Brad Sallows said:
>So by this standard, I guess you're against scholarships
No. One of Paul Wells's points with which I agree is that tuitions should increase, along with financial aid for those who merit it.
The government should not give grants to artists and athletes. People who like art and sports should privately give grants to artists and athletes.
I have nothing against universities. I have a university undergraduate degree. I attended at a time tuition fees were remarkably low and graduated debt free. I worked summers and part-time while school was in session. I had the additional advantage of living with my parents during summers. I was acutely aware of people who needed money but couldn't get it because of arcane requirements related to their parents' incomes, but also of people who chose to accumulate debt in order to finance stereos and cars and a slightly less austere lifestyle and so forth. My education was the path to an interesting and well-compensated career. I have handily repaid my subsidized education, and more. Notwithstanding my taxation levels, I enjoy a lifestyle not accessible to many of the people for whom university was not an option by virtue of academic (not financial) barriers. I conclude that essentially every graduate should be able to pay his own freight, although not necessarily up front, and furthermore that it is morally right to do so. Ultimately I don't see that it makes a difference to a graduate whether he repays an implied loan via taxes, or an explicit loan via payments. The difference is that the indirection taxation method also drags in people who won't personally enjoy the income opportunities due to university education. In response I hear and read the argument that the non-university educated enjoy the benefits of government funded by university graduates. But what if they don't need or want those benefits? Then we've harmed them. When you take money from someone and give him in return something you think he needs, you aren't necessarily improving his situation. You are deciding his life for him. That is wrong.
You could apply that ethic to a vast expanse of government services - including primary and secondary education, health care, roads, national defence, etc. Namely, the public goods which the government provides. Society is provided those things which the government deems necessary to the functioning thereof and we don't really get a choice in the matter, short of elections, but these things need provision. Could they be provided privately? With the exception of national defence, yes. The question is which method of provision you prefer. I guess it all comes back to your political leanings - left/right, liberal/conservative, collectivist/individualist, etc.
Given the way some elements of society are beginning to believe they have a right to dictate how people live because society undertakes to bear the costs of health care, I should think most post-secondary students (and candidates) would want to move very quickly to sever any claim society has on university graduates by virtue of bearing part of the cost of education.
I don't have any wish to sever such claims, personally, but that's me.
Surely you haven't missed the mutterings that university medical graduates should be conscripted into paying back their education? That moral rot will spread quickly.
Yes, I've heard such mutterings and, on occasion, muttered them myself. I don't believe that requiring some period of service (medical) within Canada, paid of course, is necessarily a bad idea. Either that or if they really want to leave Canada, let them pay back the cost of their education. The military does it with officers who receive their education through the Forces. It's entirely voluntary - if you don't want to work as a doctor in Canada for a time after you graduate, don't go to medical school in Canada. Just as if I don't want to serve in the CF after I graduate, I shouldn't get my education on the CF's tab. If I do and then change my mind, I'm required to pay them back for the costs incurred.
Not everyone who loses a job in agriculture or manufacturing has the aptitude for university education or the jobs which truly demand university education. Are there still people who do not understand this or refuse to understand it?
I recognize that. There are people who don't have the mental faculty for secondary school either, but they're still taxed and I doubt anyone's really suggesting that we abolish universal primary and secondary education because there may not be those capable of partaking in it or who want to partake in it. Again, I suppose it's a question of which you consider to be the more important consideration - the collective good or the individual good. I'm not saying I know what the collective good is - it's a matter of opinion.
>Rule? This isn't about rule, it's about the fact that the mean requisite for functioning well in society is increasing.
What on earth do you mean you elitist little ****? What sort of socially fascist concept is a "mean requisite for functioning well in society"? When did "functioning well in society" become harder to do now than it was 5000 years ago?
Ah Brad, you were doing so well. I thought you were above making personal attacks in a political debate. I stand corrected. I am neither an elitist, nor do I believe myself to be a "little ****" though you may differ in opinion on the latter since it's entirely subjective. My interest in seeing more accessible post-secondary education (be it college or university) is because I interpret the movement of Canada's economy, and the associated increase in educational requirements for a growing amount of employment, to mean that a larger portion of society will be excluded from such employment unless equipped with the credentials employers require. The issue then becomes the means by which the provision of the "tools" is carried out. I don't view anyone as inferior or superior to anyone else, nor do I form beliefs of groups, classes, or individuals based on any vague concept of inferiority or superiority, especially based on their educational background. I have no illusions as to how little a university degree means when determining one's worth. This isn't about who's superior or inferior, it's about what employers are looking for.
As for the "socially fascist concept" - I believe we've already established (correct me if I'm wrong) that Canada is moving increasingly towards an economy characterized by jobs which require increasing levels of education. There was a time when all you needed was primary school. Then secondary education became more important and necessary for a larger and larger proportion of jobs. Now a high school diploma is considered essential. I believe that post-secondary education will eventually reach the point of secondary education in its importance. I don't like that and I think it's largely due to an obsession on the part of employers with paper credentials which, for many jobs, are completely irrelevant. The fact remains, though, that this is what they want and they can require what they want.
Functioning in society isn't harder now than it was 5000 years ago, physically. 5000 years ago (even 300 years ago) literacy really wasn't necessary, nor were math skills. Mentally, functioning in society (especially in the context of obtaining the qualifications deemed necessary by employers) is harder than it was 5000 years ago.
What do you propose to do with all the people that fall below your "mean requisite"?
If someone either doesn't want, or can't, attend post-secondary education then they'll likely be employed in jobs which don't require it. I recognize that not EVERYONE is capable of attaining post-secondary education. If they're mentally handicapped and unable to be employed anywhere, then the government should ensure their well-being through financial assitance and other means.
If you assure me you don't intend to rule them - to dictate limitations on their lives for their own good - then perhaps I may believe "this isn't about rule".
Why would I want to limit their lives? The whole point of accessible education is to expand the options of people. I don't think post-secondary education should be mandatory nor do I believe that it's anywhere near as important, useful, or necessary for many of the jobs it's required for as employers seem to. Unfortunately, they can ask for whatever requirements they want and what they're increasingly asking for is some type of post-secondary education. I don't see why business people need a degree - my dad dropped out of highschool and had quite a successful career in marketing and advertising at Global. He knows ten times what any fresh-faced graduate does and I believe the same is true of many other areas of employment. It doesn't really matter what the reality is, though, it matters what employers think because that translates into what they want.
I have no interest in "ruling" and I have no designs on any elected government service - my interests are primarily in the miltary, police, and intelligence services and parallel services in the private sector.
>Succeeding at university doesn't depend so much on how smart you are
In some endeavours, perhaps. A certain gate called "university math" closes a lot of doors very quickly for a lot of students.
Yes, myself included. If you asked me to take a university level math course (aside from very basic introductory courses) I'd be up crap creek.
ChopperHead said:
whats actually kind of funny about the whole university thing is that people who go to to univ. spend all this money and all this time to get that degree when they graduate they are stuck how many thousands of dollars in debt and are likely not to get a job in the field they got the degree in anyway or even if they did get a job in that field it's erelevant because then the person who decided not to go to university and didnt go to college whent right out into the work force got an apprenticship for 2 years is now a fully licensed plumber, welder etc and makes more money then the people who whent to univ. and had no debts either. It is a common misconception in society today that you HAVE to go to Univ. or you HAVE to go to college or you will be working at McDonalds for the rest of your life. Well thats really not the case. When a welder or an electriction with a simple appretiship and a 1-2 semester course at a tech centre can make over $100 000/Yr I say thats evidence enough right there.
The plumber, electrician, etc. attends post-secondary education as well - through college and apprenticeship. You've only demonstrated that even the trades are requiring post-secondary education these days.
