Who pays for post secondary education?

[jacee]

Not at all. Scholarships, loans and bursuries exist to ensure equal access.

Not enough of them. It's patchwork, not consistent or sufficient for all who qualify for postsecondary.

And many of those subsidies are provided precisely because the companies offer skilled job opportunities.

Not really.

why-corporate-welfare-doesnt-boost-employment/

I am not arguing for the subsidies - just that there is no pot of money to raid which will not require some other sacrifice to the public good.

Corporate subsidies can be redirected to the public good.

.

[TimG]

Corporate subsidies can be redirected to the public good.

$1 billion a year goes to the movie industry. So you are OK with cutting those subsidies even if that means many local services firms will go out of business? In any case, it is your opinion and is not widely shared since politicians only offer these subsidies because they think it will get them votes.

The system we have in place for student support is good enough. I find it hard to believe there would be any support for cutting programs to make theses supports more generous.

[jacee]

$1 billion a year goes to the movie industry. So you are OK with cutting those subsidies even if that means many local services firms will go out of business? In any case, it is your opinion and is not widely shared since politicians only offer these subsidies because they think it will get them votes.

It's the opinion of the Fraser Institute and the former Minister of Industry.

The system we have in place for student support is good enough.

No it isn't.

I find it hard to believe there would be any support for cutting programs to make theses supports more generous.

Cut corporate subsidies.

Fund free tuition for all qualifying students, stop disadvantaging lower income families.

.

Edited December 28, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

It's the opinion of the Fraser Institute and the former Minister of Industry.

Sure - but I am sure the Fraser Institute would argue the savings be used to pay down debt or cut taxes. It is easy to single out a program - not so easy to get a consensus on what to do with the savings.

No it isn't.

Based on what? Your gut feel? I am not against offering more scholarships - free tuition is just a really stupid idea with too many undesirable consequences.

[jacee]

Sure - but I am sure the Fraser Institute would argue the savings be used to pay down debt or cut taxes. It is easy to single out a program - not so easy to get a consensus on what to do with the savings.

Based on what? Your gut feel? I am not against offering more scholarships - free tuition is just a really stupid idea with too many undesirable consequences.

No it isn't.

It does challenge the notion of 'money talks' though.

And it challenges whether we put our money where our mouth is in actually providing equal opportunity regardless of income.

.

[Wilber]

No it isn't.

It does challenge the notion of 'money talks' though.

And it challenges whether we put our money where our mouth is in actually providing equal opportunity regardless of income.

.

What's the matter with the student putting a little money where his mouth is? People have much more incentive to take things seriously if some of their own money is on the line. Not so much when it is someone else's.

[overthere]

-degrees-diplomas-and-debts-oh-my-/

These government cutbacks in funding education has burned larger holes in the pockets of mid-low income families. Ontario is giving high priority to high income families and leaving the rest of Ontario's families to pay the price. Why give a helping hand to someone who does not need it? Meanwhile, students not from these higher income families are resulting to student loans and heavier work hours during their studies.

It's a question of levelling the playing field, equal opportunity.

.

Levelling the field? Govt assistance is already tilted hard towards those who are short on money.

The interest free student loans and free money from grants in some provinces are only available to low and working class families/students. If you or supporting parents have resources, you don't qualify.

I have also never understood why buying a large future income stream that lasts a liftime and is a prime reason for attending university- should be free. It isn't for trades people and entrepreneurs, why only for uni students?-

[overthere]

It is not going over my head as much as you men like to insinuate that. It is about subsidized education for medical professionals. Dental care is just as much needed as care provided by physicians. Please do not condescend to my intellect.

They are already very heavily subsidized. They also have no obligation whatsoever to remain in Canada after graduating so citizens may enjoy the benefit of the enormously expensive gift they've been handed for many years of post secondary training.

[jacee]

What's the matter with the student putting a little money where his mouth is? People have much more incentive to take things seriously if some of their own money is on the line. Not so much when it is someone else's.

Tell that to the rich kids.

Why do they get a free ride and disadvantaged kids get ... more disadvantage?

It's just about making sure that all kids who qualify for admission get equal opportunity to attend and benefit from postsecondary education.

.

.

Edited December 29, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Levelling the field? Govt assistance is already tilted hard towards those who are short on money.

The interest free student loans and free money from grants in some provinces are only available to low and working class families/students. If you or supporting parents have resources, you don't qualify.

I have also never understood why buying a large future income stream that lasts a liftime and is a prime reason for attending university- should be free. It isn't for trades people and entrepreneurs, why only for uni students?-

The thread is about ALL public postsecondary education and training - university, college, trades, etc.

Free tuition for all would reduce the disadvantage for lower income families.

It would also remove a mountain of bureaucratic costs and interest costs in processing loans, grants, etc.

.

Edited December 29, 2014 by jacee

[Wilber]

Tell that to the rich kids.

Why do they get a free ride and disadvantaged kids get ... more disadvantage?

It's just about making sure that all kids who qualify for admission get equal opportunity to attend and benefit from postsecondary education.

.

.

You assume they get a free ride, that may or may not be true.. There is no such thing as equal opportunity, some will always be able to afford more than others. It is important that the opportunity is attainable for everyone who qualifies academically, not that it is equal. As a parent, I know for a fact that kids (and people in general) tend to put more value on things they had to earn themselves than those which were just given them.

[guyser]

(note: market forces limit was dentists can charge just like market forces limit what salaries are paid by the private sector).

ODA is a tiger on a bone for NOT letting Dentists charge market prices...other than market prices set by the same ODA.

It is a classic ripoff, and this from someone who was just recently ripped off getting temps installed.

Nice racket they have.

There is a prminent sign in Dentists offices...'Do not ask for a cash price since the ODA forbids this practice ' , which of course is a crock of shit.

[overthere]

The thread is about ALL public postsecondary education and training - university, college, trades, etc.

Free tuition for all would reduce the disadvantage for lower income families.

It would also remove a mountain of bureaucratic costs and interest costs in processing loans, grants, etc.

.

UK and France have or had free tuition for decades and their economies have floundered far more in the last half century than Canada , which has typically had heavily subsidized but not free tuition in the same period.

You need to demonstrate that: lower income families have no access to student loans and grants, and that bureacracy is reduced, since you imply that there is no screening whatsoever under your system of free money for anybody. To be fair(as is done elsewhere, like France) you'd also have to have a system of financial support for rent, food and sundries for all students. Otherwise, the evil middle class and higher would have an advantage over the less wealthy. Let's see your estimates on the whole enchilada, not just tuition.

Perhaps you could use the nearly -free-tuition schemes of Qubec as an example. Obviously Quebec is thriving under that scheme and is far ahead of the ROC in every measurable way.

[jacee]

It is important that the opportunity is attainable for everyone who qualifies academically, not that it is equal.

It isn't attainable for all who qualify academically.

.

[jacee]

UK and France have or had free tuition for decades and their economies have floundered far more in the last half century than Canada , which has typically had heavily subsidized but not free tuition in the same period.

That's hardly causal.

You need to demonstrate that: lower income families have no access to student loans and grants,

Some do some don't, and hefty loans are a huge disadvantage.

and that bureacracy is reduced, since you imply that there is no screening whatsoever under your system of free money for anybody.

Well let's see ... no tuition, no processing payments for starters.

To be fair(as is done elsewhere, like France) you'd also have to have a system of financial support for rent, food and sundries for all students. Otherwise, the evil middle class and higher

Nobody said "evil" but you. This is about overcoming such divisions, not creating them.

would have an advantage over the less wealthy. Let's see your estimates on the whole enchilada, not just tuition.

Perhaps you could use the nearly -free-tuition schemes of Qubec as an example. Obviously Quebec is thriving under that scheme and is far ahead of the ROC in every measurable way.

Free tuition is a good start.

.

[WestCoastRunner]

Not enough of them. It's patchwork, not consistent or sufficient for all who qualify for postsecondary.

Not really.

It is absolutely not consistent nor is it sufficient. Let's consider single parent families. They not only need to come up with tuition but also COL including daycare fees. This is a huge challenge, especially when single parent families are expected to contribute to their living expenses. Not only do they have a tremendous load of caring for their children, but they also have to keep up with studies, exams, homework etc. And they are expected to work part-time to contribute to their studies.

Now, let's consider the economic benefits to society if they received free education/daycare and graduated in a number of years to obtain a full-time well paid job. It's not rocket science to figure out the benefits to society if they are able to obtain an education, obtain full-time well paying employment and provide a great role model to their kids.

The steps to achieve post secondary education are insurmountable to single parent families as it now stands. They need a break and they need to not engage in competition with rich kids who can rely on their parents to support their education.

[TimG]

The steps to achieve post secondary education are insurmountable to single parent families as it now stands. They need a break and they need to not engage in competition with rich kids who can rely on their parents to support their education.

Free tuition will not solve their problems. If anything it will only make them worse because competition to get into courses will be much stiffer because the courses will be rationed because the demand is not limited by price.

If people need support they should be supported directly.

Edited December 30, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Free tuition will not solve their problems. If anything it will only make them worse because competition to get into courses will be much stiffer because the courses will be rationed because the demand is not limited by price.

If people need support they should be supported directly.

And how would they be supported directly?

[WestCoastRunner]

Free tuition will not solve their problems. If anything it will only make them worse because competition to get into courses will be much stiffer because the courses will be rationed because the demand is not limited by price.

If people need support they should be supported directly.

If the demand is qualified to academic qualifications and a single parent meets those demands, where is the problem?

[TimG]

If the demand is qualified to academic qualifications and a single parent meets those demands, where is the problem?

How do you expect a single parent to compete academically with a single person that only has to worry about school? I am sure they are a few individuals who could compete but statistically more intense academic competition will leave single parents even further behind.

There is also the fairness issue: why should everyone else's university experience be made more miserable in order to help a tiny minority?

[WestCoastRunner]

How do you expect a single parent to compete academically with a single person that only has to worry about school? I am sure they are a few individuals who could compete but statistically more intense academic competition will leave single parents even further behind.

There is also the fairness issue: why should everyone else's university experience be made more miserable in order to help a tiny minority?

Do you have any cites to back that up? Does a single parent make them more dumb than an individual who is not a parent? Why on earth would a single parent be left behind? You are judging a single parent to be not as ambitious/smart as an individual who is not a parent. Seriously?

Do you know any single parents who have struggled to obtain post secondary education?

A university experience should be diminished by a tiny minority? You are kidding, right?

Edited December 30, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Do you have any cites to back that up? Does a single parent make them more dumb than an individual who is not a parent?

It should be pretty obvious. If you have to spend 20% of your time caring for a kid that 20% of your time which cannot be devoted to studying. And that does not even take into account unplanned interruptions due to sickness. In aggregate, single parents would be hurt more by increased academic competition than single, unattached persons. Edited December 30, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

It should be pretty obvious. If you have to spend 20% of your time caring for a kid that 20% of your time which cannot be devoted to studying. And that does not even take into account unplanned interruptions due to sickness. In aggregate, a single parent would be hurt more by increased academic competition than a single, unattached person.

Are you suggesting that a single parent should not have equal opportunity to post secondary education as a non parent student? If both students were allowed 100% funding and the single parent met those academic qualifications, what is the problem?

Edited December 30, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Are you suggesting that a single parent should not have equal opportunity to post secondary education as a non parent student? If both students were allowed 100% funding and the single parent met those academic qualifications, what is the problem?

Because free tuition will lead to rationing because there is never enough money to supply the demand. I know from talking to German friends that free university means it can take up to 7 years to get a 4 year degree because students find that required courses fill up. We don't have that problem here because we have non-zero tuition which serves as a break on demand.

IOW - making tuition free harms people who have no problem with the current system and that is unfair. If you think a group needs help they should funded directly with scholarships or loans. It makes no sense to make tuition free.

[WestCoastRunner]

IOW - making tuition free harms people who have no problem with the current system and that is unfair. If you think a group needs help they should funded directly with scholarships or loans. It makes no sense to make tuition free.

You seem to think that single parents have no problem with the current system and that is unfair. It's not what I think, it's what single parents think. I agree that they need help and the dialogue should start with free daycare.