Realisitic opinons on Tuition Fees

Law Student

What do you guys think of tuition fees? Lately theres been some demonstration to try and lower tuition fees but I personally think that its useless.

We live in a money oriented culture, not education oriented. Im glad that education is generally still a strong value here in Canada but money has a lot of influence in everything, including our university lives. Looking around at SFU, there are a thousand things that could be improved around campus...efficiency and outlook and the overall experience.

Obviously, I would love it if we could get away with paying less for our tuition, but it is ultimately for our own benefit and required to provide the level of service we are recieving...it has to come from somehwere either us or the government and i guess the government can't afford to pay for our school anymore. What do you guys think?

meesh

I agree. As much as I would like to pay lower tuition fees, we are going to have to sacrifice other things (like Law Student mentioned above that the school needs some development).

And I always hear people comparing the low tuition fees back 10, 15 even 20 years ago. But we can't just base it on the normative amount, the living standards have risen today, and so has the cost of a dollar...depends on inflation.

People will always want lower prices for everything. Cut taxes, more funding for public schools, more funding for better buildings, lower tuition fees...
it's not possible to have all of that...because we're going to have to sacrifice one thing for another...

Malakaiii

There have been three recent threads in which topics like these were debated and may interest you guys!

rant: comment on student walkout

Interesting Article:...please do not feed the homeless

an economic construct: what is it socially

siuying

i actually don't mind sacrificing things to lower tuition fees because it's outrageously expensive.. things like 2010 olympics... drug houses... fixing SFU stairs... designing a new ugly logo.. and newly added on the list as of today.. the olympic countdown clock.. really.. i could do without these things.. =)

meesh

yeah i understand what you're saying, there are a lot of things we could do without...the olympics especially. but i see this whole lower this, lower that fiasco as a competition. lowering tuition fees means increasing government spending. increasing government spending might mean raising income taxes. now, as there are a lot of students in vancouver, there a lot more people working jobs and paying taxes...and the government needs to weigh out these consequences. people that arent attending schools are usually not keen on paying more taxes, when taxes are already so high especially in vancouver (i know my house's property tax has gone up like crazy over the past few years..).

and i got a crapload of scholarship money from the government without having to apply...i guess it depends on grades, but they have funds there--it took care of my year here. try to research about some scholarships or bursaries if you find it hard to pay for school...because that's what i'll be doing.. lol

siuying

i beg to differ.. lowering tuition fees does not mean inceasing government spending.. the government has been running on a surplus in the last couple of years and it's in the billions.. doesn't it ponder you at what they do with these surpluses? do they not have the ability to spare a couple of millions into education instead of cutting funds and abolishing grants? if they can't.. then the abilities of those running the government aren't very good at what they do.. what they're good at is cut fundings and raising tuition fees... now guess who's going to benefit from all that?

meesh

well the surplus is definitely going towards the olympics (damn it...look what it's doing to cambie st!!).
but i wouldnt go writing off the government as incompetent if it's taking them a while to lower tuition fees. first off, when Glen Clark was the premier, he majorly effed up BC's financial status, lying to the public that the government was running a surplus when really they were in a deficit. we lost a lot of money; our economy suffered great decline, growing unemployment rates, and the new government were left to clean it up. hence, the higher tuition fees as part of the solution. we may be receiving a surplus right now, but much of it over the past few years have been to pay off the debts of Clark's degenerate leadership.

did they abolish grants? because i got $3000 for my fall semester that seemed like a grant, but if they did get rid of it...then what the hell is it that i got? hahaha i just cashed the check in as quick as i could :S

anyway, i'm on student loans and i would really like having lower tuition fees too, i just don't see the government cutting it any time soon.

/edit

ah i figured out what that $3000 was, millennium bursary...since i dont live off of ma and pa no more :(

NukeChem

Unemployment fell from 1996 to 2000, not rose. That Glen Clark dog won't hunt, so can you not recycle the bilge the BC Libs sprayed like bark mulch?

meesh

yeah, i don't like to talk about politics, i usually sit off to the side.
i did a little of my own research from the EI unemployment stats site http://srv200.services.gc.ca/iiws/eiregions/uratesei.aspx

in 1996, Vancouver unemployment was an avg of ~8.1, in 1997 and 1998, it rose to ~8.6. that's just vancouver, it seems like the other areas of BC had larger rises in unemployment.
and then i noticed that around the time Glen Clark resigned, unemployment rates began to fall.

Messiah

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.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp