"Reduce Tuition Fees"

August1991 · February 8, 2007

Education if about the best investment society can make and pays the highest returns a government supported program can pay. Student loans cost virtually nothing.

If what you say is true, then private lenders would be more than happy to make the investment.

The benefits of post-secondary education are private and students capture all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life. (University research is another story.)

There is an excellent case for subsidizing primary or secondary education but the case for subsidizing post-secondary education is weak to non-existent. Current subsidies are a result of our political system and amount to a subsidy to middle-income and upper income families. The dumb subsidize the smart.

There is also a large (vocal) industry of educators who are happy to have their product subsidized.

stignasty · February 8, 2007

Here's the solution: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16987731/

University auctions tuition on eBay

One year’s costs at Oklahoma Wesleyan currently runs $23,000

BARTLESVILLE, Okla. - One student next term at Oklahoma Wesleyan University may have paid a lot less for tuition than his or her classmates.

The university on Saturday kicked off an eBay auction of a year of tuition, room and board at the private college. The bidding had reached $4,425 by 11 p.m.

geoffrey · February 8, 2007

What else do students need?
Better quality education.

There you go. No one is willing to pay for it though, they all want tuition scaled back.

What's your point, geoffrey? Education if about the best investment society can make and pays the highest returns a government supported program can pay. Student loans cost virtually nothing. You p.o'd because you were lucky to get a job that most students cannot get and you pay taxes while they don't? What's your problem here? It certainly isn't the cost.

I have no problem here, I'm rebuking the need for intervention in what could be a free-market type situation. The cost of school is reasonable, and if investing in it is a good bet, then any private lender would love to do it. If the private lender won't, then obviously there is a reason why he believes that loan will not be profitable.

However, if you think extending student loans to more people will make more people educated, then have at 'er. I, on the other hand, think it will just encourage more people to waste university time and money frolicking in ridiculous programs of study just to kill time.

Every reasonable person works through university. How do they expect to get jobs afterwards, never being in the workforce?

Saturn · February 8, 2007

If what you say is true, then private lenders would be more than happy to make the investment.

The whole economy and society benefit from education, private lenders don't do charity for the benefit of others.

The benefits of post-secondary education are private and students capture all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life. (University research is another story.)

Nonsense.

There is an excellent case for subsidizing primary or secondary education but the case for subsidizing post-secondary education is weak to non-existent. Current subsidies are a result of our political system and amount to a subsidy to middle-income and upper income families. The dumb subsidize the smart.

The smart provide the bulk of services and pay the bulk of taxes in Canada subsidizing a social safety net and many social services for the dumb. You got the direction of subsidies wrong.

Charles Anthony · February 8, 2007

The smart provide the bulk of services and pay the bulk of taxes in Canada subsidizing a social safety net and many social services for the dumb. You got the direction of subsidies wrong.

In that case, maybe we should all stay in school for the rest of our lives! We would all become soooooo wealthy!

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

I think education of the populace should be regarded as an investment by the country that has a payoff that benefits everyone. I think the total economic picture shows that education should be free.

White Doors · February 8, 2007

Increase the loan amounts but do not reduce tuition fees.

Army Guy · February 8, 2007

polynewbie:

I think education of the populace should be regarded as an investment by the country that has a payoff that benefits everyone. I think the total economic picture shows that education should be free.

Never thought i'd say this but i think poly is on to something, Education is the key, but here in NA it is becoming more for the wealthy than it is for the general mass. I've read in a post here a long time ago that education including higher education is provided free of cost to all citizens in certian countries. a few nordic countries have such a system, such as finland.

Why would such a system not work here in Canada ?

free education.

stignasty · February 8, 2007

Why would such a system not work here in Canada ?
free education.

The problem is that free education is not "free" in the same way free health care is not "free." We would have to fund a universal post-secondary system with higher taxes or larger debt. I don't know how many people will be willing to do that.

That said, I think a system where the most capable people have the opportunity to go to post secondary school is much preferable to a system where the most able to pay are given the seat instead.

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

stignasty:We would have to fund a universal post-secondary system with higher taxes or larger debt.

Not true, even if we continued to operate under the international banksters we would have a more educated populace that didn't have to take valuable time away from productive study to serve donuts to pay for it all. We would have more arts and culture and be a more informed populace - exactly what the banksters do not want.

Army Guy · February 8, 2007

The problem is that free education is not "free" in the same way free health care is not "free." We would have to fund a universal post-secondary system with higher taxes or larger debt. I don't know how many people will be willing to do that.
That said, I think a system where the most capable people have the opportunity to go to post secondary school is much preferable to a system where the most able to pay are given the seat instead.

No it may not be totally free, but it may be worth a look. below is a link that does a very extensive review on affordability, etc etc...and although the Canadian education system does not fair out that badly it still places us at number 11 out of 16 countries surveyed, and places those countries with "free edcation in the top third. And with our government continuly posting huge surpluses it might be worth some of our tax dollars.

Could this also solve some of our other problems that we as a nation face as well such as lack of trained medical personal, or other jobs we as a nation have a shortage on?

global education rankings.

Melanie_ · February 8, 2007

Not true, even if we continued to operate under the international banksters we would have a more educated populace that didn't have to take valuable time away from productive study to serve donuts to pay for it all.

But who will I buy my donuts from?

Seriously, though, I agre with PolyNewbie (except for the part about the international banksters - not quite sure what that means). As a post secondary instructor I see students working a couple of jobs and still trying to juggle a full course load. I really admire their energy, but I know when the student hasn't been able to give their full attention to school - I mark a lot of almost great papers.

guyser · February 8, 2007

. I really admire their energy, but I know when the student hasn't been able to give their full attention to school - I mark a lot of almost great papers.

Off topic, but permit me to ask, do you take a persons work history when grading papers? I mean if they are working two jobs to survive does that count in your marking?

White Doors · February 8, 2007

Why would such a system not work here in Canada ?

free education.

The problem is that free education is not "free" in the same way free health care is not "free." We would have to fund a universal post-secondary system with higher taxes or larger debt. I don't know how many people will be willing to do that.

That said, I think a system where the most capable people have the opportunity to go to post secondary school is much preferable to a system where the most able to pay are given the seat instead.

That's what scholarships are for.

Melanie_ · February 8, 2007

. I really admire their energy, but I know when the student hasn't been able to give their full attention to school - I mark a lot of almost great papers.

Off topic, but permit me to ask, do you take a persons work history when grading papers? I mean if they are working two jobs to survive does that count in your marking?

Nope. The grade they earn is the grade they get. However, I am probably a "soft touch" for extensions, if they can give me a good enough sob story.

Topaz · February 9, 2007

Why not say, a person goes through school and when they graduate if they can't find a job in their own country the Feds pick up the tab! The medical profession is the only occupation that community will bid for that person by paying their bills, buying cars, houses, anything they want!!!! In Ontario, if the tuition keeps going up then I say to those students, how far would you go to achieve your goal? Just think what would happen if all students decided to boycott a school year. Just look at the people that would be out of work. The province would have to do something about and they surely can't order the students back to class can they???

August1991 · February 9, 2007

The benefits of post-secondary education are private and students capture all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life. (University research is another story.)

Nonsense.

What benefits (even potential) does a waitress in a restaurant or a teller in a bank receive when someone else obtains a BA in political science (for example)?

Why should either pay taxes so that another person can obtain this diploma?

It makes as much sense as taking their money and buying me a Mercedes-Benz.

BC_chick · February 9, 2007

University and college students held rallies across Canada Wednesday, demanding more affordable through lower tuition rates and increased government funding.
What are your thoughts on this?

I think we should make higher education free.

That way, all the Ralph Kleins actually have a point when they say "these low-lifes don't WANT to get an education and a job."

BC_chick · February 9, 2007

That said, I think a system where the most capable people have the opportunity to go to post secondary school is much preferable to a system where the most able to pay are given the seat instead.

I agree. But even if we're going to make sure that only serious students attend, I still think the current tuition rates are ridiculous and need to be decreased at least.

I graduated five years ago, and it was really tough even with my parents paying my tuition (I paid for books etc). I can't believe how much tuition went up during my four years, and I can't believe what it's at now.

To be honest, I'm not sure I would've gotten myself 20-60 thousand dollars in debt for a degree.

geoffrey · February 9, 2007

I agree. But even if we're going to make sure that only serious students attend, I still think the current tuition rates are ridiculous and need to be decreased at least.

We haven't had a starvation death yet. I've made it quite clear that it's financially possible for anyone to go to school if they really really want to in Canada.

I graduated five years ago, and it was really tough even with my parents paying my tuition (I paid for books etc). I can't believe how much tuition went up during my four years, and I can't believe what it's at now.

It's not that tough. I'm in a bit of a unusual situation, so outside of that, I have friends that work normal retail jobs, pay for school and live on their own ok... not great, no cable TV in their places (hockey game nights are at my place), and sleep 2 to a room in their 3 bedroom rental house... but who cares. It's 4 years of your life that will pay massive dividends latter.

It's a small price to pay for such massive returns.

If your getting a degree in art history, and aren't going to see those returns, then ya, maybe the student should start to question the real value of wasting 4 years of their life and $20k of their money.

To be honest, I'm not sure I would've gotten myself 20-60 thousand dollars in debt for a degree.

You don't have to if you work during school. I'll graduate debt free (yay!). Depends on how much you want to work to not have debt. If you want to sit around, drink beer, eat pizza, then sure, you'll have some debt. But if you work hard, plan it right so you still can do well in school, you'll be fine financially.

Saturn · February 9, 2007

The benefits of post-secondary education are private and students capture all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life. (University research is another story.)

Nonsense.

What benefits (even potential) does a waitress in a restaurant or a teller in a bank receive when someone else obtains a BA in political science (for example)?
Why should either pay taxes so that another person can obtain this diploma?

Without going into some hypothetical example, university graduates provide a lot of useful services. Did it never occur to you why you buy things? When a consumer and a supplier engage in trade, they do it because both derive some benefit from doing so. If one of the parties did not derive a benefit, the transaction would not occur. If the benefits of post-secondary education were private and students captured all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life, nobody would ever buy their services. Ponder this.

ClearWest · February 9, 2007

Without going into some hypothetical example, university graduates provide a lot of useful services. Did it never occur to you why you buy things? When a consumer and a supplier engage in trade, they do it because both derive some benefit from doing so. If one of the parties did not derive a benefit, the transaction would not occur.

Exactly! Free market economics in action! People trade money for a post-secondary education. If the student did not derive a benefit from this transaction, it would not occur. That's why it is silly that the students are now saying they want the gov't to pay for their tuition fees when they agreed to pay tuition in the first place. See what I mean? It's like buying an expensive sweater and then complaining that the price is too high. Worse than that, you're actually going to the government to force other people to fill the cost for you.

If these people are in post-secondary education, then the transaction has already occured! They have already agreed to the trade.

If the benefits of post-secondary education were private and students captured all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life, nobody would ever buy their services. Ponder this.

I don't understand. It sounds like you're saying that if post-secondary education resulted in higher salaries and better quality of life then no one would get post-secondary education. ???. Please explain.

Charles Anthony · February 9, 2007

When a consumer and a supplier engage in trade, they do it because both derive some benefit from doing so. If one of the parties did not derive a benefit, the transaction would not occur. If the benefits of post-secondary education were private and students captured all of them in higher salaries or a better quality of life, nobody would ever buy their services. Ponder this.

Why not subsidize BOTH parties (educated and uneducated) equally??? Ponder that.

You are suggesting that since the higher educated people will go out and stimulate the economy by spending more with their higher incomes, the waitress and the bank-teller benefit. That is an excuse and not a justification for why uneducated people should subsidize the academic class. Stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Shame.

PolyNewbie · February 9, 2007

There was a nobel prize won by an economist in the 60's showing that education is the best possible investment in a country that a government can make. I forget his name.

Education benefits us more than just more money. It makes us more cultured, better informed and more able to preserve democracy. It also mean the population is more capable of meeting challenges that may present themselves in many forms.

Bankers do not want an over educated population and that is why UNESCO controlls education so much. Its why its too expensive for many people to go to university or college.

margrace · February 9, 2007

It would be interesting to know how many go to school in Africa since there is no such thing there as free education. All schooling must be paid for. Not much wonder that continent is is such trouble.