Ontario Fall election

[Bob]

FALSE.

The average person with a degree makes more, thus pays more taxes and attracts higher level jobs to the province.

If anything you could say that the educated subsidize those who do not pursue post-secondary education to make up for the crappy life decisions of those who didn't take any post-secondary and went straight to work at Wal-mart for a living. People working at Wal-mart, Futureshop, and Home Depot pay very little in taxes after deductions... and those self-trained handymen doing drywall/home improvements evade taxes by taking cash frequently.

That being said, we have too many graduates of "hobby" degrees (History, Social Science, English Literature, Human Kinetics, Art) I believe if we are subsidizing university programs, it should ONLY be for degrees leading to careers in industries that are in demand. The taxpayer shouldn't support garbage like Womyn's Studies (subsidized hate speech against men) and Human Kinetics (Let's give a degree to people for showing up and playing volley ball).

Education is an investment, if we are investing in it, we need to be making better investment decisions.

Yes, it is true that the Canadian with the degree typically makes more money than the Canadian without the degree. So what? How does that justify subsidies going towards undergraduate education and grants given to universities? Clearly, you're arguing that since educated Canadians typically earn more money, and therefore typically pay more in taxes, they deserve more from the government. Of course it wouldn't be too hard to expose your own hypocrisy, as a leftist like you would immediately reject such an argument as the basis for giving more money back to certain Canadians ("the rich") that pay more taxes than other Canadians.

Essentially, you're saying that Canadians who pay more taxes deserve more assistance from the government. Of course, you don't really believe that, but are desperate for something to say in order to back up your "FALSE" statement.

If a particular education has strong prospects of being economically viable, then the student shouldn't need (and certainly doesn't deserve) government support (either through tuition subsidies or grants to universities). Your support for government assistance only going towards in demand disciplines is entirely upside-down, and illustrates your lack of understanding of basic economics. If a discipline is in demand and highly likely of yielding a positive economic return to the graduate over time, why are we subsidizing it?

Consider that artificially reducing the up-front costs of an education through tax credits, tuition subsidies, and grants to universities (among many other things) necessarily increases the demand this service. You do understand that lower prices for any good or service yields a higher demand, right? In addition to this obvious consequence of increased demand, universities will respond by increasing their supply. Furthermore, real economic realities in a broad sense are now hidden from the consumer (student) and supplier (school). In other words, if a student were made to pay the full cost of his or her education without tax credit, tuition subsidies, and grants to universities (among other things), then he or she would perhaps think twice about enrolling in "women's studies" or "international development". Who's going to pay over ten thousand dollars per academic year for such a program? Moreover, they would no longer be receiving tax credits on a portion of their academic expenses, and perhaps the costs would be even greater as universities would have to charge more money for their program in the absence of the many millions of dollars they receive every year through various government grants. What would be the end result of such a scenario? Only economically viable choices would be made by students and schools. Of course, with the massive government interference in this market, the market is essentially perverted and the taxpayer is supporting countless students every year while they study nonsense and never become assets to the broader economy. But hey, as the leftist Smallc likes to say, this is the "pursuit of knowledge".

[Bob]

I agree with all of those things, it was seemingly Bob's idea that universities be used for something that was never really their original purpose.

Who cares what the alleged original purpose was? You do know that the education of other human beings far outdates the modern concept of universities, right? And the purpose of education, always, has been to pass knowledge to others in order to make them more economically viable. Whether it be early human teaching other about tool-making or modern students learning aerospace engineering, the purpose is the same. Even in the modern context, the motivations for students to enrol in universities is almost universally a perception of an economic benefit over time (a higher salary than would otherwise be the case without an education). Moreover, political justifications for "investments" into education are based on the same argumentation - that we as a society benefit economically as a result of these "investments", as a more educated citizenry is typically more productive and more wealthy.

[Bob]

So degrees and diplomas, where there is a lack of interest and "not in demand" should not be subsidized. The problem with this, as a general statement, is that you would be removing subsidies for many degrees, especially in highly complex and technical fields - such as quantum physics, in favour of a general arts degree. You've been bitten by your own logic.

Do you have some sort of source you are working from that shows that degrees in philosophy result "0 skills to become a productive member of society?"

As opposed to how awesome MacDonald's makes their products out to be, as a lifestyle.

Life's lessons. Hopefully those many people weren't wolfing down a larged sized Big Mac meal when they were telling you all this...

A philosopher would likely say you are a Utilitarian. However, pure mathematics degrees are not in much demand so... no subsidies. Half of Waterloo closes, jobs are lost...

And engineering students will also possess the skills to pour coffee for customers at Tim Hortons.

No, more teachers is a better investment since it would reduce the class sizes and give more teacher-time to more students likely accerlerating the curriculum and allow students a wider view of their choices.

Clearly you're misunderstanding MiddleClassCentrist's use of the term "in demand". He/she was obviously referring to disciplines that are in demand in the job market, not in demand by students. I have explained how government interventions in the market for post-secondary education messes with the demand for these services, artificially inflating the demand and supply for nonsense and largely irrelevant disciplines that have already been mentioned.

I have certainly grown accustomed to your regular misunderstandings of obvious points in this forum. Just for fun, I can recall a ridiculous post of yours from the recent thread about selling the CBC where you (perhaps unknowingly) compared the indispensability of roads in our society to that of the CBC. That was funny, and that was classic Shwa.

[Bob]

Not that I don't think your word is good enough, but if you would kindly supply your source...

The fact that you don't know that post-secondary education is heavily subsidized in Ontario, and to a lesser extent across most of the rest of Canada, is quite revealing. How you not know this? Additionally, we also receive tax credits on educational expenses, and universities and colleges regularly receive all sorts of grants from all levels of government. Really, it's unbelievable that in this day and age you can be unaware of this.

[Shwa]

Clearly you're misunderstanding MiddleClassCentrist's use of the term "in demand". He/she was obviously referring to disciplines that are in demand in the job market, not in demand by students. I have explained how government interventions in the market for post-secondary education messes with the demand for these services, artificially inflating the demand and supply for nonsense and largely irrelevant disciplines that have already been mentioned.

Prove it. Show us the money. Post some references. Can't?

All you got is fluff princess, pretty pink fluff.

I have certainly grown accustomed to your regular misunderstandings of obvious points in this forum. Just for fun, I can recall a ridiculous post of yours from the recent thread about selling the CBC where you (perhaps unknowingly) compared the indispensability of roads in our society to that of the CBC. That was funny, and that was classic Shwa.

The comparison was about choices with regard to public resources, something a little too complex for you to comprehend. Classic Fluffy Bob.

[Smallc]

So the "pursuit of knowledge" now requires government subsidies?

Yes, yes it does. Things like history are valuable to humanity, but aren't always profitable.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Smallc

[Bob]

Yes, yes it does. Things like history are valuable to humanity, but aren't always profitable.

History is certainly profitable. There are many high-profile historians who do very well for themselves, and if we could classify "history" as an industry (books, movies, magazines, other periodicals, television, internet, lectures, etc), there are billions of dollars to be made if you're good. Valuable education doesn't need government sustenance. There is a massive industry revolving around free people voluntarily indulging their interest in learning history. There is absolutely no need for government coercion in this scene, which essentially saturates the market with more "historians" than we need.

If you're not making money doing what you're doing, you're not doing it well. Perhaps there are others doing it better.

[Smallc]

Value isn't only determined by how much money someone makes. What a narrow view of the world.

[Bob]

Value isn't only determined by how much money someone makes. What a narrow view of the world.

Ah, so what we need are enlightened bureaucrats (someone like yourself, perhaps?) to make decisions for the rest of us regarding "value" by taking our money and spending it on services we were too ignorant to buy in the absence of coercion. For our own good, of course. Even if we don't realize it, throwing money at "history" (as if we're not already freely spending billions of dollars per year on the broader industry we could label "the history industry") beyond what we're already freely spending in our interest, is in the broader interest of "humanity". How lucky we are to have noble leftists like you in our society.

The arrogance of leftists like yourself, acting as if you know what's best for the rest of us, really has no limits.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Bob

[Smallc]

Ah, so what we need are enlightened bureaucrats (someone like yourself, perhaps?)

I run a business, you moron.

[Bob]

I run a business, you moron.

You missed the point. You clearly view yourself as the "enlightened" type. The type of person who'd make a good bureaucrat, making decisions for the rest of us that we're too dumb to make on our own. It's irrelevant what you do for a living, what is relevant if that you think we need holier-than-thou types (like yourself) in government throwing money around towards things of "value" that the rest of ignorant folks aren't bright enough to do of our own volition.

[Smallc]

It's clear that you are exceedingly ignorant, but it's also clear that you have no idea what I think.

[Evening Star]

I'm finding it hard to take you seriously at this point. The fact that you're questioning my seemingly obvious statements that a> the primary motivations for students enrolling in universities and colleges is for a financial return down the line, and b> the primary political justifications for "investments" in post-secondary education is to fuel the economy with productive citizens who have the skills necessary to participate in meaningfully in the economy... is baffling to me.

Forget about universities and colleges for a moment, let's get right down to the basic social function of education. Even back to the earliest humans, teaching others to manipulate tools or the principles of agriculture, the purpose of education has been for economic benefit. This is really basic stuff. You're trying to tell us that universities and colleges have no need to be teaching students relevant skills for their future participation in the economy, and that universities and colleges are rooted in solely academic pursuits, as if they're both a sort of exclusive hobby.

I said the purpose of colleges is workforce training but that this is not the primary purpose of universities and was never their original purpose. That doesn't mean that they don't or shouldn't train people in valuable skills or that there is no economic benefit that comes from them. However, the teaching of less profitable fields of study has always been a core part of the university. I'll acknowledge Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but at least I've given sources. You keep stating something and stating that it's obvious or basic.

Fwiw, I actually think that admission to many non-pragmatic disciplines, especially graduate programmes, should be more limited and rigorous than it is now, for reasons that are similar to ones that Bonam and Smallc gave, because I think it would actually improve the quality of education and scholarship, and lastly because it would make it more feasible for graduates to actually have a chance at an academic career.

(I also think post-secondary education should be less expensive though. I doubt many on this thread agree with me.)

Edited October 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[Dithers]

It's clear that you are exceedingly ignorant, but it's also clear that you have no idea what I think.

It also seems clear that you are incapable of anything but derogatory comments and insults.

Grow up.

[Evening Star]

Uh, no, it's pretty clear to anyone who reads this board or even this thread that Smallc is capable of more than that.

[Smallc]

It also seems clear that you are incapable of anything but derogatory comments and insults.

Grow up.

Ummm, I'd look at Bob's posting history. I'm not the only one.