To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
rant: comment on student walkout
the other day when i was reading the newspaper on the coverage of this event.. i could help but feel offended by some crude comments made by people about students.. one apparent comment that ticked me off (and still bugs me) is that they've seen many university students that have the newest generation of the ipod and thus it should clearly reflect that they have the ability to support themselves if only they would spend less on unecessary gadgets...
okay.. so i have an ipod.. so what? it was a gift from my aunt not something that i would've bought myself.. but nonetheless i find it very naive and foolish of them to conclude such a comment.. what about those who can't afford one? does the fact that other students have the ability to afford it make the problem less significant than it is?
or what about i offer an anology.. a representative comes in and wants to evaluate the city of vancouver.. they see big houses.. apartments and penthouses located in the burrard inlet.. a beautiful city hall.. and a overly luxurious law court whereby the very court room that Robert Pickton is tried on was built for the sole purpose of trying an aircraft collision that happened 14 years ago.. this person sees all these assets of Vancouver and concludes that it is a wealthy city.. but in truth.. can this be truly said about Vancouver? has this person ever considered going down to the street of Hastings or perhaps take a walk downtown and observe the lives of the poor and homeless? i would dare say that this representative would definitely consider a re-evaluation of the city..
the point is these people aren't seeing the big picture.. rather they choose to focus on a small scenario.. criticizing its flaws and imperfections then applying it to the picture wholly to doubt its credibility.. stupid STUUPID politicians!!
and how dare they compare education spending to the spending of goods and services making it seem that we aren't paying outrageous amounts of money.. anyone in the right mind can see that only students pay tuition fees and any other spending related to education where as all Canadians contribute to GDP.. and to say that the average yearly inflation is 2% and tuition has only risen 1.9% doesn't justify the fact that education isn't expensive.. i'm about to finish off my 2nd year here and i still can't bring myself to register the fact that i have a 10K debt burden upon me already..
moreover.. it has been confirmed that Canadian univeristies have gotten themselves a 400 million revenue after the tuition freeze was removed.. that just shows how much they've ripped off from students..
so for those who participate in the national walkout day of feb 7th.. i sincerely like to thank anyone of you who supported the event.. =) let's just hope that the government would not dismiss this event as an act of foolishness by students who they think know nothing more than just textbooks and papers...
okay.. so i have an ipod.. so what? it was a gift from my aunt not something that i would've bought myself.. but nonetheless i find it very naive and foolish of them to conclude such a comment.. what about those who can't afford one? does the fact that other students have the ability to afford it make the problem less significant than it is?
or what about i offer an anology.. a representative comes in and wants to evaluate the city of vancouver.. they see big houses.. apartments and penthouses located in the burrard inlet.. a beautiful city hall.. and a overly luxurious law court whereby the very court room that Robert Pickton is tried on was built for the sole purpose of trying an aircraft collision that happened 14 years ago.. this person sees all these assets of Vancouver and concludes that it is a wealthy city.. but in truth.. can this be truly said about Vancouver? has this person ever considered going down to the street of Hastings or perhaps take a walk downtown and observe the lives of the poor and homeless? i would dare say that this representative would definitely consider a re-evaluation of the city..
the point is these people aren't seeing the big picture.. rather they choose to focus on a small scenario.. criticizing its flaws and imperfections then applying it to the picture wholly to doubt its credibility.. stupid STUUPID politicians!!
and how dare they compare education spending to the spending of goods and services making it seem that we aren't paying outrageous amounts of money.. anyone in the right mind can see that only students pay tuition fees and any other spending related to education where as all Canadians contribute to GDP.. and to say that the average yearly inflation is 2% and tuition has only risen 1.9% doesn't justify the fact that education isn't expensive.. i'm about to finish off my 2nd year here and i still can't bring myself to register the fact that i have a 10K debt burden upon me already..
moreover.. it has been confirmed that Canadian univeristies have gotten themselves a 400 million revenue after the tuition freeze was removed.. that just shows how much they've ripped off from students..
so for those who participate in the national walkout day of feb 7th.. i sincerely like to thank anyone of you who supported the event.. =) let's just hope that the government would not dismiss this event as an act of foolishness by students who they think know nothing more than just textbooks and papers...
Comments
It's a lot more complicated than just looking at the MP3 players, running shoes or cars of the students that attend university. Why not look at how many dollars we (or our parents) are in debt?! That makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.
yea thats quite the post you wrote there, u know a lot, thats sweet, maybe if i wouldve known this stuff before the walkout happened i might have participated in it
University is not for everyone. Those who can afford it will go, those who don't, there are many other options. A bachelor degree now is already so common because everyone can afford to go to school (well not everyone, but the majority). There are also many alternatives. Go through college then to university or take a few years off after high school to work, then pay for your tuition.
If they lower the tuition cost without increasing the taxes, where will they get the money from to pay for professors, buildings, etc? If you have a solution, lets hear it.
[edit] Also with everyone having a bachelors degree, soon the entry level requirement will ask for a graduate degree. Then people will REALLY be complaining about tuition costs.
As long as the increased tuition is justified (ie. more professors, better education, smaller class sizes) I do not mind paying the extra few hundred/thousand.
and speaking of more professors.. better education and smaller class sizes.. they've had a 400 million revenue to work with.. and in the last couple of years.. i have not seen a decrease in class size.. quality professors nor a better (but more expensive) education.. now.. with that said.. how about considering where that 400 million go?
1) University is not for everyone
2) Many people still do pay for University making the minimum requirement to get bachelor's degree for a simple entry level office job.
3) Some people do not and get jobs such construction (the construction job market is booming), lower paying minimum wage jobs, or be entrepreneurs.
4) Or people get certificates and do jobs such as real estate, insurance, mutual funds, work in the health care etc.
5) Tuition fees have increased, the cost of living has increased, everything has increased. I am not at the brink of insanity. I manage my debt fine.
The reason why you think that $400 million dollar revenue is going to nowhere (I don't see where you get that figure from), is because universities are trying to make up for the NDP tuition freeze where they lost tons in revenue. But I am not exactly sure where that $400 million dollars go and neither are you so we can only have our opinions on what they fund. Have you ever thought that maybe because there are more students, there is more money going out to student loans? New computer lab equipment? SFU Surrey campus opened in 2002 and the new school for contemporary arts will be moved to the old Woodwards building in 2008.
But maybe you should find out exactly what the budget is like and where the $400 million dollars go. I can tell you personally that over my 4 years of post-secondary education span (1 year on, 2 years off to work to pay for school then back) I have seen improvements such as more course offerings, more classrooms opening up, and better lab equipment.
[edit]
Honestly if tuition is too expensive and if you are going into large amounts of debt and/or cannot afford it, then maybe university is not for you (not directed at you Siuying). Like I said, university is not needed to succeed in life. There are other alternatives.
Why would I have a problem with raising taxes? And really, let's keep in mind, Canada had a 9 billion dollar surplus last year. That's more than enough to set up a free nationalized education program. Or they could have set up a nationalized day care program. But we did neither. Funny, that has never happened in Europe, and they've had nationalized post-secondary education for decades. Well, let me just say that I'm really relieved you don't mind! As for the rest of us, I guess it's no big. All right, wrap it up guys, Bryan is fine with it, all there is to say. That may be true but that's a choice that should be left up to the individual to make, freely. Not because they cannot afford it. But they have better options for advancement, is the part you don't mention. We all start at a low entry position, but our credentials are the factor which decide how far we go. Yeah, because you can really work in construction for 40 years, right? It's not like your body would crap out on you.
Oh, yeah, and just become an entrepreneurs everyone! It's sooo easy. I've all ready disproven this myth of social mobility crap so I'm not going to go over it again.
You realize these things cost money as well right? Or is there some part of "post secondary" that confuses you? I'm not too sure about that insane part. Your posts are pretty crazy to say the least. I've never heard any university make this claim, nor have I ever seen proof of it. I'd like a source for this, if nothing else. First of all, as tax paying Canadian citizens, and as these schools are publically funded, we have a right to know where the money goes, every cent of it. Secondly, there is no point in opening new schools if the students in the existing ones can hardly afford to keep attending. Personally, I've been trying to get into some classes for four semesters, the roof still leaks, it's taken them two years to fix a staircase and the new computers really don't impress me as I don't see what was wrong with the old ones. We upgrade the computers every two years now, begging the question why!? Again, why should we not apply the same standard to healthcare, or fire fighting and policing? If everything is to be decided on pay for service basis, then we should be universal in our standard.
Europe has allready figured out that education and health go hand in hand for tackling social problems, poverty and securing a prosperous economy. It's why Finland, for example, is the most competitive economy in the world. When is our government going to get it into their heads that this is the next step for an evolving modern society? Not, "privatization" of my grandma's hip.
That's from 2005, the 2006 surplus has not been published yet as far as I know. This was our 8th consecutive surplus. In 2005 it was 1.6 billion dollars, in 2004 it was 9.1 billion dollars (http://www.fin.gc.ca/news04/04-065e.html). It's not the same thing, as you are comparing a specific to a general. You have a general right to housing and education. You don't have a specific right to live in a specific home. Nor do you have a specific right to go to a specific school, but if you qualify for it in terms of grades, our government has pledged that you should go there, or a school that will provide the same services regardless of your financial situation. They have promised its citizens that rich and poor alike can and will go to the same schools, if they just prove they are capeable of getting the grades. They are failing to live up ot that promise. Uh, yeah, but now you're just grasping at straws, as usual. Yes, someone without a degree might might advance as well, and the person with the degree might not but those are the exceptions to the rule and not the norm. Yeah, and I know people who can hardly walk and they're barely 50 years old from a life time of har labour, so don't start with you annecdotal evidence again. That's all you ever talk about "I know a guy who..." Not good enough.
Oh, and I'd love to hear about these jobs that require no degree and one can actually make a decent living from. Please, enlighten us. You really need to read up on Western government, the modern, liberal compromise as it were. Our society decided at the turn of the century that money should not be a factor in getting an education, that an educated population was in the best interest of everyone. What you're arguing for is turning the clock back 200 years.
Even the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 26 that: "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." It's not even about where the money is going, it's where it isn't going and where it isn't coming from. The Liberals made huge cuts to education throughout the 90s, and have shifted the burden for public education from the state to students.
When you gut the social services, it's now wonder they start to falter. They've done the exact same thing with health care. They take away funding, and then complain about the quality of service. No shit. http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/english/campaigns/dayofaction.php This is possibly the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Apples and oranges?! What? Why shouldn't we compare ourselves to the Europeans? Because they actually support their social services with adequate funds? Yes, they have higher taxes, and they also have a higher standard of living!
Can't compare them, my God, the entire faculty of Political Science is based on comparing political systems, I would know, I'm in it. And since Canada and Europe are both first world, liberal democracies on the whole, it doesn't get much closer. So we have to try and explain why they are doing so much better than us. And it's clearly the fact, as mentioned, that they actually fund their programs.
Why do you think in Europe they have a higher cost of living? Because they get taxed MUCH higher to fund programs such as the nationalization of post secondary education.
They should just take away tuition fees and increase taxes. Why stop there? You are right, the health care system, police and fire departments should not be the only non pay per use system. Just make everything free. You must have pictures of Karl Marx hanging from your walls.
---------
But we are going way off topic here. The topic is how people within British Columbia wanting to lower tuition fees. Even if Canada has a 100 billion surplus, that won't make tuition fees lower. Instead of doing walk outs and complaining about lowering tuition fees, why not ask for more government funding? Because we all know how the politics work in Canada. If they lower tuition fees, they won't use the surplus money to subsidize that, they will just find another way to get the money.
AND even if they lower tuition fees, people will still want to keep lowering them. From $4000 a semester to $3000. Then people will want lower, and lower and lower until it goes to $100 a semester and people will want it for free. No one is ever satisfied until they get what they want without thinking of the repercussions it will cause. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Insurance industry: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos125.htm
Hospitality (managers at restaurants): http://www.worldwidelearn.com/business-degree/hospitality-degrees.htm
As for "sales" -- yeah, good luck supporting a family on minmum wage! I don't know about you, but I'm not too thrilled at spending my life working behind the counter at the Bay or Superstore.
You may be on to something with car salesmen, but that's hardly steady work. Especially with the way the auto industry is going these days. And there aren't whole hell of a lot of opening either.
Oh, and yeah, it isn't a "slap in the face" of anyone, because I've been there. My family has lived through trying to get by on wages offered through "non-degree" work and it's not easy, nor desirable. I don't say this to insult people without degrees, but rather to make the case for them actaully being given the opportunity to get an education, and have a decent living. You can debate me on what a "decent living" but you'll be hard pressed to tell me that 8.00 bucks an hour is decent living. But this is clearly too much for you. You can transfer once your grades improve, I would know, I've lived in Germany, went to school there. What a preposterous argument anyway: you mean you can't go to the best schools with poor grades?! OUTRAGEOUS?! Nevermind the fact that you need solid gardes to get into good schools here as well, no nevermind that. They also have a higher standard of living than us in every measureable way. So yeah, it costs a little more, but you get more in turn. In fact, it works out to the same thing, except they save money. We "make" more but we also have to pay more. And as the US keeps demonstarting, private services cost more than nationalized ones. They pay more taxes, but in turn get excellent services, and as such end up saving money. And, they have a standard of living to match, and they have the most competitive economies in the world. Usually, when you try to "insult" someone you point out the flaws in their theory. Whats wrong with free education and healthcare? The only person complaining is you, and you're hardly bringing any evidence to bear. That's why we protest and walk out, so that these things change, and they actually do the rational thing, we put pressure on them through civil disobidience. Or do you not understand the premise of a protest? You're God damn right people will want free education. I've all ready shown why it's a good thing and why it works. I suggest you try and actually back up some of your claims, instead of just calling me a communist. Which I am, amongst other things, so I'm hardly insulted.
Those who complain about high tuition fees, I am just curious, do you have part-time jobs? Did you guys try to apply for student loans? Scholarships? Did you guys go from college-SFU? Did you try taking a year off to work?
Before graduating from High School, I knew that SFU was going to be expensive. So I planned out my path to make sure I can financially afford it. Did you guys do the same?
So if Europe is so good, why are they having a funding crisis for higher education?
Go take a trip to Hong Kong where the job market is booming. Hong Kong offers free education for 9 years, and after that it is up to you. Hong Kong's economic growth is bigger than Canada. Their economy GDP per capita is also better than Canada. They offer a half private and half public health care system which works. The higher education cost is also cheaper than Canada. The government gives funding to help that lower cost. Oh, and the tax rate in Hong Kong is much much lower. There are also tax deductions for students, marital status and many others. In America, it takes the average person 25-30 years to pay off their mortgage, in Hong Kong, 6 years and you are free.
So lets see: Half Private Health care, cheaper higher education and lower taxes. Oh my according to you, that system wont work and Canada is so much better. Hmmm...too bad economically Hong Kong's numbers are better.
do you honestly know why Hong Kong's GDP per capita is better than Canada? because they devoted most of their resources in increasing human capital.. and how do you increase human capital? you start with education... if i followed your argument correctly.. you stated that university is not for everyone and those who afford it go and those who can't have other options.. that's a projection to the survival of the fittest.. shouldn't this also hold with your view on job searching? those who have better degrees get the job.. those who don't won't... there's no better chance in question.. those without a degree will not get the job when they're vying with people that have degrees.. and again.. you've contradicted yourself as your views clash with each other...
Like I said, in HK they only have 9 years of free education, the rest is up to you. So it is even "worse" there than in Canada. I use the term "worse" in quotations because I guess to some it is better and to some it is not. If a degree holder and a non degree holder are both applying for a entry level job as a private banker, then yes, the degree holder has a better chance.
But like I have said numerous times, there are other jobs out there such that do NOT require degrees.
This debate is very funny. For those who are arguing for lower tuition, could you please state a little bit about your financial background?
I will start:
I do not care for lower or higher tuition fees. I will pay whatever the school asks me to pay because I want my degree and I will need it for the job that I want. During high-school I worked part-time and full-time during the summer. I took one year at Langara and decided I wanted to go to UBC or SFU. I knew the financial burden would be great so I had to stop after my first year to work full-time to be able to save enough money. Now that I have, I can finally enter to SFU.
If tuition prices decrease, ill be happy. But I am not upset if they stay the same as it is right now. Of course if they go down and taxes do not increase, I can save more money for myself but I bite the bullet as it is right now because I think of it as an investment for my future.
Meesiah:
I am curious, what is the budget for higher education in Europe? How do they get the money to fund programs to help lower tuition costs?
My problem with the protests are that people just want lower tuition without thinking about anything else. At least you Meesiah have given some evidence of a better system. People who do those protest do not think like that. They only have signs showing "LOWER TUTION COSTS NOW" and stuff like that. They should have signs that show "Lower tuition costs, raise up taxes" or "Create a School tax" sign. If it was like that, then I would love to see people protest.
I don't agree with the notion that everything should be free and easy. So you want to make a decent living, fine. But you don't wanna do hard labour so you want to get a degree. But oh, you don't want pay for that either. Let's burden the rest of society so you can get a degree for free! No one is going to say free education and free health care is bad thing, but is it's benefit going to justify it's cost? In another 10 years so so, pretty much the whole provincial budget is going to be for health care, and if you add education (just gr1-12) to that then there is pretty much nothing left for the roads and other junk that the provincial government takes care of. The money has to come from somewhere; money doesn't magically appear.
I disagree with argument that there is a financial barrier to post secondary education. There are plentiful assistance for students who find tuition too expensive. Where else can you find 5% APR loan with 0 collateral, and interest free and no repayment for four years? I applied for student loan before and they are pretty eager to give you money; they give way more than you'll ever need if you live frugally while you study--and why shouldn't you? There are also plenty of scholarships in SFU for undergrads; maybe if you put more effort in your studies instead of whining you will manage to get one (or a couple). I made enough money for one semester of tuition after one month of co-op. You will respond by telling me co-op isn't available for every program. If you want to get a degree so you can eat when you graduate, you should've chosen a worthwhile field in the beginning.
Life is hard. Deal with it.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf
p51dray If they keep counting and fudging the numbers they do now, we're going to be paying 200% for health care in a little while.
It's amazing to me that BC has this supposed "crisis" of public spending, yet countries like Finland that actually spend the same amount us, or at least near the same level, actually have a total free, and completely efficient and effective public service sector. So either we're retarded, or our governement is lying to us about how they are cruching the numbers. Since the latter has allready been documented, I'm going to go with that! Oh, you disagree with the argument? How quaint. Well, I've documented every claim I have made and all I see from you and Bryan is lip service. So if anyone is going to be accused of whinning, it's you two. I am, I'm trying to make it easier. I guess this doesn't make sense to a sadist you like yourself.
"At the 1996 World Food Summit, leaders from 185 countries and the European Community reaffirmed, in the Rome Declaration on World Food Security, "the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger." They further pledged to cut the number of the world's hungry people in half by 2015."
http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/rightfood/right1.htm
How does the government expect me to eat when they don't have a national food plan. How come my porterhouse steak is so expensive? This is not fair.
And don't tell me to eat that cheap stuff like McDonalds. Because in 40 years eating only McDonalds, it's not like your body will crap out on you.
The Canadian government had a 9 million dollar surplus last year, and where is that money? They need to introduce programs that give people discount at Morton's and West and HY. Do they expect us not to eat?
Oh and don't tell me there are programs like Welfare. It's getting harder and harder for more and more people to go to eat. It's gotten to the point where many students have resorted to the sex trade.
but anyway.. we're off topic if you venture into foods.. but again i have to commend you and your financial efficiency.. $500 pair of sunglasses.. $150 jeans.. $200 jacket.. and a $900 pair of skis and you still manage to eat a $50 meal.. no wonder you don't think tuition fees are expsensive..=) word of advice.. cut back on the spending and you'll have money for food.. luxuries verses neccessities.. take your pick..
You're embarrassingly inept at defending even a single one of your claims. You make it too easy. In fact, I find it very relaxing running circles around you. So keep talking, you just keep digging your own hole. You have all the intellectual integrity of a door knob, my friend, and none of the utility. Try again, just try not to hurt yourself in the process.
All the things I have said is the exact same thing you have said about tuition. Now you realize how you sound.
You make claims and back it out with biased general opinions. Don't cry because you can't afford post secondary education. There is an option to not take it at all. No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to take it, its your choice, a freedom, something a Nazi communist like you would not understand.
Like you said, if this "high" tuition is forcing people to drop out, then drop out. Good, smaller classes for people who can manager their finances like me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3189575.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/education.cfm?id=160202007
A few harsh words, but lots of good debate and no one seems to be offended. Plus they know how to get in touch with me if there are deeper issues I didn't pick up on!
I would like to see the proof behind these claims. Also, the links must be reliable sources and not opinions or biased views. You use the wording "most countries" and "most of the world". Although it is hard to define exactly how many countries there are in the world, we will go by the UN so 192 countries. So to make it the most, I want to see proof of 96 or more countries.
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost05/education_pays_05.pdf http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/may/16/researcher_higher_tuition/
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=11100&pid=824
http://media.www.elvaq.com/media/storage/paper925/news/2005/03/04/News/High-Tuition.Decreases.Enrollment.Classes.In.Jeopardy-2534607.shtml
http://www.education.umd.edu/EDPA/CEPAL/Leads/Spring%202004.pdf
Nice range there, from all over the world, all with the same result. There's more if you need it. 2005: http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/sep/28wef.htm
In 2006, they slipped to second -- gasp!: http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm Uh...I'm not going to cite all the nations that have free post secondary, I've all ready mentioned them. I have better things to do than give you a crash course in European law and education policy. Same as the above, I'm not going to be arsed to give you a history lesson, it will suffice to demonstrate that the first free schools began in the 1850s and the drive for them continued from then on as the link between education and prosperity was established. http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/about/history/firsts
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/ All ready cited. It's clear you don't even read what is addressed to you.
Here it is once again: http://www.studentlifestyleguide.co.uk/education/studentpoverty.htm
Here a story from France, where education cuts have also been stepped up in recent years: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20061031/ai_n16830424 This is just common fucking sense, so I'm simply going to refer you back to the stats I all ready cited showing the increase of income with education. It's called sarcasm you sad, sad little puppy. But here's proof of the government fudging, if not out right lying, about spedning: http://thetyee.ca/electioncentral/2005/04/20/campbell-misled-public-on-ndp-finances/
http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/carryon/dcharbon/kdn04/fudgitbudget.htm
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/09/25/HealthSpending/
http://mikewatkins.ca/categories/2006/Sep/25
http://www.bccarpentersunion.com/view.php?id=155
http://www.creativeresistance.ca/awareness05/2004-sep04-education-bc-liberals-and-rhetoric-of-protection-kristina-llewellyn.htm
Various links, on various government projects, federal and provinical. The like? They say one thing, do another. 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 Most industrialized nations do, which this entire debate has revolved around, you can refer to the above site and stats on the matter. Unless you want to compare Canada to Rwanda and Somalia, in which case we're a great place to live! But when comparing us to countries in our actual league, we're really not looking too hot: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/14/unicef-canada.html
See, man, I don't lie. I base everything I say on the facts. Unlike you, who can't even read properly it seems.