Ouch, I guess the Europe's education system is not good at all. Considering both links are from Europe.
Also in your link it states, "The phenomenon exists. More and more students are having trouble making ends meet because property prices are increasing while grants are staying the same.". Which is more with property prices and not due to high tuition costs.
"Shelley is a 21-year-old student from Sydney, Australia. She said: "It's a fun way of making money and this is one of the safest clubs in London. We are in control of who we dance for and how long it lasts. There is no touching and a lot of the guys are regulars."
She seems to be having fun.
Plus we do not know their spending habits. Maybe they cannot afford higher education because they party and shop a lot. But I guess those articles don't really include that. Also, there is no minimum wage in France, Austria and Finland which really sucks.
Canada spends 5.2% of it's GDP on education. Austira spends 5.7% on education. So what do the people of Austira get for an additional 0.5%? Free euducation: primary, secondary, and post-secondary. So much for spending "more" in any significant measure.
"Increased accessibility to university-level education has a number of consequences. The dramatic expansion in the number of students led to overcrowding at many institutions. Some critics maintain that the increasing number of students diminishes the overall quality of university-level education despite increases in federal investment. One obvious problem was that more than 50 percent of students enrolled at the universities in the 1980s did not successfully complete a degree program. Complex reasons account for this high drop-out rate. Some students enroll simply to acquire student benefits. Others study for the sake of personal enrichment without intending to get a degree. Some are unable to complete their studies for financial reasons. Although a university degree provides students with a substantial amount of social status and better income opportunities, there has been an increase in "academic unemployment," especially among degree- holders in the humanities and social sciences."
That doesn't really reflect your statement of "Most countries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
---
No system is perfect. Canada, USA, Finland, Austria, UK all have their pros and cons. If there was a perfect system, then every country would be doing it.
High taxes, Bryan, yes, we've been over this. And they, accordingly, live in the the countroes with some of the best standards of living. You get what you paid for. Clearly, the prospect of slightly higher taxes only troubles you here.
Ouch, I guess the Europe's education system is not good at all. Considering both links are from Europe.
It's not good when they don't fund it. Your argument might make sense if my point rested on the case that European education was better in and of itself because it was Europe, that it was better on this virtue alone. Obviously, we're talking about funding. As I have demonstrated clearly, the countries that properly invest in their educations, financially and socially, and are serious about keeping it efficient and affordable have been getting great results for decades.
Also in your link it states, "The phenomenon exists. More and more students are having trouble making ends meet because property prices are increasing while grants are staying the same.". Which is more with property prices and not due to high tuition costs.
"Shelley is a 21-year-old student from Sydney, Australia. She said: "It's a fun way of making money and this is one of the safest clubs in London. We are in control of who we dance for and how long it lasts. There is no touching and a lot of the guys are regulars."
She seems to be having fun.
I'm not even going to bother addressing this. You're delusional.
Plus we do not know their spending habits. Maybe they cannot afford higher education because they party and shop a lot. But I guess those articles don't really include that. Also, there is no minimum wage in France, Austria and Finland which really sucks.
Except, you neglect to mention as usual, that all these countries have very strong unions (even France with only a 30% roughly unionization rate), and employer groups and state regulation that means while they do not have minumum wages in theory, as we understand them, they have them in practice.
Plus, there's also this: "The International Labour Organisation establishes minimum rates for able seamen. This is currently set at $500 US per month, but will rise to $515 US per month on January 1st 2007. Further increases to $530 US per month and $545 US per month have been agreed for 2008 and 2009 respectively. "
"Increased accessibility to university-level education has a number of consequences. The dramatic expansion in the number of students led to overcrowding at many institutions. Some critics maintain that the increasing number of students diminishes the overall quality of university-level education despite increases in federal investment. One obvious problem was that more than 50 percent of students enrolled at the universities in the 1980s did not successfully complete a degree program. Complex reasons account for this high drop-out rate. Some students enroll simply to acquire student benefits. Others study for the sake of personal enrichment without intending to get a degree. Some are unable to complete their studies for financial reasons. Although a university degree provides students with a substantial amount of social status and better income opportunities, there has been an increase in "academic unemployment," especially among degree- holders in the humanities and social sciences."
And for all the problems Austria may have here and there, they are clearly still top of the line in education, to the point where they are helping to rebuild war torn countries though their education system: http://www-gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at/csbsc/guide/WUS.htm
"We evaluated schools on some of the measures used in well-known rankings published by Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Times of London Higher Education Survey. Fifty percent of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. Another 40 percent of the score came from equal parts of four measures used by the Times: the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. The final 10 percent came from library holdings (number of volumes)."
Nothing is actually said of the quality of education, just who teaches. Indeed, what we have here is a perfect example of the problem with much of N. American education. Our schools operate much in the same way that sports teams do -- just try and get the well known names, so you can get cited in these reports. It has nothing to do with the actual student experience, which is what we're talking about. I mean, for God's sake, library holdings?! With so much of the stuff being avilable online these days of course schools are investing less in paper resources.
Canada is 44th for God's sake. The US isn't even on the list.
And you'll notice, the "Top Schools" also happen to be almost exclusively Ivy League schools, founded by millionaires and billionaires with huge endownments. Pet projects, if you will. So, of course, this tiny handful of schools, which recieve a massively disproportionate amount of funds are better. Just goes back to my point that I've held along more funding = better schools.
But that's America for you. A few shiny Meccas that the rich attend, while there is general poverty. It's why US education standards, on the whole, lag considerably behind the rest of the industrialized world.
I guess if you had it, you would want Canada to be exactly like Cuba.
Man, you crack me up. Seriously. Yeah, GOD FORBID we invest in education. I mean, it's so much more important that we give our MLAs and MPs pay hikes right, and invest in bullets to help us get involved in a land war in Asia. Historically, a very wise decision, right? What a joke.
That doesn't really reflect your statement of "Most countries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
No system is perfect. Canada, USA, Finland, Austria, UK all have their pros and cons. If there was a perfect system, then every country would be doing it.
I never suggested anyone had a perfect system, which is why I find the part about Austira to be the funniest, because your argument essentially comes donw to "see, they have problems too" Duh. I chose Austira because they had a very similar amount of money they were spending on education to Canada, less than a percent.
I could have picked Finland or Sweden which also provide free education, but they pay a little more. 2% or so, which in reality is nothing, but I know how much of a hard on your have for numbers. Better luck next time.
That has nothing to do with your original statement that "there is no point in opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending." Because clearly people are putting themselves in that situation of being in debt if they want to continue higher education.
The point of opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending is because the demand to get a university education is increasing and thus making more people attend even though if they can barely afford it, they will still go and more will as well.
High taxes, Bryan, yes, we've been over this. And they, accordingly, live in the the countroes with some of the best standards of living. You get what you paid for. Clearly, the prospect of slightly higher taxes only troubles you here.
Clearly Austria with their higher taxes you get what you pay for. And they have some of the best standards of living. 15 is not too bad...
Your argument might make sense if my point rested on the case that European education was better in and of itself because it was Europe, that it was better on this virtue alone.
You stated earlier: "Almost every single state in Europe does, and those are some of the best schools in the world. "
I'm not even going to bother addressing this. You're delusional.
I am just quoting the link that you provided.
Except, you neglect to mention as usual, that all these countries have very strong unions (even France with only a 30% roughly unionization rate), and employer groups and state regulation that means while they do not have minumum wages in theory, as we understand them, they have them in practice.
Plus, there's also this: "The International Labour Organisation establishes minimum rates for able seamen. This is currently set at $500 US per month, but will rise to $515 US per month on January 1st 2007. Further increases to $530 US per month and $545 US per month have been agreed for 2008 and 2009 respectively. "
Funny, the first two links mention NOTHING about Austria providing the best educations in the world. The last quote mentions Austria though:
"Decreasing age groups a challenge for planning
The decrease in young age groups poses a significant challenge for authorities in providing education services cost-effectively. The 5-to-14 age group will grow only in seven OECD countries by 2015. In Finland the decrease in this age group will be above the OECD average. The situation is even worse in nine other countries, including Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Korea. Young age groups will decline in all the Nordic countries by 2015. "
Yes, taxes pay for things, we've been over this.
You are smart enough to realize taxes pay for things. Now apply that logic to tuition costs.
Your links just show how they want to implement healthier choices in the UK. In America they are offering new meal programs which give out cheap food at cafeterias.
Still not meeting your statement that "Mostcountries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
That has nothing to do with your original statement that "there is no point in opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending." Because clearly people are putting themselves in that situation of being in debt if they want to continue higher education.
No, spiralling debt has nothing to do with my statement. You're a bright one.
The point of opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending is because the demand to get a university education is increasing and thus making more people attend even though if they can barely afford it, they will still go and more will as well.
This statement only makes sense in your head. Yeah, I can barely afford to make rent but let's all go pay 3000 bucks a semster for tuition, not counting books! Woo! Once again, you're delusional.
Clearly Austria with their higher taxes you get what you pay for. And they have some of the best standards of living. 15 is not too bad...
And the of course, the part you keep avoiding, which I find very amusing is, that the countries that have the best public service sectors (the Nordic countries) beat Canada and US in just about every conceivable and vital staistical survey that we have covered. I've all ready explained why I chose Austria, simply to demonstrate that with even a marginal increase in tax expidentures we too could provide free higher education for our citizens.
If you really think so poorly of the country, I suggest you go visit sometime. It's a very lovely country.
You stated earlier: "Almost every single state in Europe does, and those are some of the best schools in the world. "
Uh huh, and what exactly don't you get about that? As I said, on the whole the European education system is better. We may have a few "better schools" but as I've all ready demonstrated, those miss the point because the only people who go to them are the rich and the elite. It's like saying, hey, there's no poverty crisis in Zimbabwe because look how rich and well off Robert Mugabe is?!
I am just quoting the link that you provided.
Bryan, who are we going to believe? You and some bimbo -- or professionals, academics and health care specialists, all cited in the same article whom you chose to ignore, that point out the obvious reality that being forced into the sex industry to pay for an education is not a good idea.
I suggest, if you think it's just a great concept, you bring it up with some of your female friends who are having trouble paying for school. Or do you not associate with people who can't afford such things?
I'm going to highlight something, because you clearly missed it: "Guillaume Houzel, president of the Observatoire de la Vie Etudiante (OVE), which charts students' living conditions and income, said : "The phenomenon exists. More and more students are having trouble making ends meet because property prices are increasing while grants are staying the same." A major study of the French under-25 population in 2000 found that 100,000 students were living below the poverty threshold and 51 per cent had jobs in term time."
So your claim that it is property prices and not education defecits that are the problem is, as usual, bogus. Rising property prices are a problem no doubt, but they are not actual cause of 1) cuts to education funding and 2) teh resulting cost for students to attend school. But a nice attempt at diversion.
I love this, I've actually driven you to the point where you're the one arguing for for minimum wage laws and confronting the realities of the working poor. If this keeps up I'll have you whistling the international in a week.
Also, I suggest you stop quoting articles from nine years ago. Makes it seem like you're having trouble finding evidence to support your point.
But hey, I agree with you -- there's working poor in Europe too! The difference is, they're actually trying to deal with the problem, or at least the successful ones are, specifically poverty as a whole, especially amongst children (http://www.pww.org/article/view/9568/1/332/). They may not have minimum wage laws as we understand them, but their governments are alot more involved in tackling poverty. Unlike our government which has been cutting spending (http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/rc06/06_C2000NationalReportCard.pdf) to the point where our poverty rate has risen, and British Columbia has the highest in all of Canada.
Further more, Western nations that have significantly reduced child & family poverty have done so by:
1. Investing in early learning programs 2. Childcare programs 3. Increased childcare benefits 4. National affordable housing programs 5. Increased unemployment benefits 6. An adequate minumum wage (In North America that would be $10 an hour)
Source: Campaign 2000, 2004, Gruesome Acts of Capitalism pg.107
Point being, Europe should implement better minum wage standards, I agree! But Canada and the US should implement the other 5 points.
Funny, the first two links mention NOTHING about Austria providing the best educations in the world. The last quote mentions Austria though:
Probably because I was refering to the European countries as a whole, hence the "they". Learn to read.
"Decreasing age groups a challenge for planning
The decrease in young age groups poses a significant challenge for authorities in providing education services cost-effectively. The 5-to-14 age group will grow only in seven OECD countries by 2015. In Finland the decrease in this age group will be above the OECD average. The situation is even worse in nine other countries, including Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Korea. Young age groups will decline in all the Nordic countries by 2015. "
OMG!? DECLINING BIRTH RATES IN EUROPE!? There goes my argument!? Yes, of course it's going to be a problem, problewms always arise. That's why government from Russia to Italy, to France have started handing out benefits to families who have more kids. And the declining birth rates of Europe are hardly an indictment of their education system, now are they?
You are smart enough to realize taxes pay for things. Now apply that logic to tuition costs.
Okay: marginal increases in taxes that will go towards education could in effect eliminate or several decrease tuition costs for Canadian students. See last 4 pages for proof.
Your links just show how they want to implement healthier choices in the UK. In America they are offering new meal programs which give out cheap food at cafeterias.
Still not meeting your statement that "Mostcountries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
Wow, I guess you literally have to be spoon fed everything don't you? No pun intended.
Immigrant pupils throughout Europe have access to school services on the same basis as other pupils. This rule applies to all pupils who have a right to compulsory schooling. ‘School services’ encompasses the use of school facilities such as canteens, school equipment and materials, extracurricular activities, health services and so on. It also includes transport to and from school. Some countries (such as Finland and Sweden) provide these services free of charge to all pupils.
I have to commend you though, of the dozen or so claims that I made that you chose to call me out on, which I in turn cited, every last one, you've essentially given up on contesting me on most of them. And have, instead, chosen to play a silly semantics with me, as is evidenced with your fixation on Austira.
Good going Bryan, you may be beaten but you're still trying to score points on technicalities. We're all very impressed. Note: I'm not actually impressed, just incredibly amused.
oh i learned a lot..=) and i know that if i ever have problems with citations and references i could always count on these two to give me some tips with that..
No, spiralling debt has nothing to do with my statement. You're a bright one.
Your claim: "there is no point in opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending." Your evidence backing that claim shows: Student Debt problems
If students are having debt problems and cannot afford attending there is no point of opening new schools because there would be no demand. In your theory, the decrease would lower as the prices increase.
show that even though tuition prices increase, the demand increase. When the demand increases and there is not enough space, then guess what, they open new schools.
So to put this simple enough for you you comprehend: Tuition goes up, student debt goes up, demand goes up, more schools open.
Yeah, I can barely afford to make rent but let's all go pay 3000 bucks a semster for tuition, not counting books! Woo! Once again, you're delusional.
You don't know how many times I thought that while seeing students walking around with Gucci glasses, Juicy handbags, Ugg boots and showing their LV and Coach wallets while paying for cafeteria foods.
You would think an amazing system would be perfect and never have a problem....
Probably because I was refering to the European countries as a whole, hence the "they". Learn to read.
Your quote was "Austria was one example of the dozens of countries that provide free education. Obviously problems arise everywhere, for a number of reasons. Overall, they continue to provide the best educations in the world:"
When you state "they" in the second sentence, it refers to Austria because they are the subject in the earlier sentence. No where do you mention Europe, you mention Austria. Learn to write.
Okay: marginal increases in taxes that will go towards education could in effect eliminate or several decrease tuition costs for Canadian students. See last 4 pages for proof.
Okay: marginal decrease in taxes and the money saved can go towards education.
Wow, I guess you literally have to be spoon fed everything don't you? No pun intended.
No, but when you make a claim, I would like proof. Your claim: "Most countries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
No evidence supporting that statement. Show me that "most countries do".
Your claim: "there is no point in opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending." Your evidence backing that claim shows: Student Debt problems
If students are having debt problems and cannot afford attending there is no point of opening new schools because there would be no demand. In your theory, the decrease would lower as the prices increase.
show that even though tuition prices increase, the demand increase. When the demand increases and there is not enough space, then guess what, they open new schools.
So to put this simple enough for you you comprehend: Tuition goes up, student debt goes up, demand goes up, more schools open.
Your whole theory hinges on that last statement, and that statement is bogus. Tuition goes up, debts goes up -- yes! Demand goes up, more schools open up, also, yes! You know what the problem is between those two? There is no direct link.
The direct link, as BC has demonstrated, is that tuition goes up, debt goes up, poverty increases. Now, yeah, there's more people wanting to get into university, because degrees mean high paying jobs (which you have all ready tried to dispute and failed). But to get those degrees, people have go into massive debt. So, we have more and more people starting their working lives with huge debts, and as such, our poverty is increasing. Not to mention that our governments have cut benefits to those on the margins.
So, no there is no point in opening up MORE schools, when the people in the existing schools are all ready in debt, and having to take out huge loans, and go into the sex trade to just get a degree. That's not acceptable. That's not an education policy that makes sense, that's extortion.
You don't know how many times I thought that while seeing students walking around with Gucci glasses, Juicy handbags, Ugg boots and showing their LV and Coach wallets while paying for cafeteria foods.
Funny, that's how I picture you. But in any case, more annecdotal evidence. Yeah, there's those students, but there's also the ones living off of Kraft Dinner and Kool Aid.
Looks like "shitty" Canada is still ahead of amazing Austria and Finland. Even with their "amazing" education system, they are still lower than us.
Of course, I never refered to as Canada as "shitty" so once again you're loying and putting words in my mouth. And way to miss the point by the way. You have an amazing skill for that. Nevermind that I just oblitirated your own stats. Straw man arguments are fun!
You would think an amazing system would be perfect and never have a problem....
I wasn't aware that Europe consisted of only England and Scotland? Oh, and I suggest you go back a few posts where I pointed out myself that the UK was one of the countries that like Canada had cuts its education budget and was suffering the results.
More lies and distortions. Why can't you at least be honest, Bryan? It takes a bigger man to admit when he's wrong, than these petty games you're playing; lying, putting words in my mouth, using fallacious straw man arguments.
Your quote was "Austria was one example of the dozens of countries that provide free education. Obviously problems arise everywhere, for a number of reasons. Overall, they continue to provide the best educations in the world:"
When you state "they" in the second sentence, it refers to Austria because they are the subject in the earlier sentence. No where do you mention Europe, you mention Austria. Learn to write.
Now, why would I use a plural (they, educations) to refer to a singular (Austria), unless I was in fact refering to a greater number of states, i.e., Europe? And secondly, it is implied that I'm speaking of Europe because, as I said, "one example of the dozens of countries that provide free education", as in Europe. As in, countries that provide free education generally have better educated people, higher standards of living and more competitive economies. And thirdly, from a purely logical point, we'd been talking about Europe the whole time. The only person who would not get the implied reference to Europe is someone like you, who is desperate to find any obscure point to challenge me on. And you're failing in every one.
Learn to read.
Okay: marginal decrease in taxes and the money saved can go towards education.
You mean like our fantastic program for child day care? Yeah, because that's worked SO well.
No, but when you make a claim, I would like proof. Your claim: "Most countries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
No evidence supporting that statement. Show me that "most countries do".
I just did.
Immigrant pupils throughout Europe have access to school services on the same basis as other pupils. This rule applies to all pupils who have a right to compulsory schooling. ‘School services’ encompasses the use of school facilities such as canteens, school equipment and materials, extracurricular activities, health services and so on. It also includes transport to and from school. Some countries (such as Finland and Sweden) provide these services free of charge to all pupils.
Both refer to primary and lower education. Canada has the same policy as we offer FREE education up to the 12th grade.
I KNOW! That's why I made the claim when you acted like an idiot and claimed sarcastically that students should be provided free meals. They are. Most schools, the world over, provide free meals for their students.
Comments
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2006/mr-06-089.html http://www.worldtaxpayers.org/statpres.htm Ouch, I guess the Europe's education system is not good at all. Considering both links are from Europe.
Also in your link it states, "The phenomenon exists. More and more students are having trouble making ends meet because property prices are increasing while grants are staying the same.". Which is more with property prices and not due to high tuition costs.
"Shelley is a 21-year-old student from Sydney, Australia. She said: "It's a fun way of making money and this is one of the safest clubs in London. We are in control of who we dance for and how long it lasts. There is no touching and a lot of the guys are regulars."
She seems to be having fun.
Plus we do not know their spending habits. Maybe they cannot afford higher education because they party and shop a lot. But I guess those articles don't really include that. Also, there is no minimum wage in France, Austria and Finland which really sucks. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News11/text1.html
"Increased accessibility to university-level education has a number of consequences. The dramatic expansion in the number of students led to overcrowding at many institutions. Some critics maintain that the increasing number of students diminishes the overall quality of university-level education despite increases in federal investment. One obvious problem was that more than 50 percent of students enrolled at the universities in the 1980s did not successfully complete a degree program. Complex reasons account for this high drop-out rate. Some students enroll simply to acquire student benefits. Others study for the sake of personal enrichment without intending to get a degree. Some are unable to complete their studies for financial reasons. Although a university degree provides students with a substantial amount of social status and better income opportunities, there has been an increase in "academic unemployment," especially among degree- holders in the humanities and social sciences."
http://countrystudies.us/austria/77.htm
Also, nothing is free: http://www.worldtaxpayers.org/statpres.htm
With free education, the quality is much worse:
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm
I guess if you had it, you would want Canada to be exactly like Cuba. That doesn't really reflect your statement of "Most countries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
---
No system is perfect. Canada, USA, Finland, Austria, UK all have their pros and cons. If there was a perfect system, then every country would be doing it.
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2003/02/07/News/Rising.Student.Debt.Leaves.Many.With.Shaky.Credit.Future-1415615.shtml
http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/File/News%20050406.pdf
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=5489
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/12/29/student-debt.html High taxes, Bryan, yes, we've been over this. And they, accordingly, live in the the countroes with some of the best standards of living. You get what you paid for. Clearly, the prospect of slightly higher taxes only troubles you here. It's not good when they don't fund it. Your argument might make sense if my point rested on the case that European education was better in and of itself because it was Europe, that it was better on this virtue alone. Obviously, we're talking about funding. As I have demonstrated clearly, the countries that properly invest in their educations, financially and socially, and are serious about keeping it efficient and affordable have been getting great results for decades. You're either misquoting again, or lying (again). The article in question (http://www.studentlifestyleguide.co.uk/education/studentpoverty.htm) says nothing of the sort. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. You're delusional. Except, you neglect to mention as usual, that all these countries have very strong unions (even France with only a 30% roughly unionization rate), and employer groups and state regulation that means while they do not have minumum wages in theory, as we understand them, they have them in practice.
Plus, there's also this: "The International Labour Organisation establishes minimum rates for able seamen. This is currently set at $500 US per month, but will rise to $515 US per month on January 1st 2007. Further increases to $530 US per month and $545 US per month have been agreed for 2008 and 2009 respectively. "
http://www.fedee.com/minwage.html Austria was one example of the dozens of countries that provide free education. Obviously problems arise everywhere, for a number of reasons. Overall, they continue to provide the best educations in the world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4073753.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/education/4031805.stm
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Tiedotteet/2006/9/OECDx_Suomalaisen_koulutuksen_tehokkuus_maailman_kxrkex.html?lang=en
And for all the problems Austria may have here and there, they are clearly still top of the line in education, to the point where they are helping to rebuild war torn countries though their education system: http://www-gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at/csbsc/guide/WUS.htm Yes, taxes pay for things, we've been over this. I really suggest you look up how that list was compiled, my friend. For as is stated here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/
"We evaluated schools on some of the measures used in well-known rankings published by Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Times of London Higher Education Survey. Fifty percent of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. Another 40 percent of the score came from equal parts of four measures used by the Times: the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. The final 10 percent came from library holdings (number of volumes)."
Nothing is actually said of the quality of education, just who teaches. Indeed, what we have here is a perfect example of the problem with much of N. American education. Our schools operate much in the same way that sports teams do -- just try and get the well known names, so you can get cited in these reports. It has nothing to do with the actual student experience, which is what we're talking about. I mean, for God's sake, library holdings?! With so much of the stuff being avilable online these days of course schools are investing less in paper resources.
Hell, if we want to talk about library books, let's talk about per capita, in total, not just in schools. In which case the US & Canada are getting pounded: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_lib_boo_percap-education-library-books-per-capita
Canada is 44th for God's sake. The US isn't even on the list.
And you'll notice, the "Top Schools" also happen to be almost exclusively Ivy League schools, founded by millionaires and billionaires with huge endownments. Pet projects, if you will. So, of course, this tiny handful of schools, which recieve a massively disproportionate amount of funds are better. Just goes back to my point that I've held along more funding = better schools.
But that's America for you. A few shiny Meccas that the rich attend, while there is general poverty. It's why US education standards, on the whole, lag considerably behind the rest of the industrialized world. Man, you crack me up. Seriously. Yeah, GOD FORBID we invest in education. I mean, it's so much more important that we give our MLAs and MPs pay hikes right, and invest in bullets to help us get involved in a land war in Asia. Historically, a very wise decision, right? What a joke. http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/schoolmeals.shtml
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolmeals/story/0,,1442671,00.html
http://www.globalmarch.org/news/highlevel-beijing.php3
You get the picture. I never suggested anyone had a perfect system, which is why I find the part about Austira to be the funniest, because your argument essentially comes donw to "see, they have problems too" Duh. I chose Austira because they had a very similar amount of money they were spending on education to Canada, less than a percent.
I could have picked Finland or Sweden which also provide free education, but they pay a little more. 2% or so, which in reality is nothing, but I know how much of a hard on your have for numbers. Better luck next time.
The point of opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending is because the demand to get a university education is increasing and thus making more people attend even though if they can barely afford it, they will still go and more will as well. Clearly Austria with their higher taxes you get what you pay for. And they have some of the best standards of living. 15 is not too bad...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm
Canada #3 by the way You stated earlier: "Almost every single state in Europe does, and those are some of the best schools in the world. " Sorry, it was your other link that I thought I copied:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20061031/ai_n16830424 I am just quoting the link that you provided. http://eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/08/study/tn0208101s.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/05/02/sprices.t.php
Funny, the first two links mention NOTHING about Austria providing the best educations in the world. The last quote mentions Austria though:
"Decreasing age groups a challenge for planning
The decrease in young age groups poses a significant challenge for authorities in providing education services cost-effectively. The 5-to-14 age group will grow only in seven OECD countries by 2015. In Finland the decrease in this age group will be above the OECD average. The situation is even worse in nine other countries, including Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Korea. Young age groups will decline in all the Nordic countries by 2015. " You are smart enough to realize taxes pay for things. Now apply that logic to tuition costs. Your links just show how they want to implement healthier choices in the UK. In America they are offering new meal programs which give out cheap food at cafeterias.
Still not meeting your statement that "Mostcountries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
This statement only makes sense in your head. Yeah, I can barely afford to make rent but let's all go pay 3000 bucks a semster for tuition, not counting books! Woo! Once again, you're delusional. Actually, we've slipped to 6th. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061109/un_countrylivein_061109/20061109?hub=TopStories)
Not that it matters, because if look at the HDI: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind-economy-human-development-index The numbers seperating the top ranked nations, including Austira, are fractals.
And the of course, the part you keep avoiding, which I find very amusing is, that the countries that have the best public service sectors (the Nordic countries) beat Canada and US in just about every conceivable and vital staistical survey that we have covered. I've all ready explained why I chose Austria, simply to demonstrate that with even a marginal increase in tax expidentures we too could provide free higher education for our citizens.
If you really think so poorly of the country, I suggest you go visit sometime. It's a very lovely country. Uh huh, and what exactly don't you get about that? As I said, on the whole the European education system is better. We may have a few "better schools" but as I've all ready demonstrated, those miss the point because the only people who go to them are the rich and the elite. It's like saying, hey, there's no poverty crisis in Zimbabwe because look how rich and well off Robert Mugabe is?! Bryan, who are we going to believe? You and some bimbo -- or professionals, academics and health care specialists, all cited in the same article whom you chose to ignore, that point out the obvious reality that being forced into the sex industry to pay for an education is not a good idea.
I suggest, if you think it's just a great concept, you bring it up with some of your female friends who are having trouble paying for school. Or do you not associate with people who can't afford such things? I'm going to highlight something, because you clearly missed it: "Guillaume Houzel, president of the Observatoire de la Vie Etudiante (OVE), which charts students' living conditions and income, said : "The phenomenon exists. More and more students are having trouble making ends meet because property prices are increasing while grants are staying the same." A major study of the French under-25 population in 2000 found that 100,000 students were living below the poverty threshold and 51 per cent had jobs in term time."
So your claim that it is property prices and not education defecits that are the problem is, as usual, bogus. Rising property prices are a problem no doubt, but they are not actual cause of 1) cuts to education funding and 2) teh resulting cost for students to attend school. But a nice attempt at diversion. I love this, I've actually driven you to the point where you're the one arguing for for minimum wage laws and confronting the realities of the working poor. If this keeps up I'll have you whistling the international in a week.
Also, I suggest you stop quoting articles from nine years ago. Makes it seem like you're having trouble finding evidence to support your point.
But hey, I agree with you -- there's working poor in Europe too! The difference is, they're actually trying to deal with the problem, or at least the successful ones are, specifically poverty as a whole, especially amongst children (http://www.pww.org/article/view/9568/1/332/). They may not have minimum wage laws as we understand them, but their governments are alot more involved in tackling poverty. Unlike our government which has been cutting spending (http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/rc06/06_C2000NationalReportCard.pdf) to the point where our poverty rate has risen, and British Columbia has the highest in all of Canada.
Further more, Western nations that have significantly reduced child & family poverty have done so by:
1. Investing in early learning programs
2. Childcare programs
3. Increased childcare benefits
4. National affordable housing programs
5. Increased unemployment benefits
6. An adequate minumum wage (In North America that would be $10 an hour)
Source: Campaign 2000, 2004, Gruesome Acts of Capitalism pg.107
Point being, Europe should implement better minum wage standards, I agree! But Canada and the US should implement the other 5 points.
Probably because I was refering to the European countries as a whole, hence the "they". Learn to read. OMG!? DECLINING BIRTH RATES IN EUROPE!? There goes my argument!? Yes, of course it's going to be a problem, problewms always arise. That's why government from Russia to Italy, to France have started handing out benefits to families who have more kids. And the declining birth rates of Europe are hardly an indictment of their education system, now are they? Okay: marginal increases in taxes that will go towards education could in effect eliminate or several decrease tuition costs for Canadian students. See last 4 pages for proof. Wow, I guess you literally have to be spoon fed everything don't you? No pun intended. Page 35 of this report: http://www.eurydice.org/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/045EN.pdf
Ditto on Africa: http://allafrica.com/stories/200701191001.html
I have to commend you though, of the dozen or so claims that I made that you chose to call me out on, which I in turn cited, every last one, you've essentially given up on contesting me on most of them. And have, instead, chosen to play a silly semantics with me, as is evidenced with your fixation on Austira.
Good going Bryan, you may be beaten but you're still trying to score points on technicalities. We're all very impressed. Note: I'm not actually impressed, just incredibly amused.
this thread is epic...
Your evidence backing that claim shows: Student Debt problems
If students are having debt problems and cannot afford attending there is no point of opening new schools because there would be no demand. In your theory, the decrease would lower as the prices increase.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051011/d051011b.htm
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/medi...mr-06-089.html
show that even though tuition prices increase, the demand increase. When the demand increases and there is not enough space, then guess what, they open new schools.
So to put this simple enough for you you comprehend: Tuition goes up, student debt goes up, demand goes up, more schools open. You don't know how many times I thought that while seeing students walking around with Gucci glasses, Juicy handbags, Ugg boots and showing their LV and Coach wallets while paying for cafeteria foods. Looks like "shitty" Canada is still ahead of amazing Austria and Finland. Even with their "amazing" education system, they are still lower than us. Then why are they in a funding crisis?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3189575.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/education.cfm?id=160202007
You would think an amazing system would be perfect and never have a problem.... Your quote was "Austria was one example of the dozens of countries that provide free education. Obviously problems arise everywhere, for a number of reasons. Overall, they continue to provide the best educations in the world:"
When you state "they" in the second sentence, it refers to Austria because they are the subject in the earlier sentence. No where do you mention Europe, you mention Austria. Learn to write. Okay: marginal decrease in taxes and the money saved can go towards education. No, but when you make a claim, I would like proof.
Your claim: "Most countries do, in some shape way or form, for example, food stamps and government funded food banks. Most schools also provide free meals for kids."
No evidence supporting that statement. Show me that "most countries do". Both refer to primary and lower education. Canada has the same policy as we offer FREE education up to the 12th grade.
:teeth:
The direct link, as BC has demonstrated, is that tuition goes up, debt goes up, poverty increases. Now, yeah, there's more people wanting to get into university, because degrees mean high paying jobs (which you have all ready tried to dispute and failed). But to get those degrees, people have go into massive debt. So, we have more and more people starting their working lives with huge debts, and as such, our poverty is increasing. Not to mention that our governments have cut benefits to those on the margins.
So, no there is no point in opening up MORE schools, when the people in the existing schools are all ready in debt, and having to take out huge loans, and go into the sex trade to just get a degree. That's not acceptable. That's not an education policy that makes sense, that's extortion. Funny, that's how I picture you. But in any case, more annecdotal evidence. Yeah, there's those students, but there's also the ones living off of Kraft Dinner and Kool Aid. Of course, I never refered to as Canada as "shitty" so once again you're loying and putting words in my mouth. And way to miss the point by the way. You have an amazing skill for that. Nevermind that I just oblitirated your own stats. Straw man arguments are fun! I wasn't aware that Europe consisted of only England and Scotland? Oh, and I suggest you go back a few posts where I pointed out myself that the UK was one of the countries that like Canada had cuts its education budget and was suffering the results.
More lies and distortions. Why can't you at least be honest, Bryan? It takes a bigger man to admit when he's wrong, than these petty games you're playing; lying, putting words in my mouth, using fallacious straw man arguments. Now, why would I use a plural (they, educations) to refer to a singular (Austria), unless I was in fact refering to a greater number of states, i.e., Europe? And secondly, it is implied that I'm speaking of Europe because, as I said, "one example of the dozens of countries that provide free education", as in Europe. As in, countries that provide free education generally have better educated people, higher standards of living and more competitive economies. And thirdly, from a purely logical point, we'd been talking about Europe the whole time. The only person who would not get the implied reference to Europe is someone like you, who is desperate to find any obscure point to challenge me on. And you're failing in every one.
Learn to read. You mean like our fantastic program for child day care? Yeah, because that's worked SO well. I just did. I KNOW! That's why I made the claim when you acted like an idiot and claimed sarcastically that students should be provided free meals. They are. Most schools, the world over, provide free meals for their students.
And even universities usually have some forms of assistance: http://northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/stud_serv/sws/ftug/fsm/
http://www.google.com/search?q=free+meals+for+university+students&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIC
http://www.ntua.gr/en_academics/stud_services.htm
This is why you should leave sarcasm those of us who actually know how to use it.
Oh, and by the way you just may be the biggest hypocirte I've ever met: What's with people always wanting something for nothing, eh Bryan!?