The rich are getting richer...

[danmand]

The costs of post secondary education may seem high but Canada's student awards program makes it quite feasible for low income students to still get an excellent post-secondary education. Sure they will owe about $60K by the time they graduate but the student loan repayment options are EXTREMELY flexible and the interest rates are low. If a poor student is willing to work hard at getting an education, he or she will be able to get one and to pay it off without undue hardship. Many of those "wealthy" households are just hard working couples who pull down $80K to $100K each and who once had big student loans. And many of those lower class households who just can't seem to get ahead have simply made too many bad choices with regard to education and hard work. Canada is VERY generous to its poor so lower income family members have a huge opportunity to get ahead. The problem is that many of them just can't be bothered.

Please do not call loans of $60,000 or $100,000 generous. If Canada only want to use the talents of its rich peoples children, it has the right programs.
But why it squanders some of its key ressources, not softwood but people, is beyound me. The best thing Canada could do is to make post secondary education free but strictly merit based.

 

[papasmerf]

Please do not call loans of $60,000 or $100,000 generous. If Canada only want to use the talents of its rich peoples children, it has the right programs.
But why it squanders some of its key ressources, not softwood but people, is beyound me. The best thing Canada could do is to make post secondary education free but strictly merit based.

Because those who did not make an effort in high school would be left behind.
So merit education is not an answer at all. It would require effort.

 

[someone]

Please do not call loans of $60,000 or $100,000 generous. If Canada only want to use the talents of its rich peoples children, it has the right programs.
But why it squanders some of its key ressources, not softwood but people, is beyound me. The best thing Canada could do is to make post secondary education free but strictly merit based.

Absolutely not. Time and again, it has been shown that tuition is not a deterrent to getting a university education in Canada. Indeed, tuition is a small proportion of the opportunity cost of attending university. The major cost is the forgone income you could be making instead. Making tuition free would just mean that low income earners would just end up subsidizing the education of the children of middle and upper income families. Aid to students from low income families should be means tested. There is no reason students form middle and upper class families (how make up most of the university students) should be totally subsidized by the general taxpayer. The primary beneficiaries of a university education are the students themselves, not a guy on minimum wage paying taxes. In addition, to the extent there are external benefits, they differ across disciplines. We already graduate too many liberal arts majors. I see no reason to increase the number by subsidizing them. On this issue, Slowpoke is absolutely right

 

[danmand]

Absolutely not. Time and again, it has been shown that tuition is not a deterrent to getting a university education in Canada. Indeed, tuition is a small proportion of the opportunity cost of attending university. The major cost is the forgone income you could be making instead. Making tuition free would just mean that low income earners would just end up subsidizing the education of the children of middle and upper income families. Aid to students from low income families should be means tested. There is no reason students form middle and upper class families (how make up most of the university students) should be totally subsidized by the general taxpayer. The primary beneficiaries of a university education are the students themselves, not a guy on minimum wage paying taxes. In addition, to the extent there are external benefits, they differ across disciplines. We already graduate too many liberal arts majors. I see not reason to increase the number by subsidizing them. On this issue, Slowpoke is absolutely right

A professor in economics should be able to read a whole sentence before starting to talk. I am sure that is what you advise your students.

A key part of the system I described is a strict merit based access to higher education, university should not be a place to squander 6 years of everybodys lives.

Where I come from, there was a strict merit system in place. Even access to high school was based on merit, and everybody was aware that if you wanted an education, you had to have some talent and work hard. But all education was free.
I think it was a brilliant system.

 

[papasmerf]

A professor in economics should be able to read a whole sentence before starting to talk. I am sure that is what you advise your students.

A key part of the system I described is a strict merit based access to higher education, university should not be a place to squander 6 years of everybodys lives.

Merit based education would exclude most people. Now waht do you do if the FREE EDUCATION is squandered?????? Do you demand re-payment for the cost of that waisted education???????? If a free-rider quits school will they have o repay the costs? When a loan is taken they own that education.

 

[someone]

A professor in economics should be able to read a whole sentence before starting to talk. I am sure that is what you advise your students.

What part did I not read? You said education should be free and I explained why that would be a mistake.

 

[danmand]

What part did I not read? You said education should be free and I explained why that would be a mistake.

The last part of the sentence said that (access to) education should be strictly merit based. You are right in so far that you do not want to have every child waste time at university.

Where I come from, there was a strict merit system in place. Even access to high school was based on merit, and everybody was aware that if you wanted an education, you had to have some talent and work hard. But all education was free.
I think it was a brilliant system.

 

[slowpoke]

Please do not call loans of $60,000 or $100,000 generous. If Canada only want to use the talents of its rich peoples children, it has the right programs.
But why it squanders some of its key ressources, not softwood but people, is beyound me. The best thing Canada could do is to make post secondary education free but strictly merit based.

The repayment options are ridiculously flexible and the interest rates are low. Some people take 15 years to pay off their loans. Also, I understand that the taxpayer pays at least as much towards a student's education as the student does. Colleges and universities get tax dollars as well as the tuition paid by students so their education is already partially funded. The point is that the poor DO HAVE an excellent opportunity to get ahead. $60K is not a steep price when you look at the long term advantages.

Also, your merit-based system might not make much of a difference because the students who would be judged to have enough merit to get into university are the ones who get good marks in secondary school. IMHO, those are the kids who are already going to university and many of their parents are paying all or most of those costs. If it was free, the taxpayer would be paying the tuition for the wealthy children as well as the poor but it would still be mostly the same kids who ended up being enrolled.

I agree that we should find ways to remove whatever barriers are keeping so many students from taking advantage of the educational opportunities available here. I think many of those barriers are cultural and lifestyle issues which wouldn't necessarily be solved by handing out free education. IMHO, the kids who don't end up going to post secondary education are staying away for reasons other than money.

 

[thunder0702]

richer

Yes thank you we are

...and the poor are working harder to support them. Actually I am surprised to see this on the front page of the Star. The mainstream media has been burying this sort of news for decades. As the article says, this trend is unsustainable. The system is broken, and we need to fix it.

Income gap grows wider
PETER POWER / TORONTO STAR
The vast majority of Canadian families – almost 80 per cent – are working more and earning less of the national economic pie than they did 30 years ago even as incomes of the richest families are soaring, says a new study to be released today.

What's more, the growing income gap has hit a record high during an economic boom, a period when traditionally the gap between rich and poor has shrunk.

"The rich are getting richer, the poor aren't going anywhere and there are fewer people in the middle to mediate the two extremes. We ignore these trends at our collective peril," says the study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an independent research institute concerned with issues of social and economic justice.

The report, titled "The Rich and the Rest of Us," shows that the richest 10 per cent of families with children – those with incomes more than $131,200 in 2004 – earned 82 times the amount earned by the poorest 10 per cent. In 1976, the richest families earned 31 times the amount of the poorest families.

The bottom half of families raising children, those earning less than $60,000 in 2004, earned less or stayed the same, in inflation-adjusted terms, compared to a generation ago. Those in-between worked more hours just to keep pace.


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/186972

 

[someone]

I agree that we should find ways to remove whatever barriers are keeping so many students from taking advantage of the educational opportunities available here. I think many of those barriers are cultural and lifestyle issues which wouldn't necessarily be solved by handing out free education. IMHO, the kids who don't end up going to post secondary education are staying away for reasons other than money.

.
I basically agree with what you said. However, I’ll add one point. I think that the value parents place on education is also very important. Parents who themselves, have an education are likely to value it more and instil those values in their children (even to the point of sending kids to university who should not be there). As you likely know, the number of books in a home is one of the best predictors of a kid's success at school. I think that a good argument can be made that it is not because books magically make kids smarter but because they are a sign of parents who value education themselves.

 

[slowpoke]

.
I basically agree with what you said. However, I’ll add one point. I think that the value parents place on education is also very important. Parents who themselves, have an education are likely to value it more and instil those values in their children (even to the point of sending kids to university who should not be there). As you likely know, the number of books in a home is one of the best predictors of a kid's success at school. I think that a good argument can be made that it is not because books magically make kids smarter but because they are a sign of parents who value education themselves.

There's no question that the children will usually follow the parental example. It is still hard to believe there are parents out there who can't seem to sell the notion of higher education to their kids. Lots of dysfunctional families, single parent families, welfare mothers, uneducated parents etc. Their kids are missing the boat but we don't seem to be able to overcome that culture of ignorance. Too bad.

 

[Gyaos]

....uneducated parents etc.

Financially uneducated parents.

Gyaos.

 

[someone]

There's no question that the children will usually follow the parental example. It is still hard to believe there are parents out there who can't seem to sell the notion of higher education to their kids. Lots of dysfunctional families, single parent families, welfare mothers, uneducated parents etc. Their kids are missing the boat but we don't seem to be able to overcome that culture of ignorance. Too bad.

I spent some of my formative years growing up in Parkdale and I’ve seen some horrible examples of that. I remember going out with a girl whose family actively discouraged her from going to university. Fortunately, she went against their wishes and now makes a decent living (I run into her once in a while). Still, I remember once being at her place, helping her out with an economics course she was taking as an elective and her uncle (who seemed to spend all his time in and out of jail) dropped by and started going on about how she was wasting her time. I felt like slugging him. Her grandmother was even worse. I think that in many of these cases the problem is that the family gets jealous of the idea of their kids doing better than they did. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any good solution to such problems.

 

[danmand]

I spent some of my formative years growing up in Parkdale and I’ve seen some horrible examples of that. I remember going out with a girl whose family actively discouraged her from going to university. Fortunately, she went against their wishes and now makes a decent living (I run into her once in a while). Still, I remember once being at her place, helping her out with an economics course she was taking as an elective and her uncle (who seemed to spend all his time in and out of jail) dropped by and started going on about how she was wasting her time. I felt like slugging him. Her grandmother was even worse. I think that in many of these cases the problem is that the family gets jealous of the idea of their kids doing better than they did. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any good solution to such problems.

Merit based access to free education.

 

[onthebottom]

Merit based access to free education.

I don't think anything of value should be free..... an education is an investment, while I believe the state should subsidize the costs I don't think education should be free.

OTB

 

[danmand]

I don't think anything of value should be free..... an education is an investment, while I believe the state should subsidize the costs I don't think education should be free.

I know that is the prevalent opinion in Canada. And others will argue that tuitions of $60,000 or $100,000 does not keep anyone away from education.

But it is true that countries, and I am sorry again to name the scandinavian countries, who have free education have a generally better educated population than Canada and the US. And I believe that is a better strategy for a country than what Canada is doing.

 

[someone]

Merit based access to free education.

I don't see how that would help. There is already merit access based on high school marks. You could argue that including SAT scores/ entrance exams would be a better indicator of “merit”. If that is what you mean, you might have a point as a smart student could make up for poor high school performance due to a dysfunction family. However, that would not change the fact that the family would still discourage such people from attending university. Moreover, given that study after study finds that cost is not a barrier in Canada (as the case I spoke of illustrates), the free part would not help.

I know that is the prevalent opinion in Canada. And others will argue that tuitions of $60,000 or $100,000 does not keep anyone away from education.

Can you name a Canadian university with tutition that high? Perhaps medicine but even than that sounds high. Executive MBA programs? But then executive MBA programs are a pretty much a joke anyway. I can't think of any undergraduate degrees that have tuition levels anywhere near that level. Perhaps, I'm missing something.

But it is true that countries, and I am sorry again to name the scandinavian countries, who have free education have a generally better educated population than Canada and the US. And I believe that is a better strategy for a country than what Canada is doing.

Do a cross section of many countries and I don't think you will find such a relationship. New Zealand used to have free university education and they still had low rates of people in university (not to mention very low quality of education). Picking a nonrandom handful of countries as your sample and comparing does not really prove anything. I could pick New Zealand and Canada for a comparision and argue that the higher the cost, the better educated the populaton. In addition, Newfoundland has some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada but you will not find them to be better educated.

 

[danmand]

Do a cross section of many countries and I don't think you will find such a relationship. New Zealand used to have free university education and they still had low rates of people in university (not to mention very low quality of education). Picking a nonrandom handful of countries as your sample and comparing does not really prove anything. I could pick New Zealand and Canada for a comparision and argue that the higher the cost, the better educated the populaton. In addition, Newfoundland has some of the lowest tuition rates in Canada but you will not find them to be better educated.

It is a difficult topic to argue, because the situation is severely impacted by cultural attitudes as you rightly point out. And the situation was different when I was educated, because there were many high paying and well regarded jobs that did not require an academic university education. Many of these jobs have since disappeared.

Another factor is what is considered a university education. In North america, it seems to encompass everything from home economics to Astro Physics. When I think about university education, I think of academic education, at the masters level, and because you do not want everybody into that, it makes sense to have a strict merit system. It is not a matter of quantity, but quality.

But I still think that education at all levels should be free. And it is not irrelevant to take the scandinavian and low countries as examples. These countries realized for centuries, that their standard of living depended on a well educated population, and they placed a high imoportance on educational institutions at every level. I believe that strategy has been of great value to them in terms of both living standard and the society in general. When you say that the scandinavian countries are special because the population is uniform, I could argue that the causation goes the other way.

 

[someone]

Another factor is what is considered a university education. In North america, it seems to encompass everything from home economics to Astro Physics.

I think those extremes are more an American thing (as with the tuition numbers you quoted). Still, I agree that even in Canada there is a big difference between a business or liberal arts degree and something serious.

When I think about university education, I think of academic education, at the masters level, and because you do not want everybody into that, it makes sense to have a strict merit system. It is not a matter of quantity, but quality.

Is Denmark not a but unusual in this regard? If I recall correctly, they call their first degree a masters degree and it take about 5 years. Based on exchange students I have had, it does seem to be a high quality degree. However, my understanding is that they then go on to research only PhDs (two levels, if I recall correctly but both are research only) which is more like the British system (which I have never been impressed with).

But I still think that education at all levels should be free. And it is not irrelevant to take the scandinavian and low countries as examples.

I don’t understand why it would be more relevant than New Zealand or Australia.

When you say that the scandinavian countries are special because the population is uniform, I could argue that the causation goes the other way.

I’m not sure I said that but it is a point. I don’t really see how causation could go the other way. You’re saying that education leads to uniformity of ethnic groups, erases differences due to geography, etc I don’t understand.

 

[Malibook]

The repayment options are ridiculously flexible and the interest rates are low. Some people take 15 years to pay off their loans.

You can't be serious.

My student loans had a 6 month grace period without interest and then I had to start paying.
Some were provincial and some federal and the interest was 1-2% more than prime which at the time was quite high.
Now the provincial loans still give a 6 month grace on payments but not the interest.
http://osap.gov.on.ca/eng/not_secure/repay.htm

Hardly ridiculously flexible to me.

It is also much more difficult to walk away through bankruptcy now.
I think you have to wait 10 years now.