College Tuition III

From here.

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 state unis in the Appalachians + Midwest was around $7500-8000 per term.

That does not 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 ]

An interesting article on rabble's front page:

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.

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:
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=6236

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.

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

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.

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.

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

I may be paying double or triple that. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] At minimum 50% more.

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 ]

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.

what does for example Rutgers cost a state resident?

It's up to $18,000 now.

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?

Yes, there are a number of loans that can be obtained. Usually federal loans.

http://www.staffordloan.com/federal-student-loans/

Wow. You can borrow a whole $3500 from them for undergrad. You were saying tuition alone is around $18,000?

but somehow, somehow huge percentages of Americans go to and finish college ... [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
http://tinyurl.com/24udlo

more than in Europe where tuition is low or no

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Geneva: what does for example Rutgers cost a state resident?
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.

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) ]

quote:Originally posted by Geneva:
but somehow, somehow huge percentages of Americans go to and finish college ... [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
http://tinyurl.com/24udlo

more than in Europe where tuition is low or no

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart): ... maybe a computer, ...

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by Geneva:
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

My experience is also quite recent -- indeed, it is current. (1) At the University of Toronto, in the humanities and many sciences, you can 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 can 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 from this shop, 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.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
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.

you are probably right, and he is probably watching The Matrix on-line even as we speak ...

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by josh:
I'm including room and board.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Free tuition would indeed help those who are facing financial difficulties. But it would also help those who aren't 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.

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?

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Something like 1/3 of university students come from families in the top income quartile

That could change if lower-income kids could have free tuition and living stipends. Watch your premises!

quote:Instead of giving public money to rich kids who don't need it, it should be directed to poor kids who do.

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.

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
That could change if lower-income kids could have free tuition and living stipends.

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 ]

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
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.

(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 kids 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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

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?

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??"

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??"

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.

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 kids 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 entitled to more public money because they pay more in taxes 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 ]

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 not the principle barrier between kids from low-income households and PSE; see this StatsCan study.

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 ]

quote:originally posted by Geneva you CANNOT be a student at a N.American university anymore without a computer

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 ]

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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Tuition is [b]not the principle barrier between kids from low-income households and PSE; see this StatsCan study.[/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: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?

No - but I never said that making university tuition free was more than one small but absolutely indispensable piece of the equation.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
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?

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by abnormal:
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.

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by DrConway:

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 ]

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?

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 this 393-page pdf file, or Chart 5 from from this 31-page pdf [46].

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 ]

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. NDP MP Denise Savoie says the profit motive should be eliminated from the Canada Student Loan Program. It's busted, Jim.

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 entitled to more and better public services than are kids from poor families.

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?

Do fuck off; there's a good chap. You've nothing to contribute here.

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

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.

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.

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 ]

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 ]

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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Magic? No. Just a better use of public money than subsidies to rich people.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Magic? No. Just a better use of public money than subsidies to rich people.

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.

You may want to change the title of this thread. I had the - clearly mistaken - impression that it was about college tuition.

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.

I like what American Dean Baker 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, economists, 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 Walmart universities if there were free trade provisions that would recognize professional certification internationally, a free trade agreement for workers!

Petition to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, draw the attention of the Minister to the following:

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;

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

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.

Ah feel yer pain. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

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.

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]

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.

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
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.

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

quote:Originally posted by Ghislaine:

lol, that is one option - although I think that would interfere with my home ownership plans!

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.

quote:Originally posted by Fidel:

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.

Oh really? One other note: with CMHC insurance you actually can do 0% down payment.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Fidel:
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.

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]

quote:Originally posted by Fidel:
But at the same time, interest rates on Canadian student loans are highest in the world.

What are the interest rates on a loan taken out today?

quote:Originally posted by Sven:

What are the interest rates on a loan taken out today?

According to Student Loan Fairness, about 8.5% at this time. I've paid as high as 11% on my loans. Sven, Canada has been even more 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.

quote:Originally posted by Fidel:
According to Student Loan Fairness, about 8.5% at this time.

That link says that the rate on "federal loans" are about 8.5%. Are there "non-federal loans"?

quote:Originally posted by Sven:

That link says that the rate on "federal loans" are about 8.5%. Are there "non-federal loans"?

The other significant lender of student loans are provincial schemes, prime plus one percent 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. http://bankslovedebt.com/ [76]

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

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

These are readily-verifiable facts. Check out Figure 2.IV.2 of this 393-page pdf file, or Chart 5 from from this 31-page pdf [46].

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/81-004-XIE/200409/peps.htm

The median amount spent by university students on tuition, fees, books and supplies was about $5,000 compared to $3,100 for college students.

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.

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.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Of [b]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.[/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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
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.

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.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
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.

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 ]

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
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.

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

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 not 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.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
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.

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.

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.

I support free, universal health care because it's a progressive policy. From the abstract from a recent study:

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 support free, universal K-12 education because it's a progressive policy.

I oppose free, universal university education because it's a regressive policy.

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 ]

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!

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I [b]oppose free, universal university education because it's a regressive policy.

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 their 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.

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.

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.

An interesting link pertaining to snowballs and chance

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
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.

I bet you would have argued against universal K-12 on exactly the same grounds.

"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction." der head Nazi

quote:Originally posted by Fidel:
"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction." der head Nazi

so, when is universal education getting here?

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

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.

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 universal, 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.

quote:Originally posted by genstrike:

so, when is universal education getting here?

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 ]

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.

It may just be coincidence, 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 ]

Tuition hikes make Ontario most expensive in Canada

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).]

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.

Closing for length.  Looking forward to part IIII