Free Post Secondary Education in Canada

shortlived · March 6, 2013

Ok so there are riots and people being injured and arrested with millions in costs as a result.

Say 5-10 million dollars per riot, which works out to 1000 full scholarships.

None the less, people get student loans and grants already. So why not just set up a free tuition fund lock tuition rates to the cost of living index and maximum baseline.

It seems with all the money spend on student funding programs staffing and overhead, programs like the NSLSC and otherwise it is just going to cost as much as just providing free tuition for all Canadians who meet the entrance requirements.

Tuition needs to be demonitized in Canada.

Just have anyone who graduates using the free tuition pay out 1% of their annual income to the free tuition fund. That along with already existing grants and scholarships should be more than enough to cover the tuition costs of Canadians.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/police-break-up-noisy-montreal-student-protest-against-tuition-fees/article9329422/

The federal government needs to move free tuition legislation and the attorney general should intervene to give amnesty to the rioters.

All these programs should just be rolled into Free tuition with a 1%(per year (3 terms of 16 week duration) of program participation) of future income paid into a federal alumni fund to move towards self sustaining post secondary education for all citizens of Canada.

In place of dedicated student employment an Eradication of Poverty program can provide work for all those most needy at a baseline of 50 hours per month (or less on choice, or more if available) for up to 2 million canadians to cover living costs, as well as dedicated government funded social housing projects that can be built with the labour from these programs to make low cost affordable housing. This works out to less than $100/month from middle income earners to remove destitute poverty from Canada, provide a home for the poor, and provide for a baseline of community gardens, and reduced taxes in other areas by reducing the need for overlapping social program that all aim to do the same thing but just add overhead as a result. Give direct funding to the issue, rather than making a bureaucracy to maintain it. Put people to work. It is the easiest way to reduce your taxes.

Free education and work for everyone is the way to go.

You may think there is no government land, but this isn't true, there is lots of ground underground on waterways and even in the air.

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

Michael Hardner · March 6, 2013

While I like the idea that you're looking to replace one social program with another - presumably more effective - program. And I do respect the fact that you've linked to some detailed studies, I also think that you need to make a financial case for your proposal in a more clear manner.

"In place of" dedicated student employment. What is the program you're looking to replace, and what are the costs ?

Also - free education will cost how much ? And where will the money come from ? Will you pay for it by reducing enrollment numbers ?

shortlived · March 6, 2013

While I like the idea that you're looking to replace one social program with another - presumably more effective - program. And I do respect the fact that you've linked to some detailed studies, I also think that you need to make a financial case for your proposal in a more clear manner.

"In place of" dedicated student employment. What is the program you're looking to replace, and what are the costs ?

Also - free education will cost how much ? And where will the money come from ? Will you pay for it by reducing enrollment numbers ?

2million x $500/month = 12 Billion per year (however the program would initially have a start up cost which would depend on local circumstances, but those costs would reduce) - the cost of this program however would be less than social assistance and help programs by the federal and provincial governments, which overlap and do the same thing, as well as cover uninsured EI individuals, this was described in the EI knock knock guess who thread. But it isn't just for students but everyone out of work, a means of replacing welfare also, as well as a guaranteed source of basic income and supports through the program. The program could be larger depending on private sector support. The key in this program is that costs reduce the longer the program runs which means eventual savings and increased benefits for participants.

The cost of free education will cost less each year as the 1% per annum work out to a 3 to 4% return on b.a. or b.s. student who utilize it perpetually, so each set of graduating students reduces the cost from general revenue. Slightly more for masters and doctorates.

Batch 1 year 3-4 paying ~2-3% of annual income into program

Batch 2 year 4-5 paying ~2-3% of... this means

Batch 3 graduates etc...

each year the graduating members reduce the program burden, eventually after about 10 years the program will generate excess revenue, even after the government input spending into the program was paid back, the money could then go to enhancing educational services for students.

The program would continue year after year to provide better and better education. Since students for instance in Ontario already receive 33% off for fresh out of high school students (not mature students), and low income individuals may have another $1000 knocked off the actually gap is not very large. People who get student loans end up paying the amount they get, this program also accomplishes that but over a longer term.(but only tuition not living expenses would be included, the work program is an option which would provide up to $500 living costs and access to co-op produce and shelter where available.)

People still might like to seek private student loans though which are often comparable, the difference is that the government won't have to foot the bill for the bureaucracy to provide loans.

None the less the program costs are reduced by removing a whole bunch of administrative losses.

Obviously I can't say how much the programs would cost because it would depend on participation in the programs.

It really won't cost any more than the current system, the first batch will take about 10 years to pay the money they got out back in and so on.

However after ~13 years the program pays for all new incoming student without any additional inputs. Government costs for post secondary education start to reduce at this point reducing program costs by approximately 7 Billion per year. So year 14 7 billion reduction year 15 14 billion reduction (this amount would need to be adjusted for inflation as applicable) year 16 21 billion generated etc..

Note staff savings due to reduced administrative staff was not input so the amount and time frame likely would actually be faster for return on initial investments. Total inputs over the first 13 years would be 97.5 billion or about 7.5 Billion per year (Although this amount likely would be less as this was based on a $3000/term tuition and 500,000 students participating in the free post secondary program. for about $24000/ 4 year program --- the costs however would then be reduced from the amount paid via various grands and scholarships etc.. so the 7.5 billion is rather liberal as opposed to a conservative cost estimate which might peg the costs much lower.

7.5 billion / year in additional funding for the first 13 years, total about 98 billion funding over `14 years. within 18 years the 98 billion paid into the program would be paid back, and 40+ billion the following year would be new funding and so on so 47 billion in additional funding year 20. and so on. It would only generate more or more funding for education potentially allowing the scope of the program to expand after 13 years.

It would triple post secondary funding (in terms of federal transfers to post secondary education) from 4 billion to about 12 billion.

but on year 14 it would generate a surplus of 3.5 billion.. year 15 17.5 billion etc.. and so on as stated by year 18-19 the program would be generating 10x the total amount of federal funding for post secondary education and beyond after program costs. As stated these are not optimized figures and represent poor performance not good performance.

The program could cost more... but only if more than 33% of students participated however this is about inline with the 540,000 students that currently receive student loans.

However the more participate the more income it generates for educational funding.

Really it is a question of being able to pay for free education within 15 years with no tax inputs from the general public, or continuing to go in debt providing private loans through federal organs, that at times just get forgiven anyway.

The main benefit is removal of stupid red tape, and wasted time waiting in line ups and signing papers.

The students get no income - which is usually either a write off, or ends up being transfered to reduce someone elses taxes.

getting this as either you pay or you participate in the program, no tax involvement, no federal programs to bog things down.

No nonsense no bias no bs. just free tuition you get in, the government pays, when you stop attending your income is garnished for life as a contribution to the free education fund.

pretty simple. people pay based on their income after taxes.

Edited March 6, 2013 by shortlived

Newfoundlander · March 6, 2013

Completely tax-payer funded post-secondary education, not free.

Winnipegger · March 6, 2013

I proposed something a lot less dramatic. Although many claim my ideas are radical. I could give the long winded, 6-page document that I gave to the Manitoba Minister of Education in 1999. That Minister even started to implement it, then got major push-back from bureaucrats and backed off. I'll give you the short version:

- Coordinate curriculum between high school and University. Replace all high school courses that confer university admission with ones that also confer full credit for first year university in the same course. As long as student chose their courses in first year correctly, they skip first year entirely. First year university will become a remedial year for those students who couldn't cut it in high school.

- Change at least one university in every major urban area to a 10-month/3-term calendar. That is beginning of September to end of June, the same as high school. Reduce Christmas vacation to 1 week instead of 2. And schedule exams for 1 week at the end of each semester/term instead of 2 weeks plus 2 days. Keep spring break. This does not reduce class time by a single day, or even a minute. It reduces vacation time. Currently 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th year university have 2 semesters each for a total of 6 semesters. By teaching 3 semesters per year, this is condensed to 2 years. Again, that reduces vacation time, not class time. Each semester has 3 months of class time, so currently there is only 6 months of productive class time per year. This changes to 9 months of class time per year. And students coming from high school are already used to that calendar, so it's isn't arduous.

Combine these two initiatives together, reduce a 4 year degree to only 2 years.

Costs for university are fixed per year. Cost for buildings, utility bills, professor salary, janitor salary, and administration staff. So there's no justification for this to cost students more per year. By keeping the annual cost the same, but reducing time to get a degree in half, it cuts total cost of a degree in half. Or to put it another way, by teaching 3 semesters per year instead of 2, the cost per course can be reduced by 1/3^rd.

When I wrote that paper in 1999, university tuition was 5 times what I paid when I went in the early 1980s. The Manitoba government froze tuition, but universities refused to freeze cost. They passed all their cost increases to the province. They've since lifted the tuition freeze. Now tuition is even higher. This is a problem, a major problem. My solution solves it.

University of Manitoba provides the majority of master degrees in this province. They have a policy that any student who has a 4-year bachelor degree has to take 1 year of pre-master work before they can enter the master program. I haven't found any other university that requires this. The pre-master year is a courtesy to students who already have an advanced degree. For example, if someone has a Ph.D. in chemistry but wants to take a master degree in computer science, but doesn't have a bachelor degree in computer science, then they can take the pre-master year in computer science instead. So the pre-master year is supposed to replace a 4-year bachelor degree, available only to those who have an advanced degree. You don't take both a 4-year bachelor plus a pre-master in the same field. When I looked at a master in computer science, I noticed they had a catch. If you take your 4-year bachelor in computer science at the U of M (not any other university), plus graduate with honours, plus graduate with first class honours, plus graduate with grades so high no one will ever achieve it, then you can skip the pre-master year. But if any student ever gets close to achieving that, they'll drop your grades. This university does do that. I noticed some departments at the University of Manitoba have dropped the pre-master requirement. And the nasty computer science department head was fired. Yup, not retired or resigned, he was fired. It takes a lot for a tenured professor to get himself fired. I could go on about that guy, but I'm already getting off-topic. The point is to eliminate the pre-master year for those with a 4-year bachelor degree in the same field. The purpose is to reduce a master degree to 2 years.

I'm told at some universities an elite student can complete a master degree in just 1 year. I'm not asking for that, just 2 years. Currently the average student at U of M requires 5 years to complete a master degree. In addition to the bachelor degree. When I was a student, every student had to get approval from a student advisor to register for courses. If she doesn't say "yes", you don't get enrolled. When I asked about the master program, that person said she would never allow any master student to enrol in more than 12 credit hours per year. The bachelor program has 30 credit hours per year. An engineering degree had 36 credit hours per year. So why only 12 per year? I could go on about problems from that person too. Hopefully she doesn't work there any more.

So any student who can afford to spend 4 years in post-second education will graduate with a master degree instead of just a bachelor. Any student who can only afford 2 years can graduate with a bachelor instead of just a community college diploma.

Something similar can be done with community colleges. Winnipeg has a couple technical vocational high schools that specialize in the trades. Their curriculum can be coordinated as well to confer credit for at least one term in community college.

Our community colleges used to have a 10-month/3-term calendar. A degree was completed in 2 years. Our largest college has changed to an 8-month/2-semester calendar just like universities, requiring 3 years to complete the same degree. But annual tuition is the same, which increases cost of a degree by 50%. That was done for money. So it's a cash grab, it isn't about students. This needs to be fixed; Red River College needs to be changed back to a 10-month/3-term calendar.

Well! This ended up rather long. I may as well add a link to the document here.

Newfoundlander · March 7, 2013

What exactly was the point of this long winded post?

March 7, 2013

I proposed something a lot less dramatic. Although many claim my ideas are radical. I could give the long winded, 6-page document that I gave to the Manitoba Minister of Education in 1999. That Minister even started to implement it, then got major push-back from bureaucrats and backed off. I'll give you the short version:

- Coordinate curriculum between high school and University. Replace all high school courses that confer university admission with ones that also confer full credit for first year university in the same course. As long as student chose their courses in first year correctly, they skip first year entirely. First year university will become a remedial year for those students who couldn't cut it in high school.

That idea sounds interesting………..My nephew had an average of about 84-90% in his last two years in high school, minus a 67% mark in English Literature 12, and met the perquisites for the program he was interested in at UVIC, but was still advised to upgrade his marks further via a year at a community collage……..From how my sister and brother in-law tell it (And they are both grammar school teachers), it appears as a cash grab.

My son’s friend is looking into a program through his high school that will see him get credit for the first year of an Electrical Apprenticeship……….Make sense to allow those that are already decided on what they want post high school to start working towards it……..Why would a future electrician require study in English Lit or Geography? Or a student interested in most BA programs grade 12 science or arts or cooking classes?

Your proposal sounds similar to the German school system, of course they start at a much earlier age.

- Change at least one university in every major urban area to a 10-month/3-term calendar. That is beginning of September to end of June, the same as high school. Reduce Christmas vacation to 1 week instead of 2. And schedule exams for 1 week at the end of each semester/term instead of 2 weeks plus 2 days. Keep spring break. This does not reduce class time by a single day, or even a minute. It reduces vacation time. Currently 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th year university have 2 semesters each for a total of 6 semesters. By teaching 3 semesters per year, this is condensed to 2 years. Again, that reduces vacation time, not class time. Each semester has 3 months of class time, so currently there is only 6 months of productive class time per year. This changes to 9 months of class time per year. And students coming from high school are already used to that calendar, so it's isn't arduous.

That seems well thought out, But would tenured Professors look favourably towards reduced vacations?

hitops · March 7, 2013

I think cheap, accessible post-secondary education is a tremendously good financial investment for a nation, however it can also be a source of terrible misallocations of capital. Some of the drawbacks:

1) The numbers don't work, because university costs like anything else, are highly subject to demand for those services. Massively increasing demand will accordingly drive up the cost and therefore applying current costs and just multiplying by more people will underestimate this cost. We already have this problem with student loans artificially raising the cost of education for everyone else.

2) It lowers the barrier to entry, which means more people who are kind of listless and non-directed will hover around not accomplishing much, and likely getting degrees which are unmarketable or of no net gain to the economy. We already have this problem in spades, creating more of it is not desirable. Ideally, the demand for university education should reflect the value of that education in the marketplace. Making everything free will just encourage all kinds of new subjects and departments to spring up to try to attract students and their government-allocated cash, will little benefit beyond employing university staff members.

3) Catering to demands because of riots, does not stop riots. It just confirms that rioting is how you get things done. I'd prefer to live in Canada, not revolutionary Egypt. When people try to get something just by demanding it, they are rarely happy even when they get it. Satisfaction with something like a paycheck of an education comes from working at it and making sacrifices for it, not having it handed to you.

Any kind of subsidy for education should directly reflect the nation's need for that type of education. If you need more electricians, make community college for that reason free or very cheap, etc.

Edited March 7, 2013 by hitops

Winnipegger · March 7, 2013

would tenured Professors look favourably towards reduced vacations?

Most professors do not get 4 months of summer vacation. To be considered a full-time employee, they have to teach at least one of intersession, summer day, or summer evening sessions. Does it matter if they teach during May and June and call it the intersession, or 3rd semester of the regular session?

shortlived · March 7, 2013

Completely tax-payer funded post-secondary education, not free.

No, free post secondary education... where does the tax payer come into this? The students pay for it all within about 10 years then they reduce tax payers costs.

Not tax payer funded, tax payer rebates. It will save the government billions by the time those kids are adults.

You don't get it, try agian, this is tax saving not tax creating.

You just don't want smart people.

The govt. is footing the costs for those half million students anyway. it is the exact same thing only more rational cause it reduces all the administrative BS. Which wastes time and money for everyone involved. Except people making money off red tape.

It doesn't add costs as a program to the tax payer, it saves the tax payer money. You clearly didn't get it or are just BSing because you don't want to make the world a better place with less hate and corruption.

Edited March 7, 2013 by shortlived

segnosaur · March 7, 2013

My son’s friend is looking into a program through his high school that will see him get credit for the first year of an Electrical Apprenticeship……….Make sense to allow those that are already decided on what they want post high school to start working towards it……..Why would a future electrician require study in English Lit or Geography? Or a student interested in most BA programs grade 12 science or arts or cooking classes?

There are a couple of issues here:

- You're assuming that students at that age are able to determine what they want to do for the rest of their lives. (I know when I was in high school, I wanted go go into Astronomy, then medicine, then genetics, finally settling on Computers at the end. Had my high-school dedicated my courses to only those that would help me in my later University degree, I probably would have ended up a pretty rotten astronomer/doctor.

- The world is a pretty complex place, with lots of interconnections. Nobody can be an expert in everything, but I do think there's some value in a broader educational base. You may think its silly for someone interested in a B.A. to bother with science, but don't you think some knowledge of science would eventually help them if they have to (for example) talk to their doctor? Or if they want to be an electrician, it still might benefit them to know something about economics, for no other reason than it would help them become a more informed voter.

segnosaur · March 7, 2013

No, free post secondary education... where does the tax payer come into this? The students pay for it all within about 10 years then they reduce tax payers costs.

Ummm... those "students" will eventually become taxpayers. Whether they pay for their education now or in 10 years doesn't change the fact that they still pay.

You just don't want smart people,

You are of course assuming that education=smart people. While there is some correalation, I've met a lot of very smart people who never had post-secondary education, and some very stupid people who got degrees.

Here are some of the problems with your suggestion:

- You are assuming that educating more people is necessary. Yes, there are needs for people with certain skills. But having everyone get a university/college degree won't necessarily mean that everyone gets a great job.

- How exactly are you going to guarantee that you get everyone to contribute to your "fund" after they graduate? Some will move to another country. Some will end up getting a degree which is worthless, and end up working at the same minimum wage job they would have had otherwise.

- Who's going to track all these fund contributions? Sounds like you're going to need yet more bureaucracy to track payments, etc.

- You suggested graduates pay 1% of their income into this fund (I assume it would be for life). Is that necessarily fair? After all, a person can be smart and earn more their their peers and end up paying more not because of their education but because of their natural abilities.

The fact is, Canada has a pretty well educated population. I'd have to go back and check, but I think we have around as high a proportion of post-secondary graduates as countries like Sweden (where tuition is "free" for citizens). So obviously our system works well enough to produce a decent crop of graduates without changing the funding setup.

shortlived · March 11, 2013

Ummm... those "students" will eventually become taxpayers. Whether they pay for their education now or in 10 years doesn't change the fact that they still pay.

You are of course assuming that education=smart people. While there is some correalation, I've met a lot of very smart people who never had post-secondary education, and some very stupid people who got degrees.

Here are some of the problems with your suggestion:

- You are assuming that educating more people is necessary. Yes, there are needs for people with certain skills. But having everyone get a university/college degree won't necessarily mean that everyone gets a great job.

- How exactly are you going to guarantee that you get everyone to contribute to your "fund" after they graduate? Some will move to another country. Some will end up getting a degree which is worthless, and end up working at the same minimum wage job they would have had otherwise.

- Who's going to track all these fund contributions? Sounds like you're going to need yet more bureaucracy to track payments, etc.

- You suggested graduates pay 1% of their income into this fund (I assume it would be for life). Is that necessarily fair? After all, a person can be smart and earn more their their peers and end up paying more not because of their education but because of their natural abilities.

The fact is, Canada has a pretty well educated population. I'd have to go back and check, but I think we have around as high a proportion of post-secondary graduates as countries like Sweden (where tuition is "free" for citizens). So obviously our system works well enough to produce a decent crop of graduates without changing the funding setup.

Read what I wrote before posting that sort of nonsense.

First off do the math, it does effect how much everyone pays because the people who participate in the program end up paying for future years students. People who don't participate year on year pay less toward post secondary education.

1% per 3 terms. people graduate after 3-4 years for a bachelors.

This equals 2.6-3% of income per annum back into the fund.

Masters may be 4-5%

Someone using the program for a doctorate may be more.

It is peoples choice to pay any fee that is levied to them by the government.

If they are working in Canada wage garnishment works.

I think the number of Canadians who skip country and drop their Canadian citizenship will be minimal. Sure it might account for some costs, like will participants who die early.

But yes it will pay for itself, the question is how many years will it take.

The concept here though is that people who accept the system pay for it not the other way around.

And the reason I know this works is because it is founded on solid principles that come right out of pyramid schemes and MLM.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

Moonbox · March 12, 2013

2) It lowers the barrier to entry, which means more people who are kind of listless and non-directed will hover around not accomplishing much, and likely getting degrees which are unmarketable or of no net gain to the economy. We already have this problem in spades, creating more of it is not desirable. Ideally, the demand for university education should reflect the value of that education in the marketplace. Making everything free will just encourage all kinds of new subjects and departments to spring up to try to attract students and their government-allocated cash, will little benefit beyond employing university staff members.

Absolutely. If I had a dime for every 25-30 year old undergraduate girl I met here in Guelph, I'd be a rich man. With free tuition, you could bartend 10-20 hrs a week and be a student as long as you wanted, all on the public dime.

3) Catering to demands because of riots, does not stop riots. It just confirms that rioting is how you get things done. I'd prefer to live in Canada, not revolutionary Egypt. When people try to get something just by demanding it, they are rarely happy even when they get it. Satisfaction with something like a paycheck of an education comes from working at it and making sacrifices for it, not having it handed to you.

Well said. Affordable education is one thing. Free education is another. Education should be affordable enough that everyone should have access to it if they're good students, but expensive enough that they need to make it count and can't drift through their 20's earning undergrads and avoiding entering the working world (which is +100% more work than university/college most of the time).

Winnipegger · March 13, 2013

What exactly was the point of this long winded post?

Restructure the system. Efficient management. This reduces the cost of a degree in half. It also allows students to get out of school and into the workforce sooner. Or allows students who can't currently get a master degree to get one. This is not free, it's just efficient management Far more effective than trying to make it free.

I got the Manitoba Minister of Education to start implementing this plan. Then university administration pushed back, got it killed. That minister was replaced. The current minister claims she's implementing it "slowly", but late 1999 to now is 13 1/2 years! That isn't slow, that's dead. And I consider my plan mild, dramatic change would be something like you are proposing. They need to implement my plan! It's mild, it's humble, it's practical, it needs to get done now!

Bonam · March 13, 2013

And the reason I know this works is because it is founded on solid principles that come right out of pyramid schemes...

GostHacked · March 13, 2013

How is it free if we are paying for it one way or another? Either by tax of tuition fee?

shortlived · March 13, 2013

How is it free if we are paying for it one way or another? Either by tax of tuition fee?

Well it free for the tax payer, and an alumni plan for those who take part. The difference here is that it shifts the cost of education from the Joe Blow tax payer, Joe Blow doen't pay a cent for Perfect Stranger's education. That 5 Billion invested by Joe Blows and Perfect Stranger gets transfered over to Perfect Stranger who in the past got access to those tax funds. It also improves the system by removing administrative barriers and red tape, administrative staffing costs, paperwork, multiple programs that do the same thing, time wasted applying for the 20 different grants, bursaries and scholarships.

It saves Joe Blows money for services Joe Blow has access to, while directing the funds to Perfect stranger, that is why it is free fair and more effective program delivery, not by tax but by a direct payment. Taxes don't go to services directly, they arn't protected. But this service, is something paid by the people who access it, and it isn't a general revenue fund tax, it is a contractual service fee that is paid into year after year much like a student loan, but it is guaranteed, no need for all the nonsense.

Also these funds don't go to Perfect Stranger, they go direct to the institution that perfect stranger attends.

This is why it is free, fair, and more effective. It rolls a mountain of red tape, and paper, and administration into a direct payment to educational institution for citizens who opt for free education.

No loans just free education, and the cost of free education is collectively shared by those who access it, not by the Joe Blows.

Simply put these arn't taxes, it makes post secondary education tax free. Within 10 years the small fees that alumni are paying can fully fund one new enrollment, within 20 years they are sponsoring two new students each. Year on year new alumni pick up more and more of the financial burden for post secondary education. It is only a matter of getting to the threshold that the government pays into the program,

who is paying 2.6-3% of their income into the alumni fund

year 3 year 1's 3 years +/-

year 4 year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 5 year 3' s 3 years and 4 years + year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 6 year 4's 3 years and 4 year + year 3' s 3 years and 4 years + year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 7 year 5's + year 4's 3 years and 4 year + year 3' s 3 years and 4 years + year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 8 year 6's 3 year +year 5's + year 4's 3 years and 4 year + year 3' s 3 years and 4 years + year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 9 year 7's 3 years + year 8 year 6's 3 year +year 5's + year 4's 3 years and 4 year + year 3' s 3 years and 4 years + year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 10 year 8's 3 years + year 7's year 8 year 6's 3 year +year 5's + year 4's 3 years and 4 year + year 3' s 3 years and 4 years + year 2's 3 years and 4 years + year 1's 3 years +/-

year 11 etc..

year 12 etc...

year 13 etc....

year 14 etc...

and so on. of course any masters or doctorates or free special programs would also be paying into it too.

Edited March 14, 2013 by shortlived

Shady · March 13, 2013

This whole scheme makes little sense.

shortlived · March 13, 2013

This whole scheme makes little sense.

Stopping riots makes sense. Those 20 students arrested, and people seriously wounded costs money.

There is no reason not to provide free education.

There is no legitimate reason not to condense 15 different programs with staffing and administrative overhead into one program.

The system as it currently is makes no sense.

Little sense is better than no sense and nonsense.

Edited March 13, 2013 by shortlived

GostHacked · March 13, 2013

It's still not free because someone is paying into it. It might be free for you, but someone IS paying for the education.

Moonbox · March 13, 2013

Shortlived, Your argument is pathetic. There's zero merit to basically anything you're saying.

There's no argument against free education? It's expensive. That's all the argument you need. The other argument is that free education would encourage the half-assed students taking half-assed majors like geography, history or (god forbid) communications to apply for more education when they almost inevitably find out that their degrees gave them little/no practical employable knowledge and they can't find decent work.

The point of post-secondary is to improve the skills/knowledge of young adults and make them productive members of society. With provincial and Canada student loans, undergrad degrees are affordable to basically everyone. We will not and should not, however, support the deadbeat students who want to stay in the system as long as possible and avoid growing up and actually working.

With all of the useless degrees people are graduating with these days, and the rate of unemployment for a lot of program graduates (such as the programs referenced above), we don't need to make post secondary more accessible. We need it to be a lot more efficient, however, and making it free isn't the way to do it at all.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Moonbox

Shady · March 13, 2013

Apparently we have to stop riots by bribing the rioters.

GostHacked · March 13, 2013

The point of post-secondary is to improve the skills/knowledge of young adults and make them productive members of society. With provincial and Canada student loans, undergrad degrees are affordable to basically everyone. We will not and should not, however, support the deadbeat students who want to stay in the system as long as possible and avoid growing up and actually working.

We might be able to blame that on grade school somewhat and high schools more. The courses/classed are very generalized in a sense. You have to do well in all classes to pass. This seems to fail the kids who excel in a certain area while not being very good in the rest. That does not make the kid a bad person or a loser, the kid's interests are just more focused. We should encourage that and help facilitate the learning in that area the kid is good at.

You have a class that is a jack of all trades. When in post-secondary education things are different and change to the more focused line of education. Most of the jack-of-all-trades may not do well as they have had to focus on many different things at the same time. Creating an ADHD type of educational environment.

With all of the useless degrees people are graduating with these days, and the rate of unemployment for a lot of program graduates (such as the programs referenced above), we don't need to make post secondary more accessible. We need it to be a lot more efficient, however, and making it free isn't the way to do it at all.

Liberal Arts seems to be one of the biggest fluff degrees out there. Yes you too can be a politician if you take this course. Not sure if it was Buffet or Gates who said that they would pay for education if people went into trades. Things that are needed are trades, electricians, plumbers ect ect. Might be easier to get work as an electrician than a politician.

I agree with making it more efficient. But I have no clue how to do that on a post secondary level.

Messing with these quotes is still a pain ... ugh.

Edited March 13, 2013 by GostHacked

shortlived · March 14, 2013

Shortlived, Your argument is pathetic. There's zero merit to basically anything you're saying.

There's no argument against free education? It's expensive. That's all the argument you need. The other argument is that free education would encourage the half-assed students taking half-assed majors like geography, history or (god forbid) communications to apply for more education when they almost inevitably find out that their degrees gave them little/no practical employable knowledge and they can't find decent work.

I think you are sadly mistaken. Fact is education is being paid for regardless. It only makes sense to have the people who get access to it to pay for it rather than the tax payer. I don't know why you are trying to force people to pay for other peoples kids education.

The point of post-secondary is to improve the skills/knowledge of young adults and make them productive members of society.With provincial and Canada student loans, undergrad degrees are affordable to basically everyone. We will not and should not, however, support the deadbeat students who want to stay in the system as long as possible and avoid growing up and actually working.

The riots would say otherwise. Well that is why I propose tuition only be covered, and for there to be an across the board part time student employment service. People will want to move on to better jobs, or start paying off their private loans.

With all of the useless degrees people are graduating with these days, and the rate of unemployment for a lot of program graduates (such as the programs referenced above), we don't need to make post secondary more accessible. We need it to be a lot more efficient, however, and making it free isn't the way to do it at all.

Oh I think you are wrong in regard to accessibility of education. Everything indicates that better education leads to a better technological quality of life for everyone. People are not machines culture is part of society and valued. Whether you understand or not, the arts actually are valued and there are many jobs in arts related fields. History teaches how to make orderly society, or atleast understand how to rely on evidence to draw a conclusion as to what lead us to develope the way we have, one of the most important things for society, people who actually look for the evidence, rather than being mindless sheep. The physical sciences such as Earth Sciences are of great economic value. You simply don't understand how the world works to be making the assertions you are making.

You seem to be calling on stupid atomotons able to build stuff but do nothing for any particular purpose..

You seem to be ignorantly ignoring the fact that my plan costs the tax payer less it actually reduces their taxes.

Edited March 14, 2013 by shortlived

Sign In

Free Post Secondary Education in Canada

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Derek L

Join the conversation

Tell a friend

Member Statistics

Recent Achievements

Recently Browsing