"Reduce Tuition Fees"

[mtm]

what about the case of the privileged getting all of the prestigious jobs? While I am not proposing a pure meritocracy, we should have increased scholarship opportunities for students who show obvious potential but have no means to pay for education.

For example, what of the brilliant kid next door who could grow up to be a supreme court justice, but since his parents can't afford to send him to university, he lives out his life as a janitor? Should he not have the opportunity to live out his dream? We all know that in Canada, it is possible for this kid, if resourceful enough to rise above his financial detriment. But it also takes much more work for him to overcome these obstacles, while the wealthiest of our citizens are able to walk into law and medical schools across our country and their chequebooks can compensate for their deficiencies.

I really don't think we are all that far off, as I agree, a poli-sci or MBA or whatever degree is of little benefit to society as those fields are not defined by training. You can succeed in politics or in business and you don't need a piece of paper to call yourself a businessman. Many degrees are just a piece of paper. But professional training, trades, and hard skills are needed in our country and youth should be encouraged to fill needs in society and to live out their potential in those specialized fields if they show the ability.

In NB in particular, we should stop pumping out all these countless BBA's and BA's and such, as they don't contribute much to the labour force. But we desperately need public investment in our post secondary education system. High school just doesn't cut it in this day and age. And while you say not too many people go to university, that is a function of the system more than a reason for not changing it. It is not as accessible as it should be.

There is nothing wrong with strategic investment. Also consider that these doctors, lawyers etc will be contributing to our society with their tax bills too, so when you say they provide no benefit, they do provide an indirect benefit and will, arguably, pay more in than paid out.

Now, even given I said they should focus investment to required sectors, even if they did pay for all degrees:

A lot of jobs (mine included) stated that they needed a univ degree. It wasn't really required, I could tell you, my old job a monkey could do. But they wanted that degree. And since I got that degree, which I paid for myself, I now make a decent wage, and within 5 years I will have paid into CCRA more than I would have paid for tuition. Within another 10, I'll probably be making much more and have paid in over triple what my tuition was. When you factor in what I would have made with just high school, I dont see how you can possibly say it wasn't worth it to the tax base. I've more than made up for your contribution to my education. My degree has allowed me to put more back into government revenues than what the government would have paid for it (if such a program had existed).

Perhaps the counterpoint to this would be to get companies to stop having unrealistic employment conditions and requiring qualifications that have nothing to do with the job. Then you will see people not going for the simple arts and business degrees that contribute little, and a focus on skills-based education.

[jdobbin]

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.

The benefits do accrue to others besides the recipient.

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads...ionPays2004.pdf

This is a U.S. report but it stands to reason that the numbers would bear out in a similar way in Canada. Your argument that most Canadians don't go to university and that we are civilized doesn't include data about the extent of that civilization. The fact is that college and university education makes us more advanced in every way.

As far as the idea goes of universities having their tuitions subsidized and controlled by governments: the main reason that funding almost invariably falls short is because of inflation. No matter what the government puts in, it is not enough. Since the 1970s, tuition costs in Canada have risen 240%.

Several countries have increased their tuition rates and found that enrollment didn't go down (not even for low income students).

Tuition should be freed up and the government aid (as even the Fraser Institute has said) should go to people who definitely have income related problems for access.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XviwK...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

Some people here would like to wash their hands of all public investment in all aspects of education or student loans but their ideology on subject is a destructive one.

The government does have a role to play. It just has to be smarter with how to get the best bang for their buck.

[madmax]

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.

Absolutely. But it better be twice the quality of education and provide me with that much more value over my career.

Well, I don't know what to say to you. I put my Ex through both University (Waterloo) and Law School at Windsor in Ontario. A lower grade University compared to others for law. Tuition was similar and Similar Pay at McCarthy Tetrault, or Tetrault and Tetrault today. But once she was accepted into Harvard, yes the cost was significant, the Pay increase was substantial. And she laughed at the quality of education, she claims to have not had to work nearly as hard. Just going to Harvards was all that was required. So "quality Education" is not an absolute in determining pay.

You put too much trust in Merit and Markets, and these values are hampered by Human Kind, including networking, ass kissing, nepotism, and partnerships based upon income over talent.

Your skills will get you so far, the rest is about running with the right pack when dealing with Post Secondary education and how much it will affect your income.

There are many that believe that only those whom can afford to pay should be allowed a post secondary education. That the Government should have no bearing in it, even to the point of subsidizing the tuition fees as they do today, on top of the loans.

Is it time Government gets out of the education business?

[August1991]

The benefits do accrue to others besides the recipient.

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads...ionPays2004.pdf

This is a U.S. report but it stands to reason that the numbers would bear out in a similar way in Canada. Your argument that most Canadians don't go to university and that we are civilized doesn't include data about the extent of that civilization. The fact is that college and university education makes us more advanced in every way.

If you are a student, you have just committed one of the most elementary mistakes of analysis. You are confusing correlation for causation.

Having more of everything makes us more advanced: more haircuts, more telephones, more televisions and more cinema seats - for example.

In each of these cases, an individual receives a benefit equivalent (roughly) to what the individual pays. I am arguing that post-secondary education is no different.

To justify subsidizing post-secondary education, you would have to make the argument that when an individual receives a BA in polisci (for example), the benefit to society is greater than the benefit the diploma confers on the individual. I simply don't see one.

Several countries have increased their tuition rates and found that enrollment didn't go down (not even for low income students).

That is the case in Canada, I believe. Nova Scotia has high enrollment and high tuition fees whereas Quebec has low enrollment and low tuition fees. (This may reflect the quality of education. It is impossible to talk of education in Canada without talking about unions. In general, we have no private universities or colleges in Canada.)

Some people here would like to wash their hands of all public investment in all aspects of education or student loans but their ideology on subject is a destructive one.

The government does have a role to play. It just has to be smarter with how to get the best bang for their buck.

A good argument can be made for government involvement in different types of research. The government could also play a role of loan guarantee.

It would be a shock to the system if governments were to withdraw tomorrow. I figure post-secondary education should be left entirely to the provincial governments and then let them decide how best to proceed. The proof is in the pudding.

[Saturn]

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.

That's great evidence. Canada is a civilized country because there is a good balance between high-school graduates and university graduates. The level of education of the workforce in a country is one of the best predictors of the economic success of a country.

I told you that if the benefit of education accrued entirely to the recipient, nobody would purchase the services of university grads. Yet university grads have higher participation rates and are less likely to be unemployed than college grads, who are in turn more employable than high-school grads, who are in turn more employable than high-school dropouts. This completely disproves your hypothesis that the benefit of education accrues entirely to the recipient. Really, such an absurd claim on your behalf is a proof that there is something wrong with education in Canada.

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.

Why is secondary education a benefit to you and university education is not? The economy needs both high-school graduates and university graduates. You are contradicting yourself as usual.

[August1991]

I told you that if the benefit of education accrued entirely to the recipient, nobody would purchase the services of university grads.

What? If what you say is true, then nobody should hire a universiuty grad. Why pay more for a service than the benefit it creates?

When you get a $15 haircut, it's presumably worth at least that to you. And when you spend an hour with a lawyer, it's presumably worth at least her $250 fee.

The haircut, if stylish, provides some benefit to those around you but I can't imagine how the legal advice is of any benefit to anyone but you (note that legal advice is often confidential). Of course, both the lawyer and the hairdresser pocket the fees.

To be a purist, I'm willling to subsidize anonymous people getting haircuts (because I have to look at them) and I'm willing to subsidize secondary education for all (because I may have to ask them for directions). But I don't see any benefit to me in paying for your legal advice or the higher education of someone else. Only about 20% of Canadians go onto post secendary schools and I get along perfectly well with the 80% who don't - in my experience, they are as civilized as anyone.

When a person buys a house, there are many economic effects but the house itself is a benefit to the buyer alone. Without permission, you and I can't show up and see what's in their fridge. A university education is no different from a house.

Saturn, would you agree with a government policy that subsidized over half the purchase price of a house knowing that only 20% of the population will ever buy a house (since the others are renters)? Furthermore, how would you feel if the housebuyers were generally the smartest, most talented and beautiful people in society?

There are groups in our society who deserve government help. University students are not in that category.

[Saturn]

If you are a student, you have just committed one of the most elementary mistakes of analysis. You are confusing correlation for causation.

Got any evidence that there is no causation here?

Having more of everything makes us more advanced: more haircuts, more telephones, more televisions and more cinema seats - for example.

In each of these cases, an individual receives a benefit equivalent (roughly) to what the individual pays. I am arguing that post-secondary education is no different.

Now that's an elementary mistake and an important one at that. How do you go through life buying goods and services without realizing that you do it because the benefit exceeds the cost? Any time two parties engage in trade, it happens because both obtain a benefit that exceeds the cost. If a $10 meal were worth $5 to you, you wouldn't buy it. If it were worth exactly $10, you'd be just as happy keeping your $10 and you wouldn't put the effort of buying it and eating it. The reason you'd buy the $10 meal is because your stomach has convinced you that it's worth more than $10. If even one party to a trade does not believe that the trade will result in benefits exceeding the cost to them, the trade would not occur. University grads manage to sell their services because they and their customers both obtain a benefit from doing so. In addition, consumers expect twice the benefit for a service that costs twice as much. This is precisely why university grads earn twice as much as non-grads - the benefit from their services that accrues to the consumer is twice as high as the benefit from getting the services of a non-grad (actually it's even higher).

[geoffrey]

This is precisely why university grads earn twice as much as non-grads - the benefit from their services that accrues to the consumer is twice as high as the benefit from getting the services of a non-grad (actually it's even higher).

Tell me how the BA (Poli Sci) serving me at the local retail establishment or at the bar when I order a beer is worth more to society than the average bartender of high school education serving me that beer.

There are some professions that sure, provide more to society... and they get paid for it, lawyers, doctors, accountants, economists (there ya go Saturn, your loved!), scientists... whatever.

But when a degree is just simply self-exploration (I'm in university, these are my friends, I know the type) or an excuse not to get a job in the real world yet... I hardly think that the taxpayer should have to subsidize it.

In fact, I'll venture the argument that those 4 years spent in full-time employment would be more beneficial to a Poli Sci, an Art History or a Religious studies major then their degree ever will (from a society prospective).

I also think it's a mistake to try to argue this on an economic benefit... that society gets more than it will pay in salary to the grad. The NPV for my degree based on salary surveys and 30 year career post-degree is around $2million (that's assuming a discount rate of my non-educated salary!!).

Only an idiot wouldn't take that investment. If your not seeing that return in whatever program, then you've got to look twice and wonder if it's a career motivated decision or if it's simply a personal exploration. We shouldn't be paying for personal exploration.

[Saturn]

This is precisely why university grads earn twice as much as non-grads - the benefit from their services that accrues to the consumer is twice as high as the benefit from getting the services of a non-grad (actually it's even higher).

Tell me how the BA (Poli Sci) serving me at the local retail establishment or at the bar when I order a beer is worth more to society than the average bartender of high school education serving me that beer.

The BA serving you at the bar doesn't earn more than a high-school grad serving you at the bar. By and large university grads earn significantly more than non-grads, implying that few of them end up serving beer. Even people with the most common and not particularly useful degree (psychology) still manage to get good jobs. I know someone with a degree in psychology who is into marketing and who was hired by a company that sells security systems not because of her marketing experience (she didn't have much or any) but because her employer figured that a psychology grad can scare people into buying their products more effectively than a marketing grad. I also know an MBA who works as a secretary and likes it that way because he couldn't handle the pressures of the business world (caused him burnout and depression). You never know, with more and more pressure at work and more and more Canadians ending up with mental illness as a result, those useless psychology grads may come in handy. In any case, not every university grad will be a success but neither is every investment.

I agree that universities should cut enrollment in poli-sci, fine arts and similar disciplines and put more emphasis on the sciences, engineering, and business. But it all goes back to underfunding in Canadian universities - it costs a lot more in facilities and equipment to produce one electrical engineer than one poli-sci grad. The few people I know who made it to the Ph.D. level in science had to go to the US because there were no Canadian universities with the research facilities they needed. It's pretty sad because they are some of the smartest and brightest people I know and they will probably never come back - there is your brain drain in action - due to lack of research facilities, not due to taxes.

[Saturn]

I also think it's a mistake to try to argue this on an economic benefit... that society gets more than it will pay in salary to the grad. The NPV for my degree based on salary surveys and 30 year career post-degree is around $2 million (that's assuming a discount rate of my non-educated salary!!).[

Only an idiot wouldn't take that investment.

Only an idiot who has the resources wouldn't make that investment. Or a very risk-averse idiot who isn't certain in the payoff. You have to remember that the past is not necessarily a good approximation of the future especially under very different conditions. 20 years ago you would have been competing with Canadians, in 20 years you'll be competing with tens of millions of Chinese grads, who went to school for free and got additional subsidies to pay for other expenses. I wouldn't be shocked if your NPV turns out to be quite different (hopefully for the better ). What you are missing here is that not every student has the resources to make that investment in the first place - in fact a lot of students don't.

Do you oppose preferential taxation of capital gains? Shouldn't the gains themselves be enough to encourage sufficient investment? I mean capital gains require little effort, you just buy and sell some shares, people should be lining up to invest. The returns would be enormous for the amount of work involved. Only and idiot wouldn't invest. How about RRSPs? With the enormous benefit of having tax sheltered investments, most people should have their RRSPs maxed out, no? But why is it that fewer than 10% are anywhere near that? Less than half of workers put anything into an RRSP in any given year and the those who do put far less than their RRSP room would allow them to. There are too many idiots out there?

If your not seeing that return in whatever program, then you've got to look twice and wonder if it's a career motivated decision or if it's simply a personal exploration. We shouldn't be paying for personal exploration.

So if one gets a CA designation just to be able to put the letters CA after her name and then spends her life raising her kids and enjoying her hobbies, her degree is worth supporting but a degree in psychology is not?

[PolyNewbie]

Saturn:What you are missing here is that not every student has the resources to make that investment in the first place - in fact a lot of students don't.

There are also a lot of very intelligent people out there who are too lazy to work and go to school at the same time. Some people just don't want to work that hard. I know it sounds awful, but there are people out there who don't really want to work hard at all. They just want to raise family and be happy. All the hard work is should be really unecessary - particularly in a society where techology allows a small percentage of workers to be engaged in critical economic activity such as food and housing.

There are a lot of "taxi drivers" out there witha 160 IQ. We would be better off if these types had leadership positions rather than the ambitious greedy lying politicians that we have now. The job attracts the wrong type of person and society as a whole rewards the wrong type of people. To be a "blistering success" one must also be an animal (modern philosophy/nihilism/feudalism) today and this is a culture that is being created.

I don't think you should have to turn yourself over to the empire as a slave to be happy or even comfortable.

[Charles Anthony]

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

-- and they think that way because they have a reflexive sense of entitlement to coerce their neighbors.

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'.

No. This is where the coercionists insist on confusing "abundance" with "freedom" to get their way. Robinson Crusoe lives free and uncoerced even though nobody can fulfull his sense of entitlement to any essential service he so desires.

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.

You are coercing the dumb people to accept it.

In our world a post secondary (not necessarily university) education has become the new high school and is just as important.

That represents a shameful waste and we are doing ourselves harm by manipulating the education business.

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.

Why only 20%? Why not more?

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

Bad example. I am grateful for had been randomly born in Canada but if I have the choice, I would actually rather have the entitlements of the Queen of England or of Pu Yi or of a Moghul Emperor. How about you?

In fact, why should I not seek an entitlement if I had the coercive ability to attain them?

If even one party to a trade does not believe that the trade will result in benefits exceeding the cost to them, the trade would not occur. University grads manage to sell their services because they and their customers both obtain a benefit from doing so.

You are only addressing the two parties who benefit and you are not addressing everybody else. In your argument, university grads and the people to whom they "sell their services" should be the ones paying for the university education themselves. The people who do NOT go to university should not pay for it.

So if one gets a CA designation

Trust me, it is not worth much.

I don't think you should have to turn yourself over to the empire as a slave to be happy or even comfortable.

In general, do you think people should have to work for a living?

[Saturn]

In our world a post secondary (not necessarily university) education has become the new high school and is just as important.

That represents a shameful waste and we are doing ourselves harm by manipulating the education business.

You're so full of it. We are simply keeping up with the economic realities of the day and trying to stay ahead of the competition.

If even one party to a trade does not believe that the trade will result in benefits exceeding the cost to them, the trade would not occur. University grads manage to sell their services because they and their customers both obtain a benefit from doing so.

You are only addressing the two parties who benefit and you are not addressing everybody else. In your argument, university grads and the people to whom they "sell their services" should be the ones paying for the university education themselves.

There are NO people who don't buy the services of university grads. There is an army of university grads standing behind everything (manmade) you touch and use. You are able to write nonsense here because of the work of millions of university grads, not because of hairdressers and waiters.

[August1991]

Now that's an elementary mistake and an important one at that. How do you go through life buying goods and services without realizing that you do it because the benefit exceeds the cost? Any time two parties engage in trade, it happens because both obtain a benefit that exceeds the cost. If a $10 meal were worth $5 to you, you wouldn't buy it. If it were worth exactly $10, you'd be just as happy keeping your $10 and you wouldn't put the effort of buying it and eating it. The reason you'd buy the $10 meal is because your stomach has convinced you that it's worth more than $10. If even one party to a trade does not believe that the trade will result in benefits exceeding the cost to them, the trade would not occur. University grads manage to sell their services because they and their customers both obtain a benefit from doing so. In addition, consumers expect twice the benefit for a service that costs twice as much. This is precisely why university grads earn twice as much as non-grads - the benefit from their services that accrues to the consumer is twice as high as the benefit from getting the services of a non-grad (actually it's even higher).

Saturn, this is precisely my point. University grads earn higher salaries because they offer more valuable services. The benefits of getting a university diploma are captured privately through higher salaries and higher quality of life of the diploma holder.

You could make a case for subsidizing basic education since a high school diploma provided benefits beyond the diploma holder and for which the high school graduate does not get paid.

For example, when I ask directions of someone on a street corner, I expect to deal with someone who has a basic education and is civilized. I prefer to live in a civilized society of educated people and hence it is in my interest to pay for the education of others - up to a basic education, but no more.

For a higher education, I'll pay for the engineer's services when I buy the house she has designed.

[jdobbin]

If you are a student, you have just committed one of the most elementary mistakes of analysis. You are confusing correlation for causation.

Having more of everything makes us more advanced: more haircuts, more telephones, more televisions and more cinema seats - for example.

In each of these cases, an individual receives a benefit equivalent (roughly) to what the individual pays. I am arguing that post-secondary education is no different.

To justify subsidizing post-secondary education, you would have to make the argument that when an individual receives a BA in polisci (for example), the benefit to society is greater than the benefit the diploma confers on the individual. I simply don't see one.

That is the case in Canada, I believe. Nova Scotia has high enrollment and high tuition fees whereas Quebec has low enrollment and low tuition fees. (This may reflect the quality of education. It is impossible to talk of education in Canada without talking about unions. In general, we have no private universities or colleges in Canada.)

Some people here would like to wash their hands of all public investment in all aspects of education or student loans but their ideology on subject is a destructive one.

A good argument can be made for government involvement in different types of research. The government could also play a role of loan guarantee.

It would be a shock to the system if governments were to withdraw tomorrow. I figure post-secondary education should be left entirely to the provincial governments and then let them decide how best to proceed. The proof is in the pudding.

This wasn't my analysis. It was what was discovered by the researchers of the study in the link. It is has also been reported in several other studies.

Nova Scotia has many private universities and have always had higher tuitions. They've also had a tradition of out of province students willing to pay the higher rates of tuition.

As you said, any sudden change would probably be a destructive one if not accompanied by ways to help students who couldn't afford their education.

The proof is not in the pudding yet. The government can wash its hands of one policy without looking at the implications of it.

[August1991]

If you are a student, you have just committed one of the most elementary mistakes of analysis. You are confusing correlation for causation.

Got any evidence that there is no causation here?

Let me explain my point. I don't dispute that an engineer makes the world a better place and hence education is a cause of economic development.

The benefits of the engineer are entirely captured by the engineer's salary and hence there is no need to subsidize the education of engineers. The incentive to become an engineer is neither too high nor too low.

The error is to conclude that since engineers earn higher salaries, we should subsidize the education of engineers in the belief that this will make us a richer society.

It would be similar to concluding that since tall trees get more sunlight, if we make all trees taller, the forest will get more sunlight.

[Saturn]

The benefits of the engineer are entirely captured by the engineer's salary and hence there is no need to subsidize the education of engineers. The incentive to become an engineer is neither too high nor too low.

The error is to conclude that since engineers earn higher salaries, we should subsidize the education of engineers in the belief that this will make us a richer society.

Clearly you didn't read my post and you still are clueless about why goods and services are sold and bought in the first place. The error is to conclude that the benefits of an engineer are entirely captured by his salary. Clearly you can't wrap your head around the simple concept that an engineer is able to sell his services because the consumer derives a benefit exceeding the cost. You can't understand that if engineers paid the full cost of their education (in the order of $25K/year), there would be fewer engineers and you'd be paying far more for their services. Until you have an understanding of some very basic concepts such as supply and demand and why trade exists, no will be able to explain to you why education is an investment for society. Until then just take it an established fact.

[Charles Anthony]

Until you have an understanding of some very basic concepts such as supply and demand and why trade exists,

You sound like you have studied a lot of economics.

[August1991]

Clearly you didn't read my post and you still are clueless about why goods and services are sold and the first place. The error is to conclude that the benefits of an engineer are entirely captured by his salary. Clearly you can't wrap your head around the simple concept that an engineer is able to sell his services because the consumer derives a benefit exceeding the cost. You can't understand that if engineers paid the full cost of their education (in the order of $25K/year), there would be fewer engineers and you'd be paying far more for their services.

I may be paying more for engineering services but less for other services. Who knows? But that is neither here nor there.

At issue is whether a university should admit another engineer to its engineering programme and whether society needs one more engineer. I'm arguing that in principle, the benefit to society of one more engineer is reflected (more or less) in the salary earned by the engineer since someone has to pay the engineer the salary.

No doubt some engineers gain more from their livelihood than the salary they earn and some employers gain more benefit from the engineer's services than the salary they have to pay. But this doesn't change the subsidy question.

Saturn, you seem to make a big deal about the "extra" benefits that occur through voluntary trade. Does that mean the government should subsidize my Honey Nut Cheerios because I can buy them on sale - at a price lower than their benefit to me?

[Saturn]

Saturn, you seem to make a big deal about the "extra" benefits that occur through voluntary trade. Does that mean the government should subsidize my Honey Nut Cheerios because I can buy them on sale - at a price lower than their benefit to me?

Your Honey Nut Cheerios are not means of production that will result in good returns and are therefore a poor investment for society. Good investments that produce good returns, are heaviliy subsidized through series of tax credits, preferential tax treatment on proceeds, and grants. Education is one of the best investments out there and is very heavily subsidized in every developed nation.

In fact, the government indirectly subsidizes your Cheerios through the education of those who designed and built the equipment necessary to produce the Cheerios and of those who obtained the necessary capital and manage the whole Cheerios production operation, through tax breaks for those who contributed capital for that operation, and through tax credits for the equipment and facilities purchased for the operation. Without those subsidies, you'd be paying more for your Cheerios.

[Remiel]

I have a hard time believing that we should drastically cut enrollment in softer subjects, given the idea I once read (not sure where): One of the problems with our society is that our technology has advanced faster than our philosophy. We want more people who know how to build weapons, and fewer people who know how to use them?

[geoffrey]

Remiel,

You'll find that most philosophers aren't into solving world problems, but abstract logic and moral puzzles. I don't think having more BA (Philosophy)'s around will actual make us have a more moralistic society.

Though it's a strong steppig stone to law, so it's good to have the program around.

--

Does that mean the government should subsidize my Honey Nut Cheerios because I can buy them on sale - at a price lower than their benefit to me?

Don't they eat poutine for breakfast in Quebec? Now that's something worth subsidizing!

[Slavik44]

You know what come to think of it, this is actually kinda sad...

Cause all these students graduating are going to be paying out the ass in taxes to support the baby boomers who have no bloody idea how to save for retirement, so what do they do? Oh yeah, get the government to do it for them. Now when young people catch on to this trend followed by everyone in else in Canada, they are the ones who get the flack. Not the 70 somethings who paid dick all in taxes...

Not that I have a desire to see the government pay all my tuition, or that I am about to go on a march to reduce tuition fees, but I just hope people see the irony in the situation. Because almost everyone in this country wants the government to subsidize something for them. Why single out students?

[August1991]

Your Honey Nut Cheerios are not means of production that will result in good returns and are therefore a poor investment for society. Good investments that produce good returns, are heaviliy subsidized through series of tax credits, preferential tax treatment on proceeds, and grants. Education is one of the best investments out there and is very heavily subsidized in every developed nation.

Whaddya mean my Cheerios are not a "means of production"? How do you think I produce these posts?

But now your argument seems to be that since we subsidize other investments, we should subsidize education too. What kind of logic is that? In any case, find me an investment (other than movie-making) where the government will assume around 80% of the cost and I reap 100% of the benefits.

Once again you state that education is "one of the best investments out there" which, if true, would imply that there is no need for government involvement.

Look, I offered the argument that governments could get involved with student loan schemes because capital markets suffer from problems of information. This problem is more severe when we consider that some students have responsible/rich parents (who help out with tuition & books) and other students have irresponsible/poor parents (who don't). [bTW Saturn, you have ignored the point that students already assume the main cost of post-secondary education because of foregone wages.]

----

I'm frankly more intrigued why subsidized tuition seems so politically popular. The usual argument is that governments subsidize when benefits are concentrated but costs are dispersed and that fits this case. A minority of 20% of the population gets the other 80% to pay.

But I've never felt comfortable with the usual argument. For example, in the case of cigarettes, 80% of the population collects money from the minority 20% who smoke. So the usual argument strikes me as a weak explanation unless there's more involved.

Students aren't a vocal lobby (compared to, say, milk producers) and students generally don't vote (compared to, say, pensioners). Maybe politicians pay attention to students' parents and that's one of my suspicions. University students come from middle and upper income families and politicians usually pay attention to these people.

[Charles Anthony]

Students aren't a vocal lobby (compared to, say, milk producers) and students generally don't vote (compared to, say, pensioners). Maybe politicians pay attention to students' parents and that's one of my suspicions.

I believe the connection is even deeper. Primarily, the politicians are catering to the teachers. The parents just ride the wave: as teachers are protecting their jobs, parents get free day-care.

Some of my cynical thoughts on schooling found in the B.C High School portfolio thread.

Why does the state not monopolize the foot-ware market???

[i believe the answer is related to the fact that historically, teachers have evolved to have a major influence in the political process. Most people that I know either is related to or is close friends with a teacher. A politician who does not cater to teachers might not ever get elected -- or stay married.]