|
Federal Election 2008 Thread (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
one SHOULD have to pay for that themselves. Increasing accessibility to loans is as far as I go, because that at least levels the playing field for anyone who CHOOSES to pay for this PRIVILEGE. |
Well, we seem to agree on part of this... I just don't think that lowering or capping the interest rates or extending the grace period is really increasing accessibility - it's just costing taxpayers more money. I remember reading a few years ago that OSAP also has an awful recovery rate, and in many ways it is almost like a handout, but that may have changed.
As for the "grants", I'd have to see how it interacts with the tax credits. If it's all coming out of the same bucket then I guess it's harmless - pointless, but harmless.
The only part that really makes sense to me is the $5000 OSAP allowance regardless of family income (although - isn't that up to the province?). I always thought the "family income" bit was not only unfair but also terrible economics - the loan effectively targets people who are the highest credit risks.
But, I'm not a student anymore, and when I do have kids (in, say, the year 2108), I'll have no reservations about paying for their education if they want to do something worthwhile. So even if it makes sense, it's irrelevant to me and he's still not getting my vote. :p |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. |
What lowers the quality of students is when there is not enough competition amongst applicants to get in and stay in. More subsidization = more interest = more competition, same number of spots. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
professional student? surely you don't mean graduate students, like MBA, law, medicine, etc? because then I have even less sympathy, lol.
so someone pays 80k for my MBA from a top business school? boo hoo, now they earn close to that (or often more, immediately or eventually) in one year! or someone pays a couple hundred grand (or more) to go through med school? they have a meal ticket that pays six figures per year for life! law school? ditto! you "suffer" for a while to get out of debt and then are WAY above the average income.
|
Unfortunately, this country needs far more doctors, lawyers and business grads than it does liberal arts grads. Yah, I said it.
And while there is a brighter salary eventually somewhere down the line for professional students, take it from me, the only professional students graduating with guaranteed jobs right now are med students. It is a scary, scary time to be carrying six figures of student loans and trying to find a job as an MBA or LLB in this market, particularly when you need to support living costs in a major city, where you're most likely to find a job.
80K does not go very far when you've got at least that in student debt and living in Toronto. Professional schools are one area where applicants get a little more critical about how much debt they have to take on - and when that happens, the number of applicants go down and the quality of grads suffers. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
What lowers the quality of students is when there is not enough competition amongst applicants to get in and stay in. More subsidization = more interest = more competition, same number of spots. |
You forget that universities are businesses, with interest in making money.
Just look at what happened during the double cohort year. Universities met the demand by increasing courses offered and class sizes.
Where there is a demand, supplier will try to meet it. |
|
|
| slingshot |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Errrr... doesn't that effectively discourage students from getting jobs? What a strange incentive. If the aim is to provide incentives for education then employment status should be irrelevant.
I went to school. I know what most students actually do with that money. Our education is subsidized enough already; the more "accessible" you make it, the more lazy deadbeats you attract who are only interested in the lifestyle and the gravy train.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't see education as a right. It's a tool, an investment. People take their studies much more seriously when it's their own money on the line. Yeah, sometimes people's parents pay their way and it's "unfair", but some people's parents also pay for cars and rent. So what? That's their prerogative. Most of the time, when parents are paying the bills, they also want to see results, which is its own motivator, and isn't similarly true for the government.
I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. I think this premise is supported by the fact that private schools and universities tend to have higher standards and higher graduation rates than public schools and subsidized state colleges. I don't have more proof than that, but nevertheless, I'm not impressed by Dion's plan, and I wouldn't be impressed if it were coming from a Conservative either. |
There is a flip side to this argument dude. While yes, this does give incentives for the blowjobs to continue to be blowjobs and go out to bars every single night without doing a thing in school.... there is also the cash-strapped student working their ass off whilst their marks suffer because they are being run into the ground. It's tough to say how many students fall into each camp, but from observation I would say that it's probably more equally split than most think. I think these incentives would lessen the middle ground of students pushing them either towards failing out, or achieving more. Financial burden is something that can weigh heavily on a students mind and cause them to lose a great deal of focus when it comes down to academics. The extent to which financial issues play on ones mind are quite significant. I think easing the burden is a good thing and will create more productive and better prepared students. The way I look at it is that the kids who are going to around in school are going to find a way to around regardless of grants, loans, no grants, whatever....their destiny is set from day one. The kids who are being held back because of financial burden as well as taking on too much will be able to put more of a focus on school and in the end be better off.
For the people that argue that they had to work through school, still got good grades, and were able to come out with good jobs. Good for you, honestly. But, you have to realize that everyone out there is not like you and students need time to develop to create the necesary skill sets to be able to pull stuff like that off. Balance is a skill, not an instinct. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
There is a flip side to this argument dude. While yes, this does give incentives for the blowjobs to continue to be blowjobs and go out to bars every single night without doing a thing in school.... there is also the cash-strapped student working their ass off whilst their marks suffer because they are being run into the ground. It's tough to say how many students fall into each camp, but from observation I would say that it's probably more equally split than most think. I think these incentives would lessen the middle ground of students pushing them either towards failing out, or achieving more. Financial burden is something that can weigh heavily on a students mind and cause them to lose a great deal of focus when it comes down to academics. The extent to which financial issues play on ones mind are quite significant. I think easing the burden is a good thing and will create more productive and better prepared students. The way I look at it is that the kids who are going to around in school are going to find a way to around regardless of grants, loans, no grants, whatever....their destiny is set from day one. The kids who are being held back because of financial burden as well as taking on too much will be able to put more of a focus on school and in the end be better off.
For the people that argue that they had to work through school, still got good grades, and were able to come out with good jobs. Good for you, honestly. But, you have to realize that everyone out there is not like you and students need time to develop to create the necesary skill sets to be able to pull stuff like that off. Balance is a skill, not an instinct. |
I wonder for an avg student when they start university, how many of them are actually ready mentally? (because if you're in uni, you're pretty much considered an adult)
You do what you gotta do in order to succeed in life. Meeting challenges of uni life is just that. There is no written rule saying you do your 4 yrs straight and get out. If you need the money, take an yr off and work your ass off. (Not to mention that support network for poor cash strapped student is well developed enough for day to day living)
I dunno... Make things too easy to get and people do not appreciate hardwork and take things for granted. Enough kids take their OSAP loans and spend it on unecessary things and have wrong priorities in life. Already I see too many young 'adults' break from little mental pressure. Is making money more easily accessible going to fix this? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
What lowers the quality of students is when there is not enough competition amongst applicants to get in and stay in. More subsidization = more interest = more competition, same number of spots. |
That logic is predicated entirely on the assumption that there is a non-trivial number of students who don't apply for the sole reason that they don't think they can afford to go. Do you, personally, know anybody that fits into this category? Because I don't, and I would be very surprised if you could even find more than a few examples, let alone an actual statistic.
Artificial, subsidized, unaccountable competition is not productive competition. Simply having more applicants guarantees nothing, and makes as much sense as a hospital expanding their search for brain surgeons to include candidates without medical licenses because, by your logic, they'll get a higher quality staff that way.
Besides, most universities already accept less than a third of their applicants for programs that are not bird programs. There's a surplus of students, not a shortage. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
...there is also the cash-strapped student working their ass off whilst their marks suffer because they are being run into the ground. It's tough to say how many students fall into each camp, but from observation I would say that it's probably more equally split than most think. I think these incentives would lessen the middle ground of students pushing them either towards failing out, or achieving more. |
And for that there are scholarships, bursaries, loans, and so on and so forth...
There are people who risk a lot more money and have to deal with much bigger problems in life than a "cash-strapped student" at the same age. There are always options available for those willing to work for it. If these students are really smart and diligent then they will get by just fine without government aid.
Ask your parents how they got by. I know for a fact that my dad was juggling CGA, a full-time job, and 3 kids at the same time, and he somehow made it through. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Do you, personally, know anybody that fits into this category? Because I don't |
If I did, would you consider that support for an argument? Of course not.
I do believe there are people out there that could be successful university students but aren't because of their financial situation. It may not be their only situation - only a compounding issue - but it's still an issue. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I do believe there are people out there that could be successful university students but aren't because of their financial situation. It may not be their only situation - only a compounding issue - but it's still an issue. |
Generic handouts attract just as many freeloaders as they do serious candidates. This tends to hurt rather than help the people who really need them because it creates unnecessary competition and doesn't really distinguish between competitors.
Handouts that are specifically targeted toward the most qualified and serious candidates already exist, and they are called scholarships. There are tons of those, many of them unclaimed year after year because people don't apply or don't meet the requirements. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| I still think you're all socialists! |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I still think you're all socialists! |
this centrist is outraged! :gsmile: |
|
|
|
|
