"Reduce Tuition Fees"

[mcqueen625]

[I believe we are much better off as a society if we ensure that every has access to a minimum level of education because a society with more educated people is a wealthier society. That said, I think offering free/cheap tuition for university is the dumbest way to achieve that objective because it undermines the quality of our universities and encourages people to pursue university education when they probably should be looking for other options.

What do you mean, "An educated Society is a wealthier society?" All it means is that we have many university graduates vying for pick-and-shovel jobs because there are no jobs in their chosen professions, because the universities are pumping them out faster than they can be placed. University graduates in ever increasing number find themselves upon graduation working at call-centres or other service industry jobs, doing work that has nothing whatsoever to do with the training they received while in school.

What do you mean when you say, "Free /cheap tuition undermines the quality of our universities and encourages YADA, YADA, YADA.... While I agree that many who are attending university have no business being there, the fact is that many of those that can afford to attend do so because their parents have the well with all to afford sending their children to these so-called institutions of higher learning. My point is that those that can afford to pay their own way are not necessarily the student who should be attending. A week or so ago, Roger's Talk and News on my local station did a show on the fact that more than 50% of university students cheat to obtain the marks they are receiving, and this relevation came from a survey of the students themselves conducted by McLean's Magazine. The did not differentiate who it was that was doing the cheating, just that more than 50% of students cheat. The commentator's point was that having a university degree is no guarantee that the person an employer is hiring didn't get their degree by cheating, so this in effect denegrates all university degreed graduates's supposed qualifications.

Universities are crying all the time about the fact that a large percentage of students entering university cannot properly read nor comprehend what it is that they are reading. Granted many who are in university today, have no business being there because they do not have the basics of education to be able to properly function without cheating in order to get passing grades, and those that are passing without cheating are not necessarily those whose parents have the money to pay their tuition costs. I don't want to see us go back to a time when only the affluent are able to afford a university degree, by many in our society somehow feel that because they are affluent they have a right to have that university degree and thus the jobs that these degrees open up for them, even if they are not the brightest of students, it's called pampered, spoiled brat syndrome, and they turn into that arrogant boss who presumes that because daddy's money bought tehm a degree they are somehow smart enough to determine what is best for everyone around them.

In New Brunswick, Bernard Lord made a big announcement that he was going to ensure that every student in Middle Scholl would be given a laptop computer to use until they graduate. Sounds like a beat idea, but a young lady I heard speaking at the local pharmacy ask a question that brought to light a very pertinent subject, she asked," Does it make any sense to give laptop computers to students who are already graduating and attending universities and community colleges who cannot read, write or spell, ro do math equations?" She continued with, " Why would you give a tool to students that will allow them the opportunity to continue not to learn the basics, since these laptops will do their math for them, it will also, at the click of the mouse, will correct grammer errors, spelling mistakes, and puntuation." At first glance the idea sounded good but when put in that context the idea really sounds foolish, but here we are in New Brunswick with Middle School students still being awarded their very own laptop computer, go figure?

I don't want to o back to a time when only the affluent are able to attain a university degree, and with ever rising tuition, and other university costs, it is quickly coming full-circle, and the time is right around the corner when only the affluent will be able to afford to attend university, or any other post-secondery educational facility. Even community colleges have raised their tuition to a point where it is becoming unaffordable for many.

[mcqueen625]

[I believe we are much better off as a society if we ensure that every has access to a minimum level of education because a society with more educated people is a wealthier society. That said, I think offering free/cheap tuition for university is the dumbest way to achieve that objective because it undermines the quality of our universities and encourages people to pursue university education when they probably should be looking for other options.

What do you mean, "An educated Society is a wealthier society?" All it means is that we have many university graduates vying for pick-and-shovel jobs because there are no jobs in their chosen professions, because the universities are pumping them out faster than they can be placed. University graduates in ever increasing number find themselves upon graduation working at call-centres or other service industry jobs, doing work that has nothing whatsoever to do with the training they received while in school.

What do you mean when you say, "Free /cheap tuition undermines the quality of our universities and encourages YADA, YADA, YADA.... While I agree that many who are attending university have no business being there, the fact is that many of those that can afford to attend do so because their parents have the well with all to afford sending their children to these so-called institutions of higher learning. My point is that those that can afford to pay their own way are not necessarily the student who should be attending. A week or so ago, Roger's Talk and News on my local station did a show on the fact that more than 50% of university students cheat to obtain the marks they are receiving, and this revelation came from a survey of the students themselves conducted by McLean's Magazine. The did not differentiate who it was that was doing the cheating, just that more than 50% of students cheat. The commentator's point was that having a university degree is no guarantee that the person an employer is hiring didn't get their degree by cheating, so this in effect denigrates all university degree graduate's supposed qualifications.

Universities are crying all the time about the fact that a large percentage of students entering university cannot properly read nor comprehend what it is that they are reading. Granted many who are in university today, have no business being there because they do not have the basics of education to be able to properly function without cheating in order to get passing grades, and those that are passing without cheating are not necessarily those whose parents have the money to pay their tuition costs. I don't want to see us go back to a time when only the affluent are able to afford a university degree, by many in our society somehow feel that because they are affluent they have a right to have that university degree and thus the jobs that these degrees open up for them, even if they are not the brightest of students, it's called pampered, spoiled brat syndrome, and they turn into that arrogant boss who presumes that because daddy's money bought them a degree they are somehow smart enough to determine what is best for everyone around them.

In New Brunswick, Bernard Lord made a big announcement that he was going to ensure that every student in Middle School would be given a laptop computer to use until they graduate. Sounds like a beat idea, but a young lady I heard speaking at the local pharmacy ask a question that brought to light a very pertinent subject, she asked," Does it make any sense to give laptop computers to students who are already graduating and attending universities and community colleges who cannot read, write or spell, or do math equations?" She continued with, " Why would you give a tool to students that will allow them the opportunity to continue not to learn the basics, since these laptops will do their math for them, it will also, at the click of the mouse, will correct grammar errors, spelling mistakes, and punctuation." At first glance the idea sounded good but when put in that context the idea really sounds foolish, but here we are in New Brunswick with Middle School students still being awarded their very own laptop computer, go figure?

I don't want to go back to a time when only the affluent are able to attain a university degree, and with ever rising tuition, and other university costs, it is quickly coming full-circle, and the time is right around the corner when only the affluent will be able to afford to attend university, or any other post-secondary educational facility. Even community colleges have raised their tuition to a point where it is becoming unaffordable for many.

[geoffrey]

I don't want to go back to a time when only the affluent are able to attain a university degree, and with ever rising tuition, and other university costs, it is quickly coming full-circle, and the time is right around the corner when only the affluent will be able to afford to attend university, or any other post-secondary educational facility. Even community colleges have raised their tuition to a point where it is becoming unaffordable for many.

With the current student loan arrangement, anyone without financial resources can borrow the money until the graduate. There is no finanical limit on post-secondary in Canada, another myth of well, whoever is propagating such nonsense.

[ClearWest]

mtm,

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.

Hang on - if this was a free society, what gives them the right to take my money to use for their purposes?

There is a large difference between freedom and democracy. In democracy a large group of people can take the property of a small group of people. I do not support democracy as interpreted as majority rules. I support freedom and liberty where an individual alone has the rights to his/her own life, liberty, and property. And no one else can take it from them.

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.

I also agree that foreign wars like Afghanistan are not in the interest of Canadians. It is wasting a lot of taxpayer money and is ending innocent lives. I say pull out.

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.

Is re-distribution of wealth not a socialist policy? If so, then taking money from one group of people to fuel the economy (or for whatever purpose), to me is a socialist policy. Yes, it is socialist to give subsidies directly to companies. I'm not sure what you'd call it - it looks like socialism to me.

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.

I think it is necessary to 'label' certain policies, and to analyze whether they're right or wrong. For instance, when Hitler started rebuilding his military and creating a race of superhumans, that was great for their economy. But it wasn't right.

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?

No, I would still recognize it as a socialist move which is potentially harmful to the economy. The Conservatives are just as guilty as high gov't spending and taxation as the rest of them.

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?

No, they offer a service, and we voluntarily pay for it. Banks aren't taking our money the way the gov't does. They have to get us to give it to them, just like many other transactions that occur in the free market.

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

I disagree. I think you simply need to refamiliarize yourself with the meanings of these 'labels', because they are still very much relevant.

[Saturn]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184016

From carpenters to climate experts, Canada needs more educated workers to fuel our economy and compete in the world, concludes the report by The Canada Millenium Scholarship Foundation, to be released today. But given a falling birth rate, sweeping retirements and the fact two-thirds of middle-income kids already flock to college and university, Canada must tap a new source of educated workers from among those least likely to pursue higher learning: low-income students, aboriginal teens and youth whose parents never went beyond high school, said the report by the federally funded research body.

"Nearly 70 per cent of all new jobs will require some level of post-secondary education. But only 53 per cent of Canadians graduate from college or university, so we've got a gap that needs to be addressed," said Berger.

That's exactly the problem Canada's business gurus tackled yesterday as Microsoft chair Bill Gates addressed the annual Can?Win conference in Ottawa on the topic, "Competing to Win in the Global Economy – Creating a Skilled Workforce to drive Economic Prosperity."

"This is the whole theme everyone's facing – how to move from an economy which didn't have enough jobs for everyone, to one in which we will not have enough people to do all the jobs," said David Stewart-Patterson, executive vice-president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. The council represents the heads of Canada's 150 largest firms.

"We know access to education is a huge part of the answer, not only for the economy, but for social equity. We can't afford to waste a single mind we have in this country."

The report noted that more workers will be needed to support those on pension as Canada's working-age population shrinks and the ranks of seniors grow.

Yet while Canada has led most developed nations for years with our level of post-secondary education, today's report cautions this growth rate has stalled at about 4 per cent per year over the past decade. Other nations are catching up, including Australia (which has grown by 28 per cent), Korea (up 59 per cent), Great Britain (24 per cent) and even tiny Iceland, where post-secondary enrolment has almost doubled.

"Canada needs to grow more people with higher education to remain competitive. But in order to do this, we have to encourage more of those people who are under-represented – and they're the hardest ones to encourage because of the barriers they face," said Berger in an interview.

The report echoes business leaders' growing alarm about Canada's looming shortage of qualified workers, from auditors to auto mechanics – a shortage acknowledged by federal finance minister Jim Flaherty in his last financial statement.

[Charles Anthony]

Why is this:

Other nations are catching up, including Australia (which has grown by 28 per cent), Korea (up 59 per cent), Great Britain (24 per cent) and even tiny Iceland, where post-secondary enrolment has almost doubled.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184016

a problem?

I do not know who this quoted policy analyst Joseph Berger is -- he may even be just as unbiased as me! -- but he is skipping over the most obvious: we can accept educated immigrants. In light of that, it is disengenuous to imply that one Canadian (for example, me) should subsidize the education of an other Canadian (for example, any student) because, personally, I do not care where you are born.

[Spike22]

I have two kids soon to be going to university, man I wish it was free...(poor mom and dad)

[Saturn]

Why is this:

Other nations are catching up, including Australia (which has grown by 28 per cent), Korea (up 59 per cent), Great Britain (24 per cent) and even tiny Iceland, where post-secondary enrolment has almost doubled.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184016

a problem?

It's a problem because we have to compete with these countries and falling behind them will put us on the losing end of the competition.

I do not know who this quoted policy analyst Joseph Berger is -- he may even be just as unbiased as me! -- but he is skipping over the most obvious: we can accept educated immigrants. In light of that, it is disengenuous to imply that one Canadian (for example, me) should subsidize the education of an other Canadian (for example, any student) because, personally, I do not care where you are born.

Neither do I, but the mikedavids of Canada are out there trying to make it harder for immigrants to adapt and function in our society. Secondly, importing more immigrants doesn't fix the problem of underachieving youth who will remain a drag on society for life. It's better to educate one aboriginal youth than to import one immigrant and leave that youth on welfare for life.