Who pays for post secondary education?

[John]

I have a question regarding post secondary education...

According to the most recent Ontario Budget...the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities will have expenses of approx $7.8B for 2014-2015 {edit}.

How is this money spent? Because it seems to me that, if all our colleges and universities are public, and paid for by taxes...then they should be free to anyone and everyone who qualifies.

Can someone set me right on this...?

Edited December 25, 2014 by John

[Michael Hardner]

Because it seems to me that, if all our colleges and universities are public, and paid for by taxes...then they should be free to anyone and everyone who qualifies.

Can someone set me right on this...?

They are not "paid for" by taxes. They are paid for by taxes, donations, tuition, fees, and other ways.

[John]

And at the same time the government is also subsidizing students through the 30% Off Tuition Grant.

Couldn't we stop the subsidization of the institutions themselves and just make post secondary education free by channeling those monies direction to qualifying students?

[Michael Hardner]

Couldn't we stop the subsidization of the institutions themselves and just make post secondary education free by channeling those monies direction to qualifying students?

Who would fund post secondary education ?

[TimG]

Couldn't we stop the subsidization of the institutions themselves and just make post secondary education free by channeling those monies direction to qualifying students?

Such thinking has created the mess they have in the US where universities have jacked up rates to take advantage of students who feel they have no choice and access to whatever loans they need to pay what the universities demand. A sane system needs the government to control the university tuition as well as provide funding to students.

That said, given the number choices available it is important that students bear some of the cost to encourage good decision making. I think a 4 year degree should cost about the same as a new car (i.e. something that can be paid off in a 5-10 years). In the US university degrees cost as much as a house and that is way too expensive.

Edited December 25, 2014 by TimG

[John]

Who would fund post secondary education ?

Ultimately...under this arrangement...it would be the taxpayer.

[Michael Hardner]

Ultimately...under this arrangement...it would be the taxpayer.

Right - so they *would* be subsidized. I agree with TimG that students should bear some of the cost.

[John]

Such thinking has created the mess they have in the US where universities have jacked up rates to take advantage of students who feel they have no choice and access to whatever loans they need to pay what the universities demand. A sane system needs the government to control the university tuition as well as provide funding to students.

I know tuition in the US are quite high...but I don't know if they came about because of free tuition to students. And since post secondary education here is public, couldn't the costs of programs be capped to a certain extent by the government?

[TimG]

I know tuition in the US are quite high...but I don't know if they came about because of free tuition to students.

Tuition is not free. The US government just gives out enough loans that the free market is broken because demand is not limited by rising prices. Many of the for profit institutions in the US take full advantage of this.

You cannot limit tuition unless you are also funding the universities and in Canada that is what happens (i.e. the province has to approve tuition increases).

[jacee]

Right - so they *would* be subsidized. I agree with TimG that students should bear some of the cost.

I disagree. It should be a level playing field, all students funded.

The students (and their parents) who can't pay are already disadvantaged. They're the ones who come out still disadvantaged by loans.

Living expenses not tuition are the biggest cost for those who can't live at home, and that's still a disadvantage. At least make tuition free, level that field.

.

[TimG]

I disagree. It should be a level playing field, all students funded.

Free tuition leads to rationing. i.e. in Germany tuition is free but it is difficult to get all of the courses that you need for a degree each year because of limits on space. This means a 4 year degree can take up to 7 years to complete. When you consider living expenses most students would be better off paying tuition if the alternative means it takes longer to get a degree. It makes more sense to spend the money on special scholarships for people from poorer families. Edited December 26, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Free tuition leads to rationing. i.e. in Germany tuition is free but it is difficult to get all of the courses that you need for a degree each year because of limits on space. This means a 4 year degree can take up to 7 years to complete. When you consider living expenses most students would be better off paying tuition if the alternative means it takes longer to get a degree.

I'm not opposed to stretching it out. Lighter course loads allow for working to keep up with costs, and gaining experience.

.

[TimG]

I'm not opposed to stretching it out. Lighter course loads allow for working to keep up with costs, and gaining experience.

People who want to do that can do it today. Most students will want to complete their degree as soon as possible and would rather pay tuition if the alternative means they would forced to spend more time in university.

[jacee]

People who want to do that can do it today. Most students will want to complete their degree as soon as possible and would rather pay tuition if the alternative means they would forced to spend more time in university.

I doubt that.

Cite?

[TimG]

I doubt that. Cite?

Don't need one. Been to university myself. Know many people who graduated. Can't think of one who would have wanted to spend longer in university than necessary.

In any case, even if there are some people who would like the slower pace it makes no sense to force everyone to accept that.

Edited December 26, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Don't need one. Been to university myself. Know many people who graduated. Can't think of one who would have wanted to spend longer in university than necessary.

In any case, even if there are some people who would like the slower pace it makes no sense to force everyone to accept that.

With a lighter course load and time to work? I think lots would.

.

[TimG]

With a lighter course load and time to work? I think lots would.

Again, not a justification for forcing everyone to do it. Also, the job market is pretty tough as it is. A lot of students simply would not find work before graduation.

[Moonlight Graham]

Such thinking has created the mess they have in the US where universities have jacked up rates to take advantage of students who feel they have no choice and access to whatever loans they need to pay what the universities demand. A sane system needs the government to control the university tuition as well as provide funding to students.

That said, given the number choices available it is important that students bear some of the cost to encourage good decision making. I think a 4 year degree should cost about the same as a new car (i.e. something that can be paid off in a 5-10 years). In the US university degrees cost as much as a house and that is way too expensive.

I agree, and the cost of a degree right now in Canada seems about right.

Even though universities aren't meant to be "job factories", one interesting option to ponder is if government should subsidize degree programs more if they are directly valuable in the job market, and therefore hiking tuition fees for students enrolled in ie: philosophy or history degrees compared to ie: business degrees.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Big Guy]

I believe that the top 10% academically of students in their high school graduating year and 5% academically of students in University courses should be given full room/board expenses and tuition for the next year. The total package dependent on a need basis and the choice of specialty. Priority given to careers in areas in which Canada is needy.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Big Guy

[Keepitsimple]

I believe that the top 10% academically of students in their high school graduating year and 5% academically of students in University courses should be given full room/board expenses and tuition for the next year. The total package dependent on a need basis and the choice of specialty. Priority given to careers in areas in which Canada is needy.

Why?

[Big Guy]

There are far too many very intelligent Canadian kids who cannot afford to go to University for a variety of reasons. We continue to "import" workers for high specialty positions. These Canadian kids on this program would pay back the investment in a few short years through taxes in high income jobs.

[TimG]

We continue to "import" workers for high specialty positions.

The imported foreign workers have skills that can only be gotten on the job or at a trade school. We don't import workers who simply graduated from a 4 year degree. There are lots of those working at Starbucks. Edited December 26, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

There are far too many very intelligent Canadian kids who cannot afford to go to University for a variety of reasons. We continue to "import" workers for high specialty positions. These Canadian kids on this program would pay back the investment in a few short years through taxes in high income jobs.

I really don't mean to be critical because getting our kids educated properly is the best investment we can make. That said, if they're in the top 10% of "intelligence", they should be able to find a way to earn, beg or borrow the money to fulfil their ambitions. We see smart kids every day who simply don't apply themselves. Intelligence has to be paired with ambition - the will to accomplish something - to be something - to build something - whether that's a career, a business, or just a family. Getting things for free just instills an "entitlement" attitude.

I'd like to see a continued emphasis on the Skilled Trades - in a manner that elevates their standing ion society - as it is throughout Europe. Not only can a Skilled Tradesperson such as an electrician, plumber or Welder regularly earn $80K or more a year - but those skills are portable to any city in Canada - or just about any country. There's plenty of side-opportunities as well to flip houses or renovate/build your own.

[Wilber]

I also think a student should have some financial stake. People naturally have more interest in an outcome if their own money is involved.

[WestCoastRunner]

Joan Rush, a former adjunct professor in the faculties of law and dentistry at the University of British Columbia has some interesting observations about the Dental education programs in Canada:

"Canadians pay a lot for dentists to be trained. Tuition fees for dental school are shockingly expensive, but still represent less than a third of the real cost of training. Taxpayers make up the difference. It’s time that Canadian dental faculties ensure that their graduates are trained to be respectful and empathetic to each other and to all Canadians, so that dentistry can become the partner in health care that Canadians need it to be."

She goes on to say that dentistry is a private business and dentists can charge whatever they want and can treat only those people who can afford it, and yet, we the taxpayers subsidize their training.

"The result is a profession that does a great job providing cosmetic dentistry and Botox to wealthy Canadians while failing to provide essential dental treatment to Canadians who are poor, disabled, elderly or living in remote communities. The Canadian Institute for Health Information reported in November 2013 that, relative to the 34 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada performed “poorly” in insuring equitable access to dental care."

Should tuition fees be raised for dental students and should they operate under the same policies as Physicians?