IMHO it seems that children of people with degrees are more likely to attend PSE than children of people with no degree. The degree holders tend to have higher incomes too so this may explain a bit of the preponderance of so called rich kids to be in the majority at universities. I base this on my own family's experience, among other things.
College Tuition III
Thu, 2007-10-11 17:06
#52
Thu, 2007-10-11 17:34
#53
Two families on my hometown street were headed by parents whose highest educational achievements was grade nine. Two of their children went on to attain B.Eng. degrees.
So I'm wondering for what purpose they intend to cite the fact that kids from well off families tend to access PSE at greater rates, and even moreso now that PSE costs an arm and leg over a quarter century worth of student loan debt sentence on average.
I know some well off families who drive newer cars and access travel agencies more than poorer families. So what?
Because that's like saying desperately poor people in subharan Africa use less water than rich white people do. Therefore, we're going to marketize and raise the price of water because rich white people aren't paying enough?
[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Fri, 2007-10-12 16:10
#54
You forgot the part where the magic of subsidies to poor people makes it all right to clip people like a dollar a liter for water, like in South Africa.
Back to tuition.
I notice Sven hasn't piped up in this thread at all, ever since I pointed out how ludicrous it is to claim that the hi-ho-pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps rhetoric doesn't amount to a hill of beans when there are still barriers to the theoretical equality of opportunity that he claims exists in Canada and the USA.
I had a great deal of fun reading Jeremy Rifkin's The European Dream, and the basic theme that kept coming up is that the notion that we have to let the powers that be (namely, rich people and big corporations) turn up the speed on the treadmill the rest of us have to run on, is a load of crap. We have choices and we have options, and one of them darn well is to be able to say "no, we're not going to let you guys keep cranking up the speed on this goddamn treadmill until we all collapse from exhaustion running at the insane speed you want us to run at".
The Europeans have their own problems, sure, but the point is, they have proven that socialism, and capitalism, with a human face is possible. I've got the feeling that the 21st century is passing the USA by, and it has a lot to do with the fact that Americans are culturally and socially deluded into thinking that because they get a measly two weeks vaycay per year (which, for the most part, isn't even mandated by the government - oh, no, it's "kindly" given to employees by the oh-so-munificent employer who'd as soon fire 'em as keep 'em... I may barf yet!), they're NUMBAH ONE... then again the SuperBowl, which features US teams only, names the winning team the "World Champions" - a rather vivid testament to the navel-gazing nature of the world's wealthiest nation.
Europeans get three to six weeks vaycay per year and don't seem to be suffering horribly for it. This ties into the access-to-education issue. Sure, university attendance is higher in Canada and the USA, but I suspect an artificial bias in these two nations because of the social stigma attached to vocational and technical training, even though such work is beneficial to society and needs to be done by people who honestly want to do the work.
[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]
Fri, 2007-10-12 16:55
#55
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
the magic of subsidies to poor people
Magic? No. Just a better use of public money than subsidies to rich people.
Fri, 2007-10-12 18:16
#56
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Magic? No. Just a better use of public money than subsidies to rich people.[/b]
Rich people's access to water in S. Africa and PSE here aren't affected either way. Our stoogeocrats in Ottawa should stop gouging kids with ridiculous interest rates on student loans.
The bozos in Ottawa and Calgary should tax parasitic American energy companies for accessing our fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow. Canada's national energy plan is whatever transnational energy companies decide it will be down in Houston and Wall Street.
Fri, 2007-10-12 22:14
#57
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Magic? No. Just a better use of public money than subsidies to rich people.[/b]
You know, when ecomomists dreamed up the magic of government transfers, some of the uses to which they put this part of the magic bag of tricks of economists make me seriously wonder if I exist on the same planet as you guys, 'cuz apparently just about every problem on the face of the earth seems to magically go away with "government transfers".
Some guy even dreamed up how free trade would work slicker than a greased pig if winners from free trade somehow magically compensated losers from free trade in some sort of Byzantine scheme, implemented by, guess what - government transfers.
In real life, we don't do this. In the industrial nations access to water is seen as such a basic requirement of human living that we don't charge people by the liter (or if we do meter usage, the limits are pretty generous and you'd have to waste a helluva lot of water to really feel the pinch), and we provide nearly universal access to water that's clean and sanitary.
In effect, we've accomplished (via taxes and other cross-subsidization mechanisms that don't operate on the individual, but at the government, level) in a far saner method, in my view, what this magic government-transfers-directly-to-the-poor-and-charging-by-the-liter trick supposedly does in places like Africa.
Even Bolivia got out of the clipping-people-by-the-liter business when they reformed the water company into a collective cooperative.
Sat, 2007-10-13 16:07
#58
You may want to change the title of this thread. I had the - clearly mistaken - impression that it was about college tuition.
Sat, 2007-10-13 19:24
#59
Core funding from the feds and provinces is what's needed to stop tuition fees from rising. They've got to freeze and lower tuition fees to something in the range of sane to reasonable. And stop gouging students with highest in the developed world interest rates while claiming "budget surpluses" at the expense of infrastructure and social programs.
Mon, 2007-10-15 11:24
#60
I like what American [url=http://conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#2]Dean Baker[/url] has to say about free trade economists and protectionism in the U.S. He says there is a deliberate protectionist agenda in the U.S. to prevent international competition for occupations such as doctors, [i]economists[/i], and university professors, and making it really difficult for them to emigrate to the U.S. and compete for jobs there paying high wages. And it's done on purpose. Elitists want to expose Americans to Darwinian competiton among low and semi-skilled workers but not their "base" the well-educated middle and upper class professionals enjoying their protectionist policies.
I'm thinking our CMA and engineering associations act similarly here in Canada. And how many new universities have we built in Canada since 1980?
But then Baker mentions the possibility for [i]Walmart universities[/i] if there were free trade provisions that would recognize professional certification internationally, a free trade agreement for workers!
Thu, 2008-06-12 01:37
#61
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/4648][b]Petition to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development[/b][/url]
We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, draw the attention of the Minister to the following:
[b]THAT students who are forced to take out a loan in order to attain a postsecondary education (PSE) will pay considerably more for that education than those who can afford to pay upfront;[/b]
THAT chronic federal underfunding of core postsecondary education has led to soaring tuition fees and average student debt that is approaching $25,000;
THAT Canada’s student loan system should be clear, fair, and responsive to students’ needs and circumstances; but instead it is currently a nightmare for thousands of student borrowers because of mishandled files, rigid and
complicated processes, inadequate debt relief measures, abusive collection agencies, and other problems;
THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon the minister to make certain that the review of Canada’s student loan system addresses and resolves the flaws in the system in each the following ways:
• Create a federal, need-based grant system for all Canada student loans in every year of study, by rolling in the budget of poorly targeted federal PSE programs and the expiring Millennium Scholarship Foundation;
• Reduce the federal student loan interest rate;
• Create a federal Student Loan Ombudsperson to help students navigate the loan system, objectively resolve problems and ensure that students are treated with fairness and respect;
• Provide better relief during repayment of student loans, including expanding eligibility for permanent disability benefits, interest relief and debt reduction;
• Create enforceable federal standards governing the conduct of government and private student loan collection agents, subject to the policy objective of helping students find ways to repay their loan;
• Amend the “lifetime limit” on student loans such that they are not repayable until six months after the completion of full-time studies, including doctoral programs and medical residency;
• Reduce the discriminatory ban on bankruptcy protection for student loans to two years;
• Address the recommendations of the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness and other student groups
Thu, 2008-06-12 04:39
#62
This thread really hit a nerve with me!
I have just exhausted my interest relief and will begin repayment of my federal loan (almost $30,000) next month.
Interest is accrueing at almost 6$ per day! There is $170 of interest per month! How is it legal for someone to profit off of my educational loans like this?
It would be bad enough if it was just the actual debt that one had to repay - but such exhorbitant interest? 5-6$ a day depending on interest rates since I graduated in 2005 is insanity.
I just needed to vent and rant about that. Thank you.
Thu, 2008-06-12 05:31
#63
Ah feel yer pain. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-06-12 05:34
#64
quote:
Interest is accrueing at almost 6$ per day! There is $170 of interest per month! How is it legal for someone to profit off of my educational loans like this?
I feel your pain. My interest is about $200 a month, and I've never thought to calculate it per day, but now that I have, my head hurts! I just filed my taxes this week and was looking at almost $2500 of the money I paid back this year going toward interest. It's baffling really. You feel like you're really putting a dent in your debt until you receive a statement that shows you've hardly brought it down at all.
Thu, 2008-06-12 05:35
#65
ElizaQ
Hey Ghislane,
I feel for you. I really do. I went back to UNI as a mature student a while back and managed for a couple of years without getting any loans. I only took a few courses at a time. It takes a loooong time that way. It came to a point where I felt that I needed to decide to either get go the loan route and get the durn thing done or take another course of action. I actually was given an opportunity to skip finishing the bachelors and go right into a particular Masters program because of convergance of life experience and other factors, but the cost financially was big. I started crunching numbers and in the end decided that I just couldn't go into that much debt. I already knew what it was like paying off huge debt from my previous business life and just couldn't stomach going through that again.
So I ended up just stopping so I have yet to get the piece of paper that indicates that I have at least part of a brain.
What I'm doing now doesn't need a degree, I'm self employed, but I still have some regrets of not getting it. I still run into people who place a certain amount of status on the thing which is annoying. I still do plan to get it done...just cause but it will be done as finances allow by distance education.
I expect with the way things are going now I should have it done by about age 50. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-06-12 05:39
#66
My ten year mark comes in 2013. If I can hold on until then, I guess I can declare bankruptcy and get rid of the remaining debt that way.
Thu, 2008-06-12 06:48
#67
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]My ten year mark comes in 2013. If I can hold on until then, I guess I can declare bankruptcy and get rid of the remaining debt that way.[/b]
lol, that is one option - although I think that would interfere with my home ownership plans!
ElizaQ, I hear what you are saying.
My irony is that I realized after I was done and was practising that I could not continue working in child welfare (due to a myriad of reasons that I am sure may babblers are aware of) and sleep at night until there was policy change etc.
So now i am going on a different path, but taking school one course at a time very slowly while working full time and not getting any more loans. Wish i would have done this from the start.
I hear what you saying about the importance people put on that piece of paper - but from the sounds of your lifestyle in the food and farming threads you are living a pretty sweet life so who cares about the piece of paper?
ps I signed the petition
Thu, 2008-06-12 09:33
#68
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]lol, that is one option - although I think that would interfere with my home ownership plans![/b]
For what it's worth, I don't believe they can stop you from taking out a mortgage. First-time home buyers going through CMHC need 5% down payment, and you're home. After that, keep an eye on your ten years from "end of studies date", and then see where your finances are at that point. According to Michalos and Hoyes, the ten year waiting period will be reduced to seven years by end of 2008. They can't touch RRSP,s, so I would definitely be stashing away your 5% down payment(or more) until then.
Thu, 2008-06-12 09:35
#69
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]For what it's worth, I don't believe they can stop you from taking out a mortgage. First-time home buyers going through CMHC need 5% down payment, and you're home. After that, keep an eye on your ten years from "end of studies date", and then see where your finances are at that point. According to Michalos and Hoyes, the ten year waiting period will be reduced to seven years by end of 2008. They can't touch RRSP,s, so I would definitely be stashing away your 5% down payment(or more) until then.[/b]
Oh really? One other note: with CMHC insurance you actually can do 0% down payment.
Thu, 2008-06-12 09:45
#70
I didn't know that about 0%. But I would think about going for it soon before the Liberal-fascist bureaucracy become any more repressive than it is. I'm not sure, but I thought I read that in the U.S., the rules are now that student loan debt is permanent and cannot be included in personal bankruptcy. But at the same time, interest rates on Canadian student loans are highest in the world.
Thu, 2008-06-12 09:58
#71
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I didn't know that about 0%. But I would think about going for it soon before the Liberal-fascist bureaucracy become any more repressive than it is. I'm not sure, but I thought I read that in the U.S., the rules are now that student loan debt is permanent and cannot be included in personal bankruptcy. But at the same time, interest rates on Canadian student loans are highest in the world.[/b]
That does not surprise me - they seem like the highest rates in the world.
Yes, I am not waiting - hoping to get a house by the fall [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-06-12 10:05
#72
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]But at the same time, interest rates on Canadian student loans are highest in the world.[/b]
What are the interest rates on a loan taken out today?
Thu, 2008-06-12 13:12
#73
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]What are the interest rates on a loan taken out today?[/b]
According to [url=http://www.studentloanfairness.ca/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticl... Loan Fairness[/url], about 8.5% at this time. I've paid as high as 11% on my loans. Sven, Canada has been even [i]more[/i] NeoLiberal than the U.S. in certain regards. Because we've got the oil and gas and massive amounts of hydroelectric power and minerals and timber, and next to the USSA, the next-largest low wage workforce to prop up a debt-based NeoLiberal economic experiment.
Thu, 2008-06-12 15:31
#74
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]According to [url=http://www.studentloanfairness.ca/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticl... Loan Fairness[/url], about 8.5% at this time.[/b]
That link says that the rate on "federal loans" are about 8.5%. Are there "[i]non[/i]-federal loans"?
Thu, 2008-06-12 19:07
#75
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]That link says that the rate on "federal loans" are about 8.5%. Are there "[i]non[/i]-federal loans"?[/b]
The other significant lender of student loans are provincial schemes, [url=http://accesswindow.osap.gov.on.ca/aw/ENG/not_secure/osap1016.htm#S6-200... plus one percent[/url] or locked in at fixed prime plus five percent, and they can actually choose the poison. Then come bank lines of credit, and leg-break interest on credit card debt. Most students say government loans aren't enough to cover all expenses.
A salient point that the NDP points out to us so pointedly, is that there are two general price tags for accessing higher ed: one for richer and one for poorer. Basing access to PSE on ability to pay and not merit alone is no way to dole out what used to be considered a basic human right in Canada. There was no scarcity befer we bailed out deregulated banks in the 1980's and most infamously in 1991. This is all because private banks needed bailing out for their gambling losses around the world and for activities which are essentially incompatible with banking. [url=http://bankslovedebt.com/]http://bankslovedebt.com/[/url]
Sat, 2008-06-14 01:48
#76
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
[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
[/b]
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]
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].
[/b]
I tried to verify this. According to chart 5 of the OCUFA report, bottom quartile students make up 20% of college and university students and top quartile students make up 31%.
ETA: Oops, this data was already cited in the third post of this thread.
[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: PB66 ]
Sat, 2008-06-14 03:43
#77
quote:
Originally posted by [url=http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/81-004-XIE/200409/peps.htm]http://...
[b]
The median amount spent by university students on tuition, fees, books and supplies was about $5,000 compared to $3,100 for college students.
[/b]
In colleges, students from families in the bottom and top income quartiles made up 22% and 24% of the student body respectively. At universities, it's 16% and 37%.
I think we should have grants for students and no tuition. That's the position of the CFS. It's reasonable to ask if lowering or eliminating tuition is a fair and effective first step. This data suggest to me that it is.
Sat, 2008-06-14 04:36
#78
Of [b]course[/b] the CFS favours free tuition. Targeted grants would only benefit a small minority of their members, and the people who would benefit the most - those from low-income households who are unable to afford university - are not represented by the CFS.
Sat, 2008-06-14 04:45
#79
Le T
quote:
Of course the CFS favours free tuition. Targeted grants would only benefit a small minority of their members, and the people who would benefit the most - those from low-income households who are unable to afford university - are not represented by the CFS.
I think that it's also an issue of equity. Why should poor people have to fill out all sorts of applications and beg for a "targeted grant" when rich can slap the cash down on the table and have money for beer.
This is already what happens with OSAP in Ontario. It's a pretty extensive application process that includes, in some cases (most probably), getting your parents tax return info.
At the school that I went to there was also a fee for being on OSAP. Because OSAP pays you in two installments (probably what the targeted grants would do too) and the school has an "installment fee" of something like $65 it basically amounts to a poor tax.
I wish somebody would do a Human Rights challenge of that fee based on discrimination on source of income.
Sat, 2008-06-14 05:13
#80
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Of [b]course[/b] the CFS favours free tuition. Targeted grants would only benefit a small minority of their members, and the people who would benefit the most - those from low-income households who are unable to afford university - are not represented by the CFS.[/b]
We can argue all day about whether students should be treated as independent adults, whether we want to create a generation of successful students who feel a loyalty to equal access or hereditary wealth, the justification of social programs that might only stop the middle class from falling far behind the wealthy, and the distortionary economic effect of means-tested programs, but it's not changing the fact that when tuition is two thousand dollars lower, as it is at colleges relative to universities, students from the bottom income quartile have much closer participation rate to those of students from the top income quartile.
Sat, 2008-06-14 05:21
#81
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Targeted grants would only benefit a small minority of their members, and the people who would benefit the most - those from low-income households who are unable to afford university - are not represented by the CFS.[/b]
quote:
Originally posted by unionist: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.
Note: The above is what I said on Sept. 21, 2007 in this same thread. Whoever has the last word on this topic wins. I can't believe anyone would spend years on this board arguing AGAINST free tuition, without even realizing that the same argument would apply to elementary school, health care, etc.
Sat, 2008-06-14 06:30
#82
And I can't understand how a progressive could insist on supporting free tuition, especially after it's been explained at great length that it's a regressive policy.
Sat, 2008-06-14 07:27
#83
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]And I can't understand how a progressive could insist on supporting free tuition, especially after it's been explained at great length that it's a regressive policy.[/b]
Bullshit. Rich kids attend university in greater numbers due to a variety of regressive roadblocks that prevent others from more modest backgrounds from doing the same. True progressive change would not leave these roadblocks in place - inadequate housing, lack of coverage for prescription drugs, bigotry, etc. So you are essentially attacking a strawman: you attack the idea of accesible education for all as if it would occur in a vacuum. But in reality, it would just be one of many progressive measures that together could make our society far more just and equitable. Attacking universality is an attack on many of the institutions which Canadians have come to cherish.
And by the way, does your reasoning in opposition to free education extend to the public school system as well? Why/why not, Mr Gordon? [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: Kevin Laddle ]
Sat, 2008-06-14 07:37
#84
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]My ten year mark comes in 2013. If I can hold on until then, I guess I can declare bankruptcy and get rid of the remaining debt that way.[/b]
Uh, i believe student loans cannot be included (if that's the right word) in bankruptcy. I looked into this awhile back pretty extensively, and I'm almost positive that they were exempted - so even if you had enough debt from other sources to factor in, your student loans would remain even after declaring bankruptcy. I'd be very happy to be proven wrong though
Sat, 2008-06-14 08:20
#85
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Laddle:And by the way, does your reasoning in opposition to free education extend to the public school system as well? Why/why not, Mr Gordon? [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
The same reasoning does apply, but since the facts are different for the public school system, the conclusions are as well. To the extent that funding rules for K-12 roughly allocates equal amount of money to all students regardless of income (which is emphatically [b]not[/b] the case with PSE), then K-12 universality is neutral. And to the extent that
1) Governments target schools with relatively high numbers of at-risk students (who are more likely to come from lower-income households), and
2) Rich parents opt out of the public school system, leaving more money for those who remain,
then K-12 universality will be progressive. Not as progressive, perhaps, as targeted transfers, but I'm willing to live with the argument that it is easier to maintain support for a mildly progressive universal program than for a strongly progressive targeted program.
Sat, 2008-06-14 09:16
#86
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]And I can't understand how a progressive could insist on supporting free tuition, especially after it's been explained at great length that it's a regressive policy.[/b]
Like free health care. And free water. Yeah, I know, we're just a regressive buncha dinosaurs here. We just wanna make everything free for the rich. yeah, right, let's continue this debate some more, I'm almost convinced. One more post and you'll have recruited me. Just one more.
Sat, 2008-06-14 09:40
#87
I agree with CCPA recommendations which state that post-secondary graduates who obtain good-paying jobs will pay for their education through higher taxes throughout their working lives. If we don't want to give the rich a free ride wrt PSE, then we don't have to do it through a repressive bureaucracy which hurts poor people more. Right now there are two price tags attached to higher learning: one for richer and one for poorer.
Graduates who don't secure good paying jobs for whatever reasons - like a poorly performing economy - should not be unduly punished with mortgage-sized debt loads and bad credit. Taxing graduates at the "backdoor" after graduation makes more sense than holding them up at the front door. This isn't free education either, but it makes more sense than leaving the front door wide open to repressive and ruthlessly inefficient Liberal-fascist bureaucracy demanding a pound of flesh upon pursuing a better life. Freely accessible higher education and advasnced democracy go hand in hand. A well informed and educated public is democratic power, and sadly, that's not been their public policy goal today in Ottawa.
Sat, 2008-06-14 09:47
#88
I [b]support[/b] free, universal health care because it's [b]a progressive policy[/b]. [url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w13881]From the abstract from a recent study:[/url]
quote:
Using data on expenditures and life expectancy by income quintile from the Canadian health care system, I find that universal, publicly-funded health insurance is modestly redistributive. Putting $1 of tax funds into the public health insurance system effectively channels between $0.23 and $0.26 toward the lowest income quintile people, and about $0.50 to the bottom two income quintiles.
I [b]support[/b] free, universal K-12 education because it's [b]a progressive policy[/b].
I [b]oppose[/b] free, universal university education because it's [b]a regressive policy[/b].
The fact that universality is progressive in some cases does not mean it's progressive in all cases.
[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Sat, 2008-06-14 10:12
#89
That's it. I'm convinced. Sign me up!
As my first act of repentance, I'm sending a form letter of condemnation to all student associations in Canada for wasting decades of time and youthful energy fighting for free tuition, bursaries instead of loans, and decent living stipends, when all the idiots had to do was read a few paragraphs by some renowned economists to realize the folly of their ways.
Thank you for helping me see the light.
My next project: User fees for watching the sun rise. The rich have been getting free peeks for long enough. Make the rich pay!
Sat, 2008-06-14 10:15
#90
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]I [b]oppose[/b] free, universal university education because it's [b]a regressive policy[/b].The fact that universality is progressive in some cases does not mean it's progressive in all cases.[/b]
How are Nordic countries able to afford universal PSE ?
You can point to higher PSE enrollment rates here in N.America, but I think it's because there is no honest choice between becoming a low wage slave and attempting a better life. People in Nordic countries can live on their lowest wages and incomes, therefore pursuing PSE really is a life choice in those countries. PSE has become a gamble in North America.
There is no real guarantee of a good job and higher income attached to PSE anywhere in the world. Nowadays, an advanced degree might be closer to a job guarantee than a three-year B.A. The rich, and that narrow band of middle class income earners in the income distribution and [i]their[/i] children can afford six and twelve years' worth of PSE while everyone else below them has to deal with the repressive bureaucracy in order to access what should be a unversal right to higher learning based on merit not ability to pay at the front door.
Your idea may be a good one, Stephen. But it's an efficient solution piggy-backed on to a pile of spaghetti of pre-existing ineffiency and would be twirled into something entirely different by political power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few in this country and leaning toward American-style PSE. We're also at risk for having American-style health care forced on us. NeoLiberal economics and democracy are incompatible, and that's why Canadians will not have a choice in the matter.
Sat, 2008-06-14 15:55
#91
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]That's it. I'm convinced. Sign me up!As my first act of repentance, I'm sending a form letter of condemnation to all student associations in Canada for wasting decades of time and youthful energy fighting for free tuition, bursaries instead of loans, and decent living stipends, when all the idiots had to do was read a few paragraphs by some renowned economists to realize the folly of their ways.
Thank you for helping me see the light.
Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. There are lots and lots of people who think that policy analysis is something you do to justify supporting a policy that will make you popular with your friends.
Sat, 2008-06-14 17:04
#92
Personally, I might choose to pay for universal access to PSE the exact same way Norway does, with an adequately funded Petroleum Fund in these times of global warming. But like Stephen Gordon's scheme, it has the same snowball's chance under old line party rule.
[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aaRJwengFvZU&refer=c... interesting link pertaining to snowballs and chance[/url]
Tue, 2008-09-02 22:07
#93
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]And I can't understand how a progressive could insist on supporting free tuition, especially after it's been explained at great length that it's a regressive policy.[/b]
I bet you would have argued against universal K-12 on exactly the same grounds.
Tue, 2008-09-09 18:51
#94
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Ducknazi.jpg/200px-D...
[i]"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."[/i] der head Nazi
Thu, 2008-09-11 06:54
#95
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b][i]"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."[/i] der head Nazi[/b]
so, when is universal education getting here?
Thu, 2008-09-11 07:58
#96
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. There are lots and lots of people who think that policy analysis is something you do to justify supporting a policy that will make you popular with your friends.[/b]
You and Unionist have been debating this issue, I think, for as long as I've been on babble or longer, and I was originally agreeing with you but now I find myself agreeing with unionist more.
I think your analysis is mathematically correct and if I thought history was ending tomorrow I might support it. The reason my opinion has changed, I'm not sure if you've dealt with it, is due to the issue of political viability. It's not good enough to have universal education, it's also important to have continued public support for it as the future is longer than the present and thus more important. By making universal education [b]universal[/b], it increases the number of people with a political interest in the quality of universal education. If the rich, the most powerful in society, are to pay full cost for university then there will be much political pressure to completely liberalize post-secondary.
There are other potential externalities that come to mind, but I have not completely thought them through yet.
Thu, 2008-09-11 11:18
#97
quote:
Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]so, when is universal education getting here?[/b]
I think Manitoba's 60% tax rebate on PSE tuition fees, up to a lifetime max of $25,000, is a pretty good deal.
[ 11 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2008-09-17 04:45
#98
Be nice if BC did the same thing, but considering they actually cut funding to universities, and the unis, once again, are just following along like ducks trailing their mother instead of actually saying, "yo, we got a problem."
'Course back in 2001/2 they did the same thing, took the controls off tuition fees and the unis just went right along and raised tuition, and then secretly awarded the top administration higher salaries to ease their guilty consciences.
[url=http://www.sfu.ca/tssu/the%20facts.htm#What%20Have]It may just be coincidence[/url], but isn't it interesting that the Prez's salary and tuition both went up 51% after adjusting for inflation?
[ 17 September 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]
Fri, 2009-10-30 19:30
#99
[url=http://media.www.brockpress.com/media/storage/paper384/news/2009/10/27/N... hikes make Ontario most expensive in Canada[/url]
Sat, 2009-10-31 11:37
#100
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.
That's part of it. But more importantly, it's expected of them. I know when my daughter went to university one of the schools she turned down asked, among other things, what had made her decide to go to university. Her answer was simple - she never considered not going to university. Her parents did so, the majority of her classmates' parents had, and all of her classmates were headed off to university [in fairness two students in her graduating class elected to take a gap year but the rest were all accepted into their first or second choice school and were off], so university was just the obvious continuation. [For the record, neither of my parents finished high school (both dropped out in grade 10) and the same goes for my wife's parents (neither of them finished grade school).]
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.
Not to mention that it punishes students that excel academically - various bursaries offset a lot of scholarships. Bust your butt and qualify for merit scholarships and see what happens to your grants/bursaries.
Sat, 2009-10-31 12:28
#101
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.
Not to mention that it punishes students that excel academically - various bursaries offset a lot of scholarships. Bust your butt and qualify for merit scholarships and see what happens to your grants/bursaries.
I lost $3000 because I worked a lot in the summer of 2006.
Quebec has a rule that if you're so poor you qualify for bursaries each year of your undergrad, and you finish on time, then you get 15% of your student loans pardoned.
In my last summer, I got a decent job, and for my last year I didn't qualify for bursaries. So I didn't get $3000 pardoned. Had I made $1000 or so less, I would have. Pretty lame.