Free Post Secondary Education in Canada

[Newfoundlander]

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.

Who in the name of god do you think is going to pay for your "free" education?

[Signals.Cpl]

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

Who in the name of god do you think is going to pay for your "free" education?

Thats your answer, its a pyramid scheme...

[Moonbox]

shortlived, on 14 Mar 2013 - 08:53, said:

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.

You're missing the point entirely. The taxpayers subsidize your education as an investment in you for near future productivity. The individual students have to pay a large portion themselves, either from family or through student loans, and this acts as an incentive to actually focus and complete your program rather than drift through different post-secondary degrees trying to 'find yourself'. There's an incentive to finish and start working as soon as possible.

Under this joke of a scheme you're proposing, things are turned ass-backwards. You put an incentive in for students to stay students for as long as possible and you start to de-incentivize entering the work force. You give them all the opportunity they need to play student through their 20's on the public dime and we lose years and years of potential productivity if they were part of the work force.

shortlived, on 14 Mar 2013 - 08:53, said:

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.

The riots say nothing. This is Quebec we're talking about, and those students will find something to protest about regardless. As far as I recall, Quebec has the cheapest tuition in the country already, so their 'rioting' suggests something altogether different going on there. A nanny-state mentality a tendency to whine/compline/be outraged about everything has more to do with it than anything.

shortlived, on 14 Mar 2013 - 08:53, said:

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.

I'm not wrong about accessibility. I had enough dirt-poor (ie single welfare parent friends) to know that the provincial governments will happily finance student undergrads. Education, in aggregate, leads to better jobs and better productivity, which is an investment that the government and the population both want to make. Not all of this education, however, is value-added. In aggregate, enough people learn enough good things to make the overall system beneficial. There are, however, way too many people earning worthless degrees that give them little more than a piece of paper in terms of resume material, while skilled-trades jobs remain empty. Making tuition free doesn't help this at all.

shortlived, on 14 Mar 2013 - 08:53, said:

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.

Of course there are jobs in arts related fields. Statistically speaking, however, there aren't even close enough to fill the number of people graduating from related programs every year. There was an article in the Globe last year that gave us average salaries for people with different degrees. Unsurprisingly, English, Geography, Fine Arts, Communications and History were all degrees that had a minimal impact on increasing salaries after graduation.

shortlived, on 14 Mar 2013 - 08:53, said:

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.

History teaches us lots of things. Unfortunately, a history degree doesn't make you very much more employable. Knowing how to make an orderly society isn't really a job skill many employers are looking for, sorry. The only thing that distinguishes a history grad from a highschool grad in terms of most job applications is that the history grad at least had the minimal work ethic to complete a university degree.

[shortlived]

Who in the name of god do you think is going to pay for your "free" education?

People who applied for it.

[shortlived]

You're missing the point entirely. The taxpayers subsidize your education as an investment in you for near future productivity.

No they didn't. I have the sense about 80% of it was just to waste my time, and even up karma. On the contrary staff who worked at the university were subsidized.

The individual students have to pay a large portion themselves, either from family or through student loans, and this acts as an incentive to actually focus and complete your program rather than drift through different post-secondary degrees trying to 'find yourself'.

And what is your point, how exactly does this differ from a life time annuity? Have you ever gone through the government loans and grant process it is such as waste of time and paper. Why are you including "finding yourself" to a program for free tuition. You seem to be going on some tangent that you are inventing a scenario for again. People want to earn a real living, no one, or few people is going to drift trying to find themselves as they live on $500 a month earned in part time work income and free school. People desire more. Your point here is off mark and doesn't represent my plan at all. People will go for the gold or a way out if they are shown the light of day.

There's an incentive to finish and start working as soon as possible.

Under this joke of a scheme you're proposing, things are turned ass-backwards. You put an incentive in for students to stay students for as long as possible and you start to de-incentivize entering the work force.

Dude I said they would get free tuition I didn't say they would get free shelter or food. I have no idea, few if anyone is going to live on air to go to lectures every day at 9am sorry you are wrong. You seem to be inclining lectures are "fun" like movies and popcorn or something. You need to get grades to stay in University.

You give them all the opportunity they need to play student through their 20's on the public dime and we lose years and years of potential productivity if they were part of the work force.

The riots say nothing. This is Quebec we're talking about, and those students will find something to protest about regardless. As far as I recall, Quebec has the cheapest tuition in the country already, so their 'rioting' suggests something altogether different going on there. A nanny-state mentality a tendency to whine/compline/be outraged about everything has more to do with it than anything.I'm not wrong about accessibility. I had enough dirt-poor (ie single welfare parent friends) to know that the provincial governments will happily finance student undergrads.Education, in aggregate, leads to better jobs and better productivity,

which is an investment that the government and the population both want to make. Not all of this education, however, is value-added. In

aggregate, enough people learn enough good things to make the overall system beneficial. There are, however, way too many people earning

worthless degrees that give them little more than a piece of paper in terms of resume material, while skilled-trades jobs remain empty.

You are quite wrong. The new standard for employability these days is a post secondary education, as opposed to highschool. Occupational oppourtunities open up after acheiving a Bachelors Degree, it is also required in general for masters, and doctorates who are among the highest income earners. As stated you just don't appreciate the arts, but lots of professions benefit from the humanities and social sciences.

Making tuition free doesn't help this at all.Of course there are jobs in arts related fields. Statistically speaking, however,

there aren't even close enough to fill the number of people graduating from related programs every year. There was an article in the Globe last

year that gave us average salaries for people with different degrees. Unsurprisingly, English, Geography, Fine Arts, Communications and

History were all degrees that had a minimal impact on increasing salaries after graduation.History teaches us lots of things.

Unfortunately, a history degree doesn't make you very much more employable. Knowing how to make an orderly society isn't really a job

skill many employers are looking for, sorry. The only thing that distinguishes a history grad from a highschool grad in terms of most job

applications is that the history grad at least had the minimal work ethic to complete a university degree.

I totally disagree, companies like google have hired on history majors, there are a whole host of arts and culture based occupations. Some people *gasp* are professional artists, graphic design is highly desirable for the internet. Communications (I am geussing you are refering to speaking and public relations) is also desired within corporate HR and PR departments and other spots. There are tons of English teaching jobs in which a degree in English opens the flood gates.(There are tons of job requests for technical writers and editors)

Your position is utterly nonsense. Finishing a University degree takes learning a lot about things, reading, and writing and memory work, presentation skills, all things someone fresh out of highschool may not have developed. A certain level of professional peer interaction comes out of adult life learning, as opposed to teenage learning. Its not the same. The stakes are different. Also usually in year two people declare so this aimless drifting is an entirely different matter, do remember universities can deny or accept a request to change a program, and also I'd rather someone take an extra year to get the credits they need, or even come back for a double degree than going into a profession they won't enjoy.

I do agree though there should be more technical and applicable skills at the university level, there simply isn't enough hands on practical training in universities, it is in large part letters, generally you take sciences courses (and yes you can take a B.A. and do sciences courses within your degree or even a joint degree)

Who are you to tell people what they should master? The stuff actually does train people. Geography IS useful. For example GPS systems are highly useful and if not for geography we wouldn't have anything near what we have today. (I know people and companies, government and non governmental that depend on GPS from day to day to do their jobs and live their life) GIS is useful in so many academic and engineering related tasks, even policing, military, shoping malls, the list goes on and on, geography is about more than knowing what province is what, it is about how space and items interact, demographics used in marketing, supplychain management and logistics. I find it ignorant of you to criticize something you have no clue what it is.

Your position on geography being 'useless' is retarded, considering Canada's economy is resource driven. Absolutely retarded.

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonbox]

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

And what is your point, how exactly does this differ from a life time annuity? Have you ever gone through the government loans and grant process it is such as waste of time and paper.

This is just getting funny. Student loans are too much paperwork and that's a reason people shouldn't have to pay tuition!??

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Why are you including "finding yourself" to a program for free tuition. You seem to be going on some tangent that you are inventing a scenario for again. People want to earn a real living, no one, or few people is going to drift trying to find themselves as they live on $500 a month earned in part time work income and free school.

I'm not inventing anything. I live in a town where probably 25% of the population are university students. I'm young enough still to have friends in university. There are tons of people already who coast their way through university for as long as they can.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Dude I said they would get free tuition I didn't say they would get free shelter or food. I have no idea, few if anyone is going to live on air to go to lectures every day at 9am sorry you are wrong. You seem to be inclining lectures are "fun" like movies and popcorn or something. You need to get grades to stay in University.

Sorry 'bro', but the student lifestyle is actually a lot of fun. I'd go back to school in a second if there was free tuition. You know what the best part of those 9am lectures is? You don't have to go if you don't feel like it.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

You are quite wrong. The new standard for employability these days is a post secondary education, as opposed to highschool. Occupational oppourtunities open up after acheiving a Bachelors Degree, it is also required in general for masters, and doctorates who are among the highest income earners. As stated you just don't appreciate the arts, but lots of professions benefit from the humanities and social sciences.

Most professions don't, sorry. US History majors have a 15% unemployment rate. Political science grads have a 9.1% unemployment rate. Philosophy grads are ~11% unemployed. Humanities majors are 9.5% unemployed. Guess what the overall unemployment rate is? It's about 8%.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

I totally disagree, companies like google have hired on history majors, there are a whole host of arts and culture based occupations.

You can disagree all you want. I don't care. The actual job statistics tell us all we need to know!

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Some people *gasp* are professional artists, graphic design is highly desirable for the internet.

Yeah, SOME people. Graphics designers are 12% unemployed in the US, fully 50% more than the average member of the work force. There's certainly money to be made by exceptional artists, but not as much as you'd like to think!

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Communications (I am geussing you are refering to speaking and public relations) is also desired within corporate HR and PR departments and other spots. There are tons of English teaching jobs in which a degree in English opens the flood gates.(There are tons of job requests for technical writers and editors)

Communications is generally one of the easiest programs to get into in any university, and most companies will take a BA specializing in marketing or PR well ahead of a communications grad. English language grads have over a 9% unemployment rate, and most of them end up teaching.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Your position is utterly nonsense. Finishing a University degree takes learning a lot about things, reading, and writing and memory work, presentation skills, all things someone fresh out of highschool may not have developed.

My position is supported by job statistics. Yours is based on what you want to think.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Also usually in year two people declare so this aimless drifting is an entirely different matter, do remember universities can deny or accept a request to change a program, and also I'd rather someone take an extra year to get the credits they need, or even come back for a double degree than going into a profession they won't enjoy.

The less this happens, the better. The focus should be on improving the selection process, eliminating spots for degrees that are in excess supply and promoting training for areas in high demand.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Who are you to tell people what they should master? The stuff actually does train people. Geography IS useful. For example GPS systems are highly useful and if not for geography we wouldn't have anything near what we have today.

There are always going to be exceptional grads for any program that end up doing neat stuff. The vast majority of geography majors, however, will not even be employed in anything remotely related to geography. Thanks for the riveting example though...

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 04:46, said:

Your position on geography being 'useless' is retarded, considering Canada's economy is resource driven. Absolutely retarded.

There's a difference between a 'geologist' and a geography major genius, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't have geography programs. If a student specializez their education and works towards a field in high demand, they're going to do just fine. Maybe before you call my positions retarded you should actually have a freaking clue what you're talking about. The actual job statistics are a lot more reliable of a gauge than your vapid 'opinions'.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/why-are-we-training-our-arts-grads-to-be-baristas/article4507579/

Edited March 15, 2013 by Moonbox

[Pliny]

Free? Sheesh...another free lunch proponent. Let me guess, you're a student.

It isn't really clear that you understand the term "free", shortlived. You later say that it will pay for itself out of the taxes that graduates pay later.

"Free" doesn't work for me. It just means some people will be wasting a lot of their life doing

things they don't really want to do but hey, it's free.

[Bonam]

Not to mention free tuition isn't worth anything close to a 1%/year lifetime income payment. That's completely absurd given Canada's low tuition and anyone that might actually make a decent income. 6 years of school to get a master's costs like ~40k in tuition, 6% of lifetime income for someone gainfully employed in a profession is like $240k. Pay 6 times more money for something than it costs just to subsidize all the dummies that take useless degrees and stay in school forever? No thanks!

[Lwhispers]

Finally a Canadian group of people that are actually discussing this issue. I am very interested in this topic and laud the efforts of those involved in dissecting and commenting on how tuition rates in Canada may be addressed.

That being said, there are a few points that I would like to add to the conversation. Firstly, Shortlived, I appreciate the idea and ultimately support your endeavor for free post-secondary, but not like this. What you are suggesting is a permanent contribution of 1% of all income annually for anyone that obtains a post-secondary education. This would work, but I believe you would end up with a massive amount more money than is needed over time. Not to mention the potential effect on the economy of a generational group taking a 1% hit. Your idea needs more flushing out, but there is substance to work with there.

Moonbox, you have brought forth a torrent of statistical data and shot down some of the suggestions brought forth by Shortlived. Kudos for bringing a rational response to these suggestions; but I have a few points of consideration I would like to put to you regarding your assertions.

This is just getting funny. Student loans are too much paperwork and that's a reason people shouldn't have to pay tuition!??

You are right here, it is not a justification for free tuition. But there is the nagging question of the need for such a bloated loan system when paying upfront through some form of taxation would be simpler and not require a massive bureaucracy to accompany it. It's indicative of the red tape conservatives are always griping about that holds back business. This is a hoop to jump through, how much of an impact it actually has in terms of access to education is really the burning question.

I live in a town where probably 25% of the population are university students. I'm young enough still to have friends in university. There are tons of people already who coast their way through university for as long as they can.

Careful here. What you are doing is using anecdotal information (your personal view) as justification for the apparent behavior or stereotype of a student. I don't believe that the statistics bear this out, and would like to see them if you have them on hand?

US History majors have a 15% unemployment rate. Political science grads have a 9.1% unemployment rate. Philosophy grads are ~11% unemployed. Humanities majors are 9.5% unemployed. Guess what the overall unemployment rate is? It's about 8%.You can disagree all you want. I don't care.

Very good point. But this doesn't actually address funding for post secondary so much as it points out the level of neglect by provincial governments to adjust the number of graduates in a given program at universities. Less available spaces should be allotted in these programs due to their excess, making it more competitive to actually enter into that program. The main reason universities are allowing excess people in currently is for the funding increases from tuition.

The focus should be on improving the selection process, eliminating spots for degrees that are in excess supply and promoting training for areas in high demand.

There are always going to be exceptional grads for any program that end up doing neat stuff. The vast majority of geography majors, however, will not even be employed in anything remotely related to geography.

I could not agree more with this point, but it still does not lend any weight to the funding aspect of post-secondary, it has much more to do with the bureaucratic structure.

My suggestion would be something like this:

- Each province should contribute an equal minimum percentage to post secondary with the remainder being paid for through federal taxation (this already happens, although not enough to cover costs entirely).

- It would cover the tuition, but not living expenses of individuals.

- Part of the agreement is dependent upon restructuring the education system to better meet the needs of the university, the community and the economy. What this entails is separate guaranteed funding for research that is not tied to tuition and level of enrollment. More flexibility for each school to cater to its area of expertise (sciences, engineering, social sciences, etc...) but maintaining a minimum in each area (not eliminating programs entirely).

- It would actually increase the level of competition as not everyone would simply be let in just because the tuition is zero - you would need the grades in order to go.

- I know the cost sounds daunting but its actually not as huge as you would think. It is estimated that there is something like 1.5 million students in Canada. The average tuition cost is approx $6000 (rounded up). That's about 9 billion a year. Now consider that the GST cut of 2% slashed somewhere between 8-9 billion and it begins to put things into perspective. (I am not saying that this is the way in which it should be paid - I'm open to suggestions, but that extra 2% could sure go a long way today! Also I believe we spend somewhere around 200 billion a year in healthcare - again, perspective).

Why should we do this? Can't students afford it?

- It would decrease the overall level of student debt that is being carried. This has been a point of concern touted by the major banks as they are beginning to worry about student debt.

- Those in debt are not consumers but are rather a drag on the economy as they pay interest on top of their debts and it takes them much longer to pay it off and begin to contribute to the economy.

- Furthermore, there is a generational shift occurring where the baby boomers are going to begin dragging on the economy in terms of healthcare, pension and old age security. It is the expectation that the Millennials will consume enough to drive the economy, pay for their parents pension and healthcare and provide for their own children (boomer grandkids). Beginning life out of post-secondary debt ridden is a drag on us all and raises questions as to whether this generation will be able to meet all of the financial commitments.

- A final point of contention - it is often said by boomers that they made their own way and their kids can do the same. This is fairly ignorant to the glaring differences that exist between generations. Millennials face global economic competition, higher costs of living when adjusted for inflation, increasing tax burdens, tepid job security and a boomer generation that is sticking around in the workforce (where their predecessors were retiring). By not exiting the workforce in the traditional fashion the Boomers are actually taking up jobs that the new generation are hoping to fill. The world is a very different place then it was for our parents.

These are just a couple of points and there is much more to be considered. But this is the general gist of it. Any questions or concerns I am happy to address and debate with you. Keep it factual ~

[shortlived]

This is just getting funny. Student loans are too much paperwork and that's a reason people shouldn't have to pay tuition!??I'm not inventing anything. I live in a town where probably 25% of the population are university students. I'm young enough still to have friends in university. There are tons of people already who coast their way through university for as long as they can.Sorry 'bro', but the student lifestyle is actually a lot of fun. I'd go back to school in a second if there was free tuition. You know what the best part of those 9am lectures is? You don't have to go if you don't feel like it.Most professions don't, sorry. US History majors have a 15% unemployment rate. Political science grads have a 9.1% unemployment rate. Philosophy grads are ~11% unemployed. Humanities majors are 9.5% unemployed. Guess what the overall unemployment rate is? It's about 8%.You can disagree all you want. I don't care. The actual job statistics tell us all we need to know!Yeah, SOME people. Graphics designers are 12% unemployed in the US, fully 50% more than the average member of the work force. There's certainly money to be made by exceptional artists, but not as much as you'd like to think!Communications is generally one of the easiest programs to get into in any university, and most companies will take a BA specializing in marketing or PR well ahead of a communications grad. English language grads have over a 9% unemployment rate, and most of them end up teaching.My position is supported by job statistics. Yours is based on what you want to think.The less this happens, the better. The focus should be on improving the selection process, eliminating spots for degrees that are in excess supply and promoting training for areas in high demand.There are always going to be exceptional grads for any program that end up doing neat stuff. The vast majority of geography majors, however, will not even be employed in anything remotely related to geography. Thanks for the riveting example though...There's a difference between a 'geologist' and a geography major genius, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't have geography programs. If a student specializez their education and works towards a field in high demand, they're going to do just fine. Maybe before you call my positions retarded you should actually have a freaking clue what you're talking about. The actual job statistics are a lot more reliable of a gauge than your vapid 'opinions'.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/why-are-we-training-our-arts-grads-to-be-baristas/article4507579/

So its just alternative day care to give people free elementary and secondary school right? There is no educational benefit whatsoever. Get the clue that post secondary education is the new highschool. Oh so 1 in 10 of university educated people don't have jobs, how many high school graduates don't have jobs, how many drop outs? Could the people who stay in, maybe be there cause they don't have jobs.

No man your view is retarded. I'm appalled you are a university graduate who says such stupid things. So that 1 in 10 high school graduates that don't have jobs or 12% unemployment rate, and that 23% unemployment rate of highschool drop outs.

Oh how about income levels and contribution to GDP.. post secondary graduates vs. highschool graduates vs dropouts

geuss what... it makes the country wealthier.. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=54

You are being stupid.

What about crime rates of those classes

example statistics such as "82 per cent of federal inmates had an education of Grade 10 or less"

Guess what one of the leading causes to a lower crime rate, NO not a conservative federal government, but rather education..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/28/f-vp-kempa-crime-rate.html

-----------

Lets get real though, no the system won't change because bad people make money off of the mismanagement.

France has free tuition it is doing fine.

Fact is IT WILL COST TAX PAYERS LESS.. what don't you get about this?

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

Free? Sheesh...another free lunch proponent. Let me guess, you're a student.

It isn't really clear that you understand the term "free", shortlived. You later say that it will pay for itself out of the taxes that graduates pay later.

"Free" doesn't work for me. It just means some people will be wasting a lot of their life doing

things they don't really want to do but hey, it's free.

Hey Pliny why don't you read the thread first, rather than being ignorant and completely out of touch with the subject.

[shortlived]

Not to mention free tuition isn't worth anything close to a 1%/year lifetime income payment. That's completely absurd given Canada's low tuition and anyone that might actually make a decent income. 6 years of school to get a master's costs like ~40k in tuition, 6% of lifetime income for someone gainfully employed in a profession is like $240k. Pay 6 times more money for something than it costs just to subsidize all the dummies that take useless degrees and stay in school forever? No thanks!

Says the guy form Seatle.

Hey you know people arn't forced to take free tuition, with an average income of $45,000 for university graduates that works out to $1350 a year. But it would likely be lower to start at entry level jobs and would grow as income levels increase. But tax payers are already paying for 50% of students tuition anyway in places like ontario. This also not counted on the loan write offs and payment assistance. Tax payers in general area paying over $200 a year just at the federal level, so everyone can pay $500 or student who get the free tuition pay $1350 a year on average, which students who take 8 terms at ~$3500 a term (or $28000 for a 4 year degree) works out to 20 years to pay down at $1350. It works out to 2x as much over a life time or about $60,000 before retirement at 67 (or whatever number it is) Yes its more but you will get hit for most of it anyway, and it is the right thing to do. I dont think that we will be capitalst in another 30 years anyway, let alone 40 or 50

oh and that 28,000 wasn't even adjusted for the 8%+ interest which can be even higher.)

So no, it is more for the student but the payment period is longer and it provides free tuition, the cost savings are found it getting rid of all the other programs that just add layers of red tape, and staffing to administer that red tape.

Yeah that is right in the same period tax payers are paying $20,000 whether they get free tuition or not.. hey geuss what, that is almost the entire difference, with interest added in, it might even be less to take the free tuition than maintain the current system for the student getting the free tuition... and geuss what the tax payers just loose $20,000 to pay for someone elses education....

get it, you either pay $20,000 and get nothing, or you pay more as a student than under this plan..

what don't you get?

It costs the tax payers less, it costs the students less, and it cuts down on red tape and wasted time, and resources...

THIS IS GOOD NOT BAD

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

oh and better yet, those who pay into the Free tuition fund become shareholders.. with an issue each year, including tax payers forced to fund the plan until it became self supporting, meaning they get a pension once it fullfills its mandate to pay for all the students who request access to the free tuition. The share on return is based on the percent of annual contribution in association to the total sum of contributions. So the weight of the share would vary by year based upon individual input into the total fund for a given year, and total shares would then payout based upon any remainder as divided by share holding weight once the fund was self sustaining.

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[Newfoundlander]

People who applied for it.

Your response, like your entire argument, makes no sense.

[shortlived]

Your response, like your entire argument, makes no sense.

^^^

[Moonbox]

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

No man your view is retarded. I'm appalled you are a university graduate who says such stupid things. So that 1 in 10 high school graduates that don't have jobs or 12% unemployment rate, and that 23% unemployment rate of highschool drop outs.

What's really appalling is that someone who can't form a proper sentence (that's you, in case you're wondering) is telling me my view is retarded. It's equally appalling how badly the education system is failing you, when basic argumentation and understanding of statistics (taught in university) so clearly escape you.

Here's my argument, summarized concisely:

There are a lot of university programs that, statistically speaking, offer on average no/little/negligible returns in employment prospects upon graduating.

This isn't something I'm making up. These are numbers we get from the census data and university surveys. I listed some of them for you showing that the average unemployment rate for graduates in these programs was higher than the national average unemployment rate. Considering the majority of the population doesn't even have post-secondary education, that's a pathetic.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

Oh how about income levels and contribution to GDP.. post secondary graduates vs. highschool graduates vs dropouts

Argumentation fail. We weren't arguing about the merits of post-secondary education in general. Post secondary education is good overall. There are enough useful programs out there that make the overall system worthwhile. Certain programs, however, are (on average) failing to make graduates more employable.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

geuss what... it makes the country wealthier.. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=54

You are being stupid.

Education makes the country wealthier!? What?! It cannot be so!!!

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

What about crime rates of those classes

Unsurprisingly, you've brought another bone-headed and completely irrelevant stastistic to the discussion.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

Lets get real though, no the system won't change because bad people make money off of the mismanagement.

Now the overall picture of you is getting more clear. You can't have free tuition because of the 'man' right?? The evil corporations and the conservative government is out to screw you...(insert eye roll).

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

France has free tuition it is doing fine.

By virtually all economic measures, it's doing significantly worse than Canada. The unemployment rate, GDP/capita, Human Development Index etc are all way lower than Canada's, despite the free tuition. Maybe before you go off ranting and nattering, you should get a freaking clue about what you're talking about.

shortlived, on 15 Mar 2013 - 17:59, said:

Fact is IT WILL COST TAX PAYERS LESS.. what don't you get about this?

It's not going to cost taxpayers less at all. Someone is paying for it regardless and we've already gone over it with you and the problems associated with it.

[shortlived]

It has nothing to do with the programs, it has to do with work available in those fields. Your argument is baseless and you have submitted to my fact that post secondary education has dividends, and that this program would be beneficial to the tax payer. Chances are there are probably just a lot of boomers that need to retire in those fields to make way, and/or they are fields people need to self employ in. Like writing etc...

For instance education there are a lot of old teachers.

Part of this is due to underdevelopment of the education system, and increases in classroom sizes, and newer technologies. The education sector has declined, and tenure reigns in those occupations. It just means they need to self employ, and an MBA availability would help them with that to supplement their specializations. Fact is those people still have better education accreditation wise than high school students and high school drop outs, so the reason for them being unemployed likely has more to do with your own studies ethic that being they are more about lifestyle than knowledge. Also their unwillingness to compete for jobs in the unskilled category, and or volunteering for not for profit, not for pay activities.

Oh and I can ... form.. a sentence just fine. You can't read free writing, perhaps you need to pull the cucumber .. out. Oh. Yeah. That is it. Right you know.

There is a form of communication called, knowledge by omission. If you don't understand...

Edited March 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Shady]

It has nothing to do with the programs, it has to do with work available in those fields. Your argument is baseless and you have submitted to my fact that post secondary education has dividends, and that this program would be beneficial to the tax payer. Chances are there are probably just a lot of boomers that need to retire in those fields to make way, and/or they are fields people need to self employ in. Like writing etc...

For instance education there are a lot of old teachers.

Part of this is due to underdevelopment of the education system, and increases in classroom sizes, and newer technologies. The education sector has declined, and tenure reigns in those occupations. It just means they need to self employ, and an MBA availability would help them with that to supplement their specializations. Fact is those people still have better education accreditation wise than high school students and high school drop outs, so the reason for them being unemployed likely has more to do with your own studies ethic that being they are more about lifestyle than knowledge. Also their unwillingness to compete for jobs in the unskilled category, and or volunteering for not for profit, not for pay activities.

Oh and I can ... form.. a sentence just fine. You can't read free writing, perhaps you need to pull the cucumber .. out. Oh. Yeah. That is it. Right you know.

There is a form of communication called, knowledge by omission. If you don't understand...

Your "free education" idea is absurd. Stop trying to sell it. It ridiculous.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has nothing to do with the programs, it has to do with work available in those fields.

This remains unclear, as citations so far are for U.S. employment, not Canada.

[waldo]

This remains unclear, as citations so far are for U.S. employment, not Canada.

I guess you missed this offered cite... in your perpetual zeal to feed your one-trick pony!!!

.

The actual job statistics are a lot more reliable of a gauge than your vapid 'opinions'.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/why-are-we-training-our-arts-grads-to-be-baristas/article4507579/

[waldo]

Free? Sheesh...another free lunch proponent. Let me guess, you're a student.

"Free" doesn't work for me. It just means some people will be wasting a lot of their life doing things they don't really want to do but hey, it's free.

and I know several people who started down a path of uncertainty thinking they would eventually find their major... that all would be revealed... next year, no... next year! People who are so far down a path that they feel they simply can't chuck 2 or 3 years, or a full undergrad, given the time/cost/commitment outlay. So, they end up in a career path... less preferred. Does that meet the same measure of your 'wasted' reference? Might free tuition allow... some... to consider changing course more easily/readily? Surely, in the grand rankings within your less government mantra, free tuition costs must barely cause a ripple, yes?

[shortlived]

This remains unclear, as citations so far are for U.S. employment, not Canada.

so just divide by 10.

and no my 'citaitons' were from Canadian sources...

Edited March 17, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

so just divide by 10.

and no my 'citaitons' were from Canadian sources...

No...this is a false exercise...find more Canadian sources instead of relying on U.S. employment data to be credible about education pursuits/costs and career success in Canada. "Divide by 10" is just lazy.

[Pliny]

Hey Pliny why don't you read the thread first, rather than being ignorant and completely out of touch with the subject.

I read the OP and know where you are coming from, radical activism basically.

I dont think that we will be capitalst in another 30 years anyway, let alone 40 or 50

We are not capitalist now. We have a sort of crony capitalism or corporate capitalism which equates to a form of fascism and as it progresses you will most likely not be among the privileged. Free university may very well exist in this progressive State in the not too distant future but only for those who have been determined, by State sanctioned individuals, of course, to have an academic aptitude and who will serve the purposes of the State. You are too political and thus a danger. However, you seem malleable, and perhaps you can fill some minor role in the government, perhaps determining who has an academic aptitude and should be allowed to go to university, free of charge, of course.

[Pliny]

and I know several people who started down a path of uncertainty thinking they would eventually find their major... that all would be revealed... next year, no... next year! People who are so far down a path that they feel they simply can't chuck 2 or 3 years, or a full undergrad, given the time/cost/commitment outlay. So, they end up in a career path... less preferred. Does that meet the same measure of your 'wasted' reference? Might free tuition allow... some... to consider changing course more easily/readily? Surely, in the grand rankings within your less government mantra, free tuition costs must barely cause a ripple, yes?

For you, waldo - free education. I decree it. However, you will have to promise to continue forwarding progressivism and the aggrandizement of the State. The process of selection will be more refined later, but for now, continue.

[shortlived]

I read the OP and know where you are coming from, radical activism basically.

We are not capitalist now. We have a sort of crony capitalism or corporate capitalism which equates to a form of fascism and as it progresses you will most likely not be among the privileged. Free university may very well exist in this progressive State in the not too distant future but only for those who have been determined, by State sanctioned individuals, of course, to have an academic aptitude and who will serve the purposes of the State. You are too political and thus a danger. However, you seem malleable, and perhaps you can fill some minor role in the government, perhaps determining who has an academic aptitude and should be allowed to go to university, free of charge, of course.

First off I'm non conformist and I'm not political I'm apolitical, I'm not about people I'm about equal capacity. I am a libertarian minarchist, so I am the state, dealing with government whatever it may be is diplomacy.

Second there is something called grades that already determines this so called academic aptitude.

apolitical

The state or quality of being apolitical can be the apathy and/or the antipathy towards all political affiliations. Being apolitical can also refer to situations in which people take an unbiasedposition in regard to political matters.

The Collins dictionary's definition of "apolitical" is:

"Politically neutral; without political attitudes, content, or bias

"

See also

• Moderate
• Nonpartisan
• Non-politics
• Non-voting

Edited March 18, 2013 by shortlived