should be directed to poor kids who do.
Fri, 2007-09-21 13:16
#29
I agree with all that, but only as the overall federal funding situation stands now. COMER.org says the feds would have an extra $15 billion to play with if the Bank of Canada was used properly. And they aren't talking about craziness with nationalising 100% of the money supply, just enough of it to cover important program spending and infrastructure.
Because I think handing half of Canadian kids what amount to significant student loan debts so early in life isn't fair either. Not all of those kids are going to find high paying jobs. Why not cover tuition for basic three year BA degrees, and let them pay for the honour's extension and advanced degrees in those same fields of study as a reward for pursuing higher education?
Fri, 2007-09-21 13:17
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Something like 1/3 of university students come from families in the top income quartile [/b]
That could change if lower-income kids could have free tuition and living stipends. Watch your premises!
quote:
[b]Instead of giving public money to rich kids who don't need it, it should be directed to poor kids who do.[/b]
No, education should be free for all because higher education has become a social need, just like K-12 and health care and roads. Society benefits from university-educated citizens, and so it should finance its own need.
In addition, society should provide bursaries, fellowships etc. so that no one is excluded for financial reasons.
One problem with saying, "the rich can afford tuition, why should we pay", is that the underlying assumption is that those who can afford it should have ready access to all the educational facilities they want, just because they have the money.
We don't let rich people pay to use the public highways or for treatment in an emergency ward, even though they can afford it - because we know that leads to two-tier health care. Likewise in education.
If it is said that, "scarce funds for university education should be directed in the most efficient manner", that's fine, let's subsidize living costs - but not variable tuition based on income.
Fri, 2007-09-21 13:19
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I agree with all that, but only as the overall federal funding situation stands now. COMER.org says the feds would have an extra $15 billion to play with if the Bank of Canada was used properly. And they aren't talking about craziness with nationalising 100% of the money supply, just enough of it to cover important program spending and infrastructure.Because I think handing half of Canadian kids what amount to significant student loan debts so early in life isn't fair either. Not all of those kids are going to find high paying jobs. Why not cover tuition for basic three year BA degrees, and let them pay for the honour's extension and advanced degrees in those same fields of study as a reward for pursuing higher education?
Same answer: a large percentage of the people who get that money would be people who didn't need it.
If debt is the problem - and I agree that it is, and that it is getting worse - the answer is debt-relief programs. Not giving a tuition break to those who are already graduating without debt.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 13:28
#32
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
That could change if lower-income kids could have free tuition [b]and living stipends[/b].
Emphasis added. I've spent a not-insignificant amount of time looking up the available research on this issue, and I've seen nothing that suggests that free tuition on its own would have a material effect on PSE attainment rates. The living stipend issue is much more important.
quote:
One problem with saying, "the rich can afford tuition, why should we pay", is that the underlying assumption is that those who can afford it should have ready access to all the educational facilities they want, just because they have the money.We don't let rich people pay to use the public highways or for treatment in an emergency ward, even though they can afford it - because we know that leads to two-tier health care. Likewise in education.
You've got this exactly wrong. Rich kids are twice as likely to go to university than are poor kids. That means that they are receiving twice as much public money. Is there any other context in which you'd be comfortable with rich people having twice as much access to public services than the poor?
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 13:37
#33
Well you both make sense. unionist is correct with his view that the standard for education is no longer a highschool diploma. It's true that good-paying jobs can be had with post-secondary training in trades skills. I believe P.Q.'s technical schools providing training in trades apprentices and vocational training are tuition-free. It's still unclear to me as to the diffs between that province's CGEPs and community colleges in the rest of the country.
But pursuit of a university degree is something else, another animal altogether. It's the brass ring, both sides of the coin so to speak. And with that educational attainment oftentimes is associated with significantly higher paying jobs. This isn't always the case though, and Canada is in a kind of transition phase with the kinds of jobs being created at this point in time, imo. There is much room for improvement, and the job opportunities in high tech and knowledge economy will happen for them eventually. I just think the right to access PSE should be maintained. A basic three year degree is nothing very special nowadays as far as the job market goes.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 13:52
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]You've got this exactly wrong. Rich kids are twice as likely to go to university than are poor kids. That means that they are receiving twice as much public money.[/b]
(1) In the current funding environment, it is true that rich kids are twice as likely to go to university as are poor kids. Arguably, this would not be the case in unionist's preferred funding environment.
(2) The [i]kids[/i] aren't rich. Their parents are. The kids aren't even kids: they are adults with rich parents. I am not sure that I like our current strategy of determine an adult's funding on the basis of her parents' income and assets. I certainly would not want my parents' income and assets to affect a decision as to whether I receive a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts (for example).
(3) Rich people are also more likely to use the highways than poor people, since rich people are more likely to own cars. (This reiterates a point of unionist's.) Should we charge for highway use, giving fee waivers to poor people?
(4) Given our progressive tax system, rich people already pay more for their education and for their highway use than poor people, by virtue of paying more taxes.
(5) One way to subsidize poor people's education is to provide bursaries. Another way is to make it free for everyone, and increase the taxes on the rich just the right amount. The second strategy seems more efficient, and would certainly eliminate any bursary-administering bureaucracy.
Fri, 2007-09-21 14:10
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Rich kids are twice as likely to go to university than are poor kids. That means that they are receiving twice as much public money. Is there any other context in which you'd be comfortable with rich people having twice as much access to public services than the poor?[/b]
You're still mixing up cause and effect - premises and conclusions.
If health care were user-pay, then rich people would be much more likely to use it than poor people. If Tommy Douglas then said, "let's make it free!", would you say: "No, that would just be a gift to the rich??"
Fri, 2007-09-21 14:20
#36
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You're still mixing up cause and effect - premises and conclusions.
If health care were user-pay, then rich people would be much more likely to use it than poor people. If Tommy Douglas then said, "let's make it free!", would you say: "No, that would just be a gift to the rich??"[/b]
Aha, and touche. I get the feeling Stephen Gordon will come back with something to the effect that health care is higher on the immediate needs list of high priorities than is a university degree. We've got shortages of other affordable necessities in Canada and affecting poor people and students alike, like housing. Housing, to me, is another big item that markets aren't fulfilling needs for poorer Canadians, students and families alike.
Fri, 2007-09-21 14:28
#37
quote:
Originally posted by torontoprofessor:
(1) In the current funding environment, it is true that rich kids are twice as likely to go to university as are poor kids. Arguably, this would not be the case in unionist's preferred funding environment.
I've seen no evidence to support such a claim.
quote:
(2) The [i]kids[/i] aren't rich. Their parents are. The kids aren't even kids: they are adults with rich parents. I am not sure that I like our current strategy of determine an adult's funding on the basis of her parents' income and assets. I certainly would not want my parents' income and assets to affect a decision as to whether I receive a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts (for example).
This would be a persuasive argument if kids from rich families weren't twice as likely to go to university. But they are, so it isn't.
quote:
(3) Rich people are also more likely to use the highways than poor people, since rich people are more likely to own cars. (This reiterates a point of unionist's.) Should we charge for highway use, giving fee waivers to poor people?
I have no problem with that; it reduces inequality.
quote:
(4) Given our progressive tax system, rich people already pay more for their education and for their highway use than poor people, by virtue of paying more taxes.
It had never occurred to me that the idea that rich people are [b]entitled[/b] to more public money because [i]they pay more in taxes[/i] could ever be considered a progressive principle. Is there any other context in which you'd be willing to make the same argument?
quote:
(5) One way to subsidize poor people's education is to provide bursaries. Another way is to make it free for everyone, and increase the taxes on the rich just the right amount. The second strategy seems more efficient, and would certainly eliminate any bursary-administering bureaucracy.
It's certainly an efficient way of giving rich kids free money.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 14:32
#38
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:You're still mixing up cause and effect - premises and conclusions.
If health care were user-pay, then rich people would be much more likely to use it than poor people. If Tommy Douglas then said, "let's make it free!", would you say: "No, that would just be a gift to the rich??"
Tuition is [b]not[/b] the principle barrier between kids from low-income households and PSE; see [url=http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2007295.htm]... StatsCan study.[/url]
Would you be okay with a public health care system in which poor people went to hospitals whose funding levels that were half of those that rich people used?
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 14:43
#39
quote:
originally posted by Geneva [b]you CANNOT be a student at a N.American university anymore without a computer[/b]
University??? My son is in Year 7 (Grade 6 in North American parlance) and he has to have a laptop. No option.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: abnormal ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 14:57
#40
And I think there exists a set of contributing circumstances as to why kids with rich parents are twice as likely to attend PSE. And it all boils down to money and opportunities that having money provides. This begins to be true for kids whose parents can afford to have things as easy as reading and writing materials for the kid in pre-kindergarten years. And this is especially true nowadays with which families can afford technology in their homes, PC and internet access. Sky-high PSE tuitions and overall cost just represents another life lesson in inequality and barrier to breaking the cycle of poverty.
There are poor kids from poor families in India and other countries where tuition is low or free for the needy and who do choose higher education as a way out of poverty. And they aren't punished with oppressive levels of debt if high-paying jobs aren't there for them at the end of it.
I think there should be a basic three year BA in Canada. No tuition. Kids today should receive a classic education in the areas of humanities, languages, arts, math and science FOC as a right of citizenship.
And if industry wants trained seals, then let them pay. Separate classic education from industrial needs. But everyone should have access to both sides of the coin if that is their free will. Without a well-informed and educated public(and some democratic control of money creation), there can be no democracy.
Fri, 2007-09-21 15:05
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Tuition is [b]not[/b] the principle barrier between kids from low-income households and PSE; see [url=http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2007295.htm]... StatsCan study.[/url][/b]
I'm aware of that. I think you've heard me many times, but I'll repeat. Education is a social need, like health care, water, public libraries. It should be provided free of charge. Barriers to participation are many and varied, and those require other solutions - as we have also discussed on many occasions.
This is parallel to our ongoing debate about minimum wage. You keep repeating that raising it doesn't solve poverty. I keep telling you that that's not why it should be raised (it should be raised for the same reason that we have mandatory maximum work hours and health and safety legislation, to provide a lower limit to exploitation and competition between workers), and that poverty needs many and varied solutions (providing expanding ranges of socially necessary goods for free, full employment policies, public child care, free skills and job training, etc. etc.).
Maybe we should just agree to disagree on what kind of world we should live in? Mine resembles something called "socialism".
quote:
[b]Would you be okay with a public health care system in which poor people went to hospitals whose funding levels that were half of those that rich people used?
[/b]
No - but I never said that making university tuition free was more than one small but absolutely indispensable piece of the equation.
Fri, 2007-09-21 15:14
#42
Fidel,
I think you've got part of it right and a big part at that. The other part, which is not insignificant, is the value parents place on education. If your parents don't place a lot of value on education, odds are you won't either. And I expect that's a function of socio-economic status.
Fri, 2007-09-21 15:21
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]You've got this exactly wrong. Rich kids are twice as likely to go to university than are poor kids. That means that they are receiving twice as much public money. Is there any other context in which you'd be comfortable with rich people having twice as much access to public services than the poor?[/b]
And why are rich kids more likely to go to university in the first place?
Because they (or more accurately, their parental units) can afford to go, and because the cost isn't psychologically daunting.
People trotted out the exact same excuses 150 years ago when they debated making K-12 universal. And you're ignoring all kinds of socioeconomic factors that go into why rich kids (whose parental units can afford to spring for living expenses) get to go in greater numbers.
It is not an accident that students going to university these days tend to live at home if they can - they've got no other choice!
The student loan system also perversely rewards poorer students moving out and taking an apartment. If you get a student loan and indicate that you're living with the parental unit, you get a measly $1500. Per semester.
That's not even enough to cover tuition, and don't natter at me about bursaries. They're not guaranteed, and it's more likely the kids with bigger student loans and more expenses will get them first anyway.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 16:08
#44
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:
[b]Fidel,I think you've got part of it right and a big part at that. The other part, which is not insignificant, is the value parents place on education. If your parents don't place a lot of value on education, odds are you won't either. And I expect that's a function of socio-economic status.[/b]
I just think there is a lot of inefficiency with the current setup. A friend of mine has a computer science degree. He's working at The Beer Store. There is much overlap in the system to say the least, and it tends to benefit big business. They are the main benefactors of an oversupply of well-edcuated unemployed and underemployed workforce.
In the depression era, there were five or ten labourers for every one of those jobs available.
And before that during the industrial revolution in England, and after big industry and finance picked up and moved there from Holland because workers there became too organized, it was the same thing. But there was grinding poverty in Victorian times. And the captains of industry said that the street urchins needed direction. So education was directed toward training children to be useful for industrial purposes in aiding the rich to become richer. British children recited facts and figures pertaining to the empire on demand. It's not the same as today, but it sounds good for thread dicussion. It's all very inefficient, and I think we need to separate the chaff from the wheat in order not to oversupply industry with trained seals at taxpayer's expense. Classic or basic higher ed should be a basic human right for all, and perhaps included in some sort of global NAFTA for workers. "They don't need no education They don't need no thought control No dark sarcasm in ..."
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 22:47
#45
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]And why are rich kids more likely to go to university in the first place?
Because they (or more accurately, their parental units) can afford to go, and because the cost isn't psychologically daunting.
People trotted out the exact same excuses 150 years ago when they debated making K-12 universal. And you're ignoring all kinds of socioeconomic factors that go into why rich kids (whose parental units can afford to spring for living expenses) get to go in greater numbers.
It is not an accident that students going to university these days tend to live at home if they can - they've got no other choice!
The student loan system also perversely rewards poorer students moving out and taking an apartment. If you get a student loan and indicate that you're living with the parental unit, you get a measly $1500. Per semester.
That's not even enough to cover tuition, and don't natter at me about bursaries. They're not guaranteed, and it's more likely the kids with bigger student loans and more expenses will get them first anyway.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ][/b]
I dont know where someone got the idea that rich kids are twice (sic) as likely to go to uni/college. Im honestly irritated at that sort of claptrap (and Im being fucking polite here)
Are we too stuck in 1970's view of postsecondary institutions or is it just US skew? Maybe we need to watch less John Belushi films [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
However,
So many poor and lower-middle class kids, as least here in the GTA absolutely need and want desperqately to attend and finish university. Especially in the immigrant communities, like myself and many of my friends. When they get accepted they try to make the tution ends meet, dsepite poor OSAP conditions. To balance the loans with work hours, and like Dr.Conway said, many simply choose to stay with parents. But more on that later.
OK, lets be fair. The tuition here isnt so bad as in the States, but then again they(yanks) have all sort of crazy stuff going on: the infamous football/basketball scholarships, minority quotas, private donations etc.
Anything in order to weasel out of supporting efficient and affordable post-secondary for all...
Im not gonna go all scientific shit here, so please excuse me. Ill get to the point,
Like I said, tuition in Ontario is better than in the States, but worse than in almost all provinces.
McGuinty has removed the tuition cap last year as you may be aware by now.
Here at YorkU, a standard, 3credit-1 semester course is now worth $504. Standard, max course load for the academic year is 30 credits, therefore $5040. The tuition rose by $20 per course, resulting in a $200 increase for the full year.
That is one of the reasons I never took a full-course load, and chose to stretch out my study instead. I also choose not to be burdened with debt, so all I have left is the unpaid OSAP loan at about $2000. I only received OSAP funding for the 1st year. I guess they thought my family wasnt poor enough for them.. Just dark humour here, dont mind.
Either way, I dont quite have enough money to pay for this year, so I might need to take another huge loan. Asking for more loans from my parents is uncomfortable. OSAP isnt really a possibility. I guess I need to move to a dirty aprtment for that purpose. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Im not the only one in the province, of course. Ive met many students who were in even more financial struggle, trying to balance the scales.
Some even had to take a year off to work.
Think about that.
Sure there are lots of well-dressed folks with their fancy laptops, but they arent exactly the average university student in Canada.
And dont even get me started on these corporate stooges in university admin.
They take a lotta corporate donations just fine, and their salaries have never been higher.
President and lower level deans and assistants earning $200-250 k? And they complain about balanceing the univeristy expenses?Honestly WTF??
People must stand up for the young people's right to affordable and proper education. We are the future and we are being left behind in the changing world.
SO How about some understanding?
Thu, 2007-10-11 14:53
#46
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
I dont know where someone got the idea that rich kids are twice (sic) as likely to go to uni/college. Im honestly irritated at that sort of claptrap (and Im being fucking polite here)
These are readily-verifiable facts. Check out Figure 2.IV.2 of [url=http://www.boursesmillenaire.ca/images/Publications/Price_of_Knowledge-2... 393-page pdf file[/url], or Chart 5 from [url=http://www.ocufa.on.ca/research_studies/tuition_trap.pdf]from this 31-page pdf[/url].
I'm not arguing that PSE students who need help shouldn't get it. I'm saying that PSE students who don't need help shouldn't get free money.
[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Thu, 2007-10-11 15:20
#47
But rich people and their kids tend to consume more overall and make use of more public facilities, roads, electricity and so on than poor families and their children. Why not just raise taxes on the rich and upper-middle class a little instead of placing a really scary sticker shock on PSE? Why make it a bureaucratic nightmare and creating all kinds of opportunity to exclude Canadians who just won't qualify for subsidies?
And the level of interest charged on Canadian student loans is scandalous to say the least. [url=http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=15&cat=23&id... MP Denise Savoie[/b][/url] says the profit motive should be eliminated from the Canada Student Loan Program. It's busted, Jim.
Thu, 2007-10-11 15:25
#48
Dragging taxation into this is a distraction. Unless, of course, you're willing to say that because rich parents pay more in taxes, their kids are [b]entitled[/b] to more and better public services than are kids from poor families.
Thu, 2007-10-11 16:16
#49
Canada is middle of the pack wrt taxation. That is unless you want to join Conrad Black in renouncing your citizenship because we've got too much socialism as it is in Canada?
Thu, 2007-10-11 16:21
#50
Do fuck off; there's a good chap. You've nothing to contribute here.
[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Thu, 2007-10-11 16:30
#51
Well I think they should at least raise the minimum wage to something livable if they don't want to maintain access to PSE as a basic human right anymore. Because a highschool diploma just isn't the standard job requirement in Canada.