[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/who-are-u-supporting-ndp-leade... in response to massive thread drift[/url] Here are the relevant postings:
A large part of the problem is that too many students pursue post-secondary studies in fields for which there is not a lot of demand. If one's goal is to learn for its own sake, then by all means one should pursue university studies in whatever field interests them. If one's goal is to find a reasonably paid, rewarding job, then that person should probably choose to study at a college, complete a professional degree or pick up a trade.I attended a Mulcair townhall gathering in Winnipeg with my older teenage son who was the only teenager present in the room. At one point, Mulcair pointed to my son as he referenced young people his age and older who's futures were very dicey in today's economic times. He included references to the high tuition debt that young people are forced to take on, prohibitive costs of being able to afford homes as well as how full time manufacturing jobs with pensions are slowly being eroded out of the economy. He clearly and explicitly stated that the future of this generation concerns him.I sincerely hope that should your son choose to attend post-secondary education that he has better luck applying those skills on the job market than is the case for so many people under 35. As I said, I don't expect Mulcair to flat-out say, "no, it's perfectly acceptable that young people should be worse off financially than their parents," but when the rubber hits the road, nothing Mulcair said convinces me that he gets this issue.
As for high student debt? Check out his history as a part of Charest's government while Charest was attacking post-secondary students. His history is there for all to see, I'm not making that up. His actions as part of the Charest government speak louder than all the speeches he could give.
This is a bit of a post I sent to Aristotle24 via PM that I think is pertinent to put forward for general discussion (I hope you don't mind, Aristotle).It is my view (and, I suspect, Mulcair's too) that a country having plenty of unemployed young people with BA's and BSc's is a symptom of a system that churns out too many BA's and BSc's. I think it is unconscionable that we expect students to pay the tuition fees they have to pay for a skill set that does not prepare them for meaningful employment in the economy.
Far better to have a system such as they have in many European countries (especially in Northern Europe), where not only are tuitions free but where students are provided a stipend to live on while they study.
The trade-off of course in systems such as these is that far fewer individuals graduate with non-professional BA's and BSc's. With limited resources, these governments are very fastidious about allocating them where they are "most required." These social democratic governments make determinations as to what their economies require and direct their resources there - if the economy requires 5000 engineers, 2000 accountants, 1000 nurses and 200 sociologists, that is how many spaces will be made available to students.
In these countries, there is also a tendency to stream students into the skilled trades rather than necessarily to universities. People are generally trained to the level which they require in order to practice what they have studied. In other words, those who end up studying geography or mathematics at the undergraduate level in Europe are far more likely to be the sort who end up continuing their studies at the graduate level, which is the level of education required to be employed in these fields, than they are in North America.
We do have a disease in our economy due to our levels of youth unemployment, but its cause is not simply just that there are not enough jobs - a large part of the problem is that we continue to provide our young people the wrong sets of skills to succeed in the labour market. In most countries, a social-democratic solution involves improving the equitable access to education and skills training, but often at the expense of choice.
That was a very informative post, Winston. Thank you.
My son and I have often wished that Canada would adopt such an educational system as found in Europe as it would have eliminated so much unproductivity and wastefulness. My boy has spent 11 years ducking out of a system where he felt so uncomfortable and useless. He's not an 'academic' and would have fared much better if he had access to a structure that allowed him hands on, practical learning.
--------------
Aristotle, I have never attended university beyond winning a scholarship that allowed me to attend for one year. There was no money and one of my parents fell ill and needed care. My 'career' was alot of unmeaningful jobs that paid little, but I slowly worked my way up to where I was comfortable. In addition to what Winston said about a surplus of degrees in a flooded market, I would say also that there is a higher expectation to be making big bucks right away in a job that directly relates to whatever you studied instead of slowly working your way up.
Aristotle24 brought up some other very good points via PM. It is not my place to post them publicly, but perhaps he would care to add them to this heinously drifting, but very interesting thread.And Panna, I'm sorry to hear about the difficulties your son has experienced. Does he have plans to get into the trades?
That is an unacceptable trade off. Universities are meant to be places of learning, not just education factories. If a person dreams of a pacticular type of degree its not the government's place to decide its unavialable, because it doesn't fit thier plans. If they wish to play favourites fine, but removing choice and programs interferes for to much with academic freedom and I would appose such very hard. What we need if far greater resources for pure research. Knowledge is an ends in itself and its gives a society meaning beyond simple animal survival.This is a bit of a post I sent to Aristotle24 via PM that I think is pertinent to put forward for general discussion (I hope you don't mind, Aristotle).
It is my view (and, I suspect, Mulcair's too) that a country having plenty of unemployed young people with BA's and BSc's is a symptom of a system that churns out too many BA's and BSc's. I think it is unconscionable that we expect students to pay the tuition fees they have to pay for a skill set that does not prepare them for meaningful employment in the economy.
Far better to have a system such as they have in many European countries (especially in Northern Europe), where not only are tuitions free but where students are provided a stipend to live on while they study.
The trade-off of course in systems such as these is that far fewer individuals graduate with non-professional BA's and BSc's. With limited resources, these governments are very fastidious about allocating them where they are "most required." These social democratic governments make determinations as to what their economies require and direct their resources there - if the economy requires 5000 engineers, 2000 accountants, 1000 nurses and 200 sociologists, that is how many spaces will be made available to students.
In these countries, there is also a tendency to stream students into the skilled trades rather than necessarily to universities. People are generally trained to the level which they require in order to practice what they have studied. In other words, those who end up studying geography or mathematics at the undergraduate level in Europe are far more likely to be the sort who end up continuing their studies at the graduate level, which is the level of education required to be employed in these fields, than they are in North America.
We do have a disease in our economy due to our levels of youth unemployment, but its cause is not simply just that there are not enough jobs - a large part of the problem is that we continue to provide our young people the wrong sets of skills to succeed in the labour market. In most countries, a social-democratic solution involves improving the equitable access to education and skills training, but often at the expense of choice.
