"Reduce Tuition Fees"

[ClearWest]

There was a nobel prize won by an economist in the 60's showing that education is the best possible investment in a country that a government can make. I forget his name.

There was also a Nobel Prize winner in economics (in 1976) named Milton Friedman. He advocated free markets and warned of the economic downfalls of government intervention.

[August1991]

Without going into some hypothetical example, university graduates provide a lot of useful services.

Garage mechanics, hairdressers, jewellers and plumbers also provide alot of useful services. And they are paid for these services.

Many of these occupations are learned "on the job" and people "pay" for this education by accepting lower salaries when they first enter the business. Why are university and college students subsidized but not people who choose a trade?

It would be interesting to know how many go to school in Africa since there is no such thing there as free education. All schooling must be paid for. Not much wonder that continent is is such trouble.

I suppose it would be equally interesting to know how many Africans sleep outdoors, don't eat properly and don't have access to clean water. Most Africans are poor. They have less of everything (despite living on one of the world's richest continents).

But Margrace, the question in this thread is not about primary or secondary education. It is about post-secondary education.

It seems to me that as Canadians, we have more reason to subsidize the primary school education of children in Africa (and in Canada) rather than to subsidize the 20% of Canadians who have the talents and ability to go on to post-secondary education (and who will have higher incomes in the future because of their talents).

In a civilized society, everyone should receive a primary and secondary education. When children are 16 years old or so, they can fend for themselves in this world - if they have to.

IMHO, government should not try to pick winners. It should not subsidize the rich, smart or beautiful. Such people can usually manage well enough in life.

[bTW, our government also subsidizes theatre and making movies - hence, our taxes subsidize the incomes of the beautiful people hired to be actors.]

[geoffrey]

Many of these occupations are learned "on the job" and people "pay" for this education by accepting lower salaries when they first enter the business. Why are university and college students subsidized but not people who choose a trade?

When CA student enters the articling stage of their education, they don't get paid very well, and the job is absolute crap. It's understood that this is a step into the considerable money being made later.

When I wrap up my degree and enter the articling part of my education, I'm going to be taking a paycut of ~$20k a year. Should this be subsidized by Saturn's logic?

Society will be better off by having me being a designated accountant instead of just some hooligan hack. So should Saturn's taxes go to me while I'm at that stage of my post secondary education???

Or just to art students that are in general wasting their time?

[Saturn]

Garage mechanics, hairdressers, jewellers and plumbers also provide alot of useful services. And they are paid for these services.

Many of these occupations are learned "on the job" and people "pay" for this education by accepting lower salaries when they first enter the business. Why are university and college students subsidized but not people who choose a trade?

Because the learning curve for a mechanical engineer is much steeper than that for a mechanic and during the "education" part a student in mech. eng. won't be earning enough to support himself or herself. A mech. eng. graduate will also accept a lower salary when he enters the business, similar to the mechanic. The initial investment required for high-skill professions is very high - both in terms of education costs and in terms of foregoing 4-5 years of earnings. The reality is that the more expensive education is, the fewer people will attempt to get such an education. The result will be shortages in their respective fields, and in higher fees for the services of those who graduate to cover their large initial investment. So the consumer will have to pay more. Even worse, a substantial number of unfilled positions jobs will go overseas. Any way you look at it, education is essential and a very worthy investment for the whole country.

[August1991]

The reality is that the more expensive education is, the fewer people will attempt to get such an education.

Why would that be? People seem to manage to buy cars worth over $30,000 - usually through financing.

But Saturn, you have yet to state why a hairdresser should subsidize the education of an engineer. The engineer doesn't subsdize the hairdresser's education.

[Riverwind]

Why would that be? People seem to manage to buy cars worth over $30,000 - usually through financing.

Poor analogy. Banks lend money secured by an asset (the vehicle). That means the bank's risk is a lot less because it can always seize the asset if the loan is not paid. Students have no assets and no income and would be unable to get financing unless someone (i.e. the govt) is willing to guarantee the loans.

But Saturn, you have yet to state why a hairdresser should subsidize the education of an engineer. The engineer doesn't subsidize the hairdresser's education.

Because a society that is more productive because of higher average education levels will spend more on hair cuts.

[Remiel]

How do you define a university degree with little practical use? What subjects to do you refer to exactly?

[PolyNewbie]

Clear West:There was also a Nobel Prize winner in economics (in 1976) named Milton Friedman. He advocated free markets and warned of the economic downfalls of government intervention.

I am against government intervention on private enterprise as well. But I think certain things should be government paid for. These include education, hospitalization, money creation, infrastructure sytems like water & hydro. Things that are needed universally for survival should be provided by government because they can be corrupted by private enterprise and often hold monopolies.

Government should not be collecting sales tax. If these things all came true our taxes would go down and standard of living would rise. Money creation is the key. If that gets taken away from private bankers and becomes government regulated as it should be our lives will become much better.

Monetary reform will fix all the other problems that people are concerhned about today and at a very low cost.

[Saturn]

But Saturn, you have yet to state why a hairdresser should subsidize the education of an engineer. The engineer doesn't subsdize the hairdresser's education.

Engineers subsidize a hairdresser's education. Engineers subsidize primary and secondary education. Cosmetologists and hairdressers who attend college or other recognized training programs will also qualify for student loans in the same way university students do. The main difference though is that a hairdresser requires substantially less education than an engineer does - hence the subsidy is smaller. On top of that, having a shortage of engineers would be a far more serious problem for economic development than a shortage of hairdressers - in our current situation one engineer is far more valuable than one hairdresser.

[geoffrey]

The initial investment required for high-skill professions is very high - both in terms of education costs and in terms of foregoing 4-5 years of earnings. The reality is that the more expensive education is, the fewer people will attempt to get such an education. The result will be shortages in their respective fields, and in higher fees for the services of those who graduate to cover their large initial investment.

I call bullshit on two accounts.

First, the competition for university spots in high paying fields like business, engineering and medicine is intense. If you don't have a 90% average out of high school these days, you might as well sign yourself up for a life of plumbing or something like that. It's not so expensive that it's creating shortage, the shortage, if any, is created by a lack of space in universities. Every available spot in a reputable school in business, engineering, medicine, nursing, education, whatever, is full, without exception.

Second, the fees going up for professional services makes the initial investment in university even more beneficial to the student. So that's crap.

I've mentioned this before, your an economist, you'll understand what I'm saying. If the NPV for a university education is positive, then of course it's a good deal. And it always is, especially in professions.

If it's not, then you should really start wondering if $20k to dance about or paint pictures for 4 years of your life is really worth it.

[August1991]

Engineers subsidize a hairdresser's education. Engineers subsidize primary and secondary education. Cosmetologists and hairdressers who attend college or other recognized training programs will also qualify for student loans in the same way university students do. The main difference though is that a hairdresser requires substantially less education than an engineer does - hence the subsidy is smaller.

That's like saying I'll subsidize your Cavalier if you'll subsidize my Rolls.

I can possibly see the benefits of government intervention for a student loan scheme but this is a far cry from direct government subsidies.

On top of that, having a shortage of engineers would be a far more serious problem for economic development than a shortage of hairdressers - in our current situation one engineer is far more valuable than one hairdresser.

That's a pernicious argument - and it is also demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of economics.

The value of something is, as they say, what someone else is willing to pay for it. Simply because something has higher value does not justify a subsidy. By your logic, we should subsidize diamond production because people are willing to pay a high price for them.

[Charles Anthony]

Why would that be? People seem to manage to buy cars worth over $30,000 - usually through financing.

Poor analogy. Banks lend money secured by an asset (the vehicle). That means the bank's risk is a lot less because it can always seize the asset if the loan is not paid. Students have no assets and no income and would be unable to get financing unless someone (i.e. the govt) is willing to guarantee the loans.

Two things:

1) Some creative variation on disability insurance (we could call it "career" insurance) might fill that gap but unfortunately the government has crowded that market out.

2) More importantly, I would say that is proof-positive of Aug1991's previous assertion that there is very little justification for subsidizing post-secondary education.

Because a society that is more productive because of higher average education levels will spend more on hair cuts.

So, we are more productive but nobody wants to freely front the money to the smart people?

I just got a bright idea! Do you think maybe private post-secondary schools would give out scholarships to attract smart students? Just a thought. [Maybe I should patent it before anybody tries to steal it. Just an other thought.]

A fair way to have stupid people subsidize smart people is through scholarships. The dumb rich kids will see their tuition fees rise to pay for the smart poor kids. If there are still smart poor kids out of school because they can not afford it, too luck. Somehow, part of me finds forcing poor dumb kids to subsidize poor smart kids a little unfair and a little worse than tough luck.

[Saturn]

First, the competition for university spots in high paying fields like business, engineering and medicine is intense. If you don't have a 90% average out of high school these days, you might as well sign yourself up for a life of plumbing or something like that. It's not so expensive that it's creating shortage, the shortage, if any, is created by a lack of space in universities. Every available spot in a reputable school in business, engineering, medicine, nursing, education, whatever, is full, without exception.

It is precisely lack of funding that is causing universities to concentrate on making money instead of on education. They get themselves involved in advertising and into luring as many students as possible into useless programs that require few classes of third rate class instruction and nothing else instead of more useful programs like engineering, science and medicine that require extensive investment in equipment and facilities. Skimping on education means that classes are growing bigger, facilities are getting worse and students are cheating more so that they can pass their courses in addition to working 2 part-time jobs. Do you want a doctor who cheated his way through medical school or a condo designed by an engineer who similarly cheated because he had to work a full time job to pay for university?

http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/a...209_174847_6984

Second, the fees going up for professional services makes the initial investment in university even more beneficial to the student. So that's crap.

With China turning up millions of new grads every year and companies moving their accounting departments to India, don't expect the fees for professional services to go up much. For services that have to be provided locally, does it make more sense to pay $100K/student to educate 50% more doctors than we currently do, or to pay each doctor $100K more per year because we don't have 50% more doctors? It may be more beneficial for the doctors but seeing that the patients far outnumber the doctors, I'd think that the cost to society of making the initial investment is far lower than paying outrageous medical fees later on.

[Saturn]

I just got a bright idea! Do you think maybe private post-secondary schools would give out scholarships to attract smart students? Just a thought.

Grads of private schools are twice as likely to default on their student loans as public university grads because they are also less likely to find jobs. Your idea is not that bright after all.

[Riverwind]

1) Some creative variation on disability insurance (we could call it "career" insurance) might fill that gap but unfortunately the government has crowded that market out.

Another bad example. Disability insurance is virtually impossible to get or prohibitively expensive for anyone who is not part of a mandatory group benefit plan. The free market works very well for many things, however, there are also many services which the free cannot provide adequately. Claiming that the free market can solve all problems is very much like claiming you can build a house with nothing but a hammer.

When it comes to post secondary education I do agree that zero cost education is a bad idea, however, government subsidies via student loans and scholarships are an absolute essential for anyone wants to live in society that maintains its competitive edge with high productivity rather than cheap labour.

[Saturn]

That's like saying I'll subsidize your Cavalier if you'll subsidize my Rolls.

That's a pretty silly statement. The subsidy here goes from working people who have money to people who don't have money yet but are working on the skills necessary to get there. And it's not really a subsidy, it is an investment that will pay off.

I can possibly see the benefits of government intervention for a student loan scheme but this is a far cry from direct government subsidies.

Wrong again. A certain number of students (about 1 in 6) default on their student loans, so it is government subsidies.

The value of something is, as they say, what someone else is willing to pay for it. Simply because something has higher value does not justify a subsidy. By your logic, we should subsidize diamond production because people are willing to pay a high price for them.

Education is an investment that keeps paying off (both for the individual and for society) and is absolutely essential for economic development and growth, diamonds are consumption and don't produce anything in return (except for industrial diamonds). Investment is worth subsidizing and consumption of diamonds is not. Now buzz off and stop telling me about my logic because you clearly don't get my logic.

[PolyNewbie]

geoffrey:If your getting a degree in art history, and aren't going to see those returns, then ya, maybe the student should start to question the real value of wasting 4 years of their life and $20k of their money.

Only a stupid society doesn't understand the benefits of the arts.

[August1991]

Education is an investment that keeps paying off (both for the individual and for society) and is absolutely essential for economic development and growth, diamonds are consumption and don't produce anything in return (except for industrial diamonds). Investment is worth subsidizing and consumption of diamonds is not.

Post-secondary education pays a benefit entirely captured by the individual - just like diamonds or the construction of a diamond mine.

You have failed to show how the benefit to society of a polisci graduate is anything other than what the polisci graduate receives.

Here's an exception. If a university conducts research leading to a new idea and this idea is of benefit to all, then I can understand why a waitress might want to subsidize research. But I fail to see why a waitress should contribute to subsidizing well over half the cost of educating a polisci student who is merely going to learn existing ideas.

Now buzz off and stop telling me about my logic because you clearly don't get my logic.

WTF?

[geoffrey]

geoffrey:If your getting a degree in art history, and aren't going to see those returns, then ya, maybe the student should start to question the real value of wasting 4 years of their life and $20k of their money.

Only a stupid society doesn't understand the benefits of the arts.

I appreciate the benefits of art, I don't appreciate subsidizing others enjoyment of it. I'm interested in photography and stuff like that, but I don't have others paying for it. I go to museums when they have interesting exhibits and I go to art galleries if they've got something neat in. Many of my elective classes at school are in archaeology. I enjoy soft sciences and art.

But I'd never expect anyone else to pay for it. A career in the field doesn't pay much either.

And I know CA is going to say that people already subsidize museums and I agree. They should be privately funded.

[Charles Anthony]

And I know CA is going to say that people already subsidize museums and I agree. They should be privately funded.

I will not blame you. Believe it or not, I am becoming open to the idea that if a government crowds out all of the private sector services, you as a consumer should not be blamed for participating in the resulting government monopolized market. In my town, the local PUBLIC library went from lending books to lending audio cassettes to lending VHS to lending those huge Laserdisks and Laserdisk players and lending CDs and lending DVDs and guess what? All of the media are scratched. One by one, I have seen local used book stores and video rental stores gradually go out of business. We frantically subsidize ourselves left, right and center into oblivion. The socialists will tell you that it is a chicken-before-the-egg issue: the government is pre-emptively fulfilling a demand that the private entrepreneurs could not successfully on their own.

Claiming that the free market can solve all problems is very much like claiming you can build a house with nothing but a hammer.

Of course it is a bad example of people getting something for nothing. I am not claiming that the free-market can solve the "problems" of all people. My claim is that a free-market is justice. If a transaction requires a coerced-market to occur, that transaction is wrong similar to how theft and murder are both wrong. As a result, we presently have dumb people who are out of school subsidizing smart people in school. That is an injustice.

government subsidies via student loans and scholarships are an absolute essential for anyone wants to live in society that maintains its competitive edge with high productivity rather than cheap labour.

Two things:

1) Why are government subsidies essential for your goal?

2) What is so great about your goal?

Grads of private schools are twice as likely to default on their student loans

Three things:

1) I said scholarships. Scholarships do not get paid back. They are a private subsidy that seems to scare people away from discussion.

2) Who cares about your "likely to default" comparison? What is the point of that comparison?

3) (Let us assume there is a good reason for your "likely to default" comparison.) Please explain the logic or prove your comparison.

public university grads because they are also less likely to find jobs. Your idea is not that bright after all.

Your ability to read and combine your logic is illuminating.

[madmax]

One by one, I have seen local used book stores and video rental stores gradually go out of business. We frantically subsidize ourselves left, right and center into oblivion.

Wow, things must be tough where you live. All the video stores used to be small ma and pa operations that where crushed by major chains, over a decade ago.

I have 3 Libraries within spitting distance, offering all of the items you disdain they have. All around these libraries are very successful Used Book Stores and Pawn Shops offering more DVDs then you can catalog. I don't see any leaving, infact I see more growing.

With regards to Tuition Fees.

I returned to University in the Mid 90s. The Progressive Conservative Youth, made a very effective counter argument against Lower Tuition fees. They campaigned to have them raised, to provide better education. They were very vocal and very effective. And Tuitions soon started to float significantly higher then when I finally finished in 1996.

So what's the problem, do they need to go higher?

[geoffrey]

I'd be ok with an increase in tuition if I saw a marked increased in quality.

It's even varied between schools, without much in graduate income variation.

Take a Queen's B.Comm vs. a Haskayne (UofC B.Comm). Queens Tution is over $10k per full-time year, U of C is $5k. Many would argue that Queens is a higher 'quality' education, but really, when looking at graduate salary survey's, they are within a fraction of each other.

MBA programs are even more varied. A total MBA at Ivey at UWO runs around $100k. U of C... $35kish. Difference in income? Negligable.

Being said, I'm eyeing Ivey for my MBA (eventually, a decade away from being interested really). Why? Because I see the preceived long-term value higher, the people you meet there, the connections, the future jobs based on those connections. I didn't see the value in going to Queens over Haskayne for my B.Comm.

So the value judgement can be made. Would I be willing to pay twice, possibly three times as much? Absolutely. But it better be twice the quality of education and provide me with that much more value over my career.

[Riverwind]

My claim is that a free-market is justice.

Most people feel that letting people live or die according to random vagaries of the 'free market' is the exact opposite of justice.

If a transaction requires a coerced-market to occur, that transaction is wrong similar to how theft and murder are both wrong.

All transactions are coerced if they involve an essential good or service where the one party is able to use their economic means to impose unreasonable terms on the one requiring the good or service. Governments exists to correct the gross injustices and coercive transactions that are endemic in any 'free market'.

As a result, we presently have dumb people who are out of school subsidizing smart people in school. That is an injustice.

In the long term those smart people will be subsidizing public services that the 'dumb' people want to use. In the long term it is a trade off that is worthwhile for said 'dumb' people.

1) Why are government subsidies essential for your goal?

Societies that have universal, government subsidized education, are the wealthiest and most productive societies on the planet. No society has attained a reasonable level of prosperity if they expect the poor and middle class parents to pay for their education. In our world a post secondary (not necessarily university) education has become the new high school and is just as important. However, the multitude of choices and the open ended nature of post secondary education requires some accountability mechanism to ensure students use the opportunities as effectively as possible. A system of scholarships for the the 10-20% in the top of the class and gov't backed student loans for the rest would provide this accountability mechanism.

2) What is so great about your goal?

Would you rather live in Canada or China or India? Which societies provide a better quality of life for the majority of people?

[mtm]

University and college students held rallies across Canada Wednesday, demanding more affordable education through lower tuition rates and increased government funding.

(See the rest at this link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=TopStories)

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but wasn't there once a time when people didn't expect others to pay for everything for them?

This is yet another sign of a growing socialist movement in Canada. They expect the taxpayer to pay for their tuition, their childcare, their ATM fees, not to mention all the socialist programs that are already in place.

Personally, I find their arrogance frustrating. The world doesn't owe them a favour.

What are your thoughts on this?

I wouldn't call it old fashioned. I'd call it closed-minded.

Seriously, this is my first post on this forum, and I felt complied to respond. In terms of affordable education, you must first realize that in this country, if the student was to pay for their entire education the costs of tuition would be at least $10,000-20,000 per year and that almost every university is at least in part subsidized already, probably the one you went to (if you did).

Secondly, investments in education are an investment in the economy as a whole. If education becomes unaffordable we simply would not have enough skilled workers to fill the needs of the workforce and our industries would suffer. I think financial aid for students makes perfect sense, so long as that student is proven to be capable and is getting training that will contribute to the economy (i.e. arts degree thats not so useful and dime a dozen probably shouldnt be gov funded, but a trade, medical, science or other necessary degree should be encouraged).

This is especially true where I come from. In New Brunswick we have the 2nd highest tuition rates in the country despite having one of the least prosperous economies, due to economic dominance of a small number of firms, and the continuing exodus of young people. Those young people are not encouraged to stay to gain an education if it is prohibitively expensive to do so, and leave the province for work or education elsewhere. Many will never come back. It would be a very smart investment for the provincial and federal government to encourage NB's youth to stay here.

As far as your comment about the "growing socialist movement". Does this worry you? If so, you must not support the tenets of democracy. People are allowed to be 'socialist' if they want to be, its a free society. However, this is not even a socialist policy, it is domestic investment. The returns on investment in our own citizens is surely going to see much more returns in Canada than our 'investments' in Afghanistan, for example. All governments engage in investment in the economy, that is what they are there to do. There are two ways of doing this, investing in industries or the people themselves, either by tax breaks, subsidies or social programs. It is not "socialistic" to want to put money into the economy any more than it would "socialist" to give subsidies directly to the companies themselves. Its these kinds of labels that point out just how rigid people are in their thinking.

There are good "socialist" policies, and there are good "fiscal conservative" policies. A good idea doesn't have to have a label. A good idea is just a good idea. Open up your mind and throw away labels.

P.S. I'm curious at how you think getting rid of ATM fees is a "socialist" plot? Presumably just because it is an NDP idea, no doubt. If the income-trust killing Conservatives had have come up with it, you'd think it was brilliant, perhaps? Once again, there is nothing socialistic about this policy, as the banks are making record profits off of unfair charges. They are making money off of your money, and my money, by investing it every day, and yet on top of this, they are charging us to get access to it, simply because we are using another bank's system. The interac system is all one, and the banks are essentially colluding to skim funds off each others customers and this has to be stopped. I should not be punished because my bank doesn't have a machine where I am located and I am forced to go to another banks machine that has the same system and technology and they are incurring no real costs. (Proven by the fact that you can use interac swipe the stripe at any retail location and not be charged service fees, regardless of which bank they get the machines from).

I find it interesting that you call the proponents of these policies (tuition and bank fees) 'socialists' who want something for nothing, however you could quite easily point the argument back to the corporate interests such as the banks who want the same. They want their interest on student loans, and they want their bank fees on you and I. Is that not something for nothing? Maybe the banks are just socialists in groups. Greed is the same on either side. Its a human trait. The only difference a 'socialist' and a 'capitalist' is in which group believe gets to have the money.

Unfortunately, you are 'old fashioned' or, as another definition, blinded by labels that really don't mean anything.

[August1991]

mtm, welcome to this forum. You have argued different points but since this is a thread on education, let me take only one of your points:

Secondly, investments in education are an investment in the economy as a whole. If education becomes unaffordable we simply would not have enough skilled workers to fill the needs of the workforce and our industries would suffer.

If I build a house, start a business or even feed my family, that too is an investment in the economy as a whole.

The question is whether the benefit of this investment accrues to anyone other than the recipient. In the case of post-secondary education, I argue that it doesn't. Evidence? Most Canadians don't go to university and yet Canada is a civilized country.

I am willing to subsidize the primary and secondary education of my neighbour's children, or help pay for their inoculations, since this is of benefit to me. I don't receive any benefit when someone buys a new car or receives a polisci or law degree.

Government is an extremely useful institution and I sincerely think we should rethink what government should and should not do. For example, governments should be involved in protecting children and ensuring that all children receive a good education. I don't think governments should collect taxes from us all so that a few talented people can indulge their whims at everyone else's expense.