1700 ideas posted
Lower the cost for students to attend school
Submitted by mvelluso 1 year ago
Especially grad students who got duped by Dalton's last education promise. We didn't get a penny.
I thought Dalton promised that it would be for undergrads.
Graduate education is already highly subsidized. There is no reason to believe that graduate school tuition should ever be lowered.
I think it is more fair to say that graduate school needs to be rethought in the present context, which is very different than in the past. In general, grad school has highly expanded in the last last decade and it has far more variation than undergraduate education.
PhD candidates should not be classified as graduate students, but like in some European nations, should be classified as employees. That would be more consistent with both their day to day activities and the purpose of PhDs. It would also provide science and engineer students with much needed employment protection in labs that can be highly exploitive and discriminatory (especially to women that are starting families).
Masters programs also need to be rethought. Some are basically extensions to undergraduate programs, while others are truly elite programs. In cases like information studies (which trains librarians and museum curators, for example), its hard to justify the current costs and the massive annual increases. In other situations, like executive MBAs that are paid by companies as a part of their training of employees, it may be more justified.
Given the fast expansion in graduate education, this is an area that needs more consideration.
what we need are more grants in the first year, for ontario residents...
if you survive first year, then the rest of your education should be at the full cost and then we can foregive portions of student debt after people graduate... if they have low income and pay taxes or reside in ontario.
I would prefer that entrance requirements to university become stricter and no tuition fee, as found in France.
I agree completely. Society benefits as well as the individuals. Higher education & degrees would have more meaning / value.
Not gonna happen unless you tell the government, the broke government, where to find the money to fund it. Hey, here is an idea: How about we stop funding segregated English and French Catholic school systems when one English and one French system would do.
Hi Leonard: merging the Catholic and public school boards has been posted here: http://commonground.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Merging-the-Public-and-Catholic-School-Boards/14081-25935
Thanks Jesse. I knew of the other post, but the issue is relevant here or anywhere there is discussion on inadequate funding for our truly essential social programs. Funding for Catholic schools is the elephant-in-the-room that must be addressed. It is probably the one line item in the budget that could contribute the most to deficit reduction and do so most easily.
We need to focus our efforts in preventing companies from making a university degree a requirement when it's not actually required. That will reduce the number of students that need to go to university.
A straight cut to the cost of tuition accomplishes nothing except subsidizes post-secondary education for the wealthy. A more progressive solution would be to forgive loans (up to 100% in cases where students and their families have no means of paying). I do agree though, that it should only be forgiven after a student graduates, providing motivation to finish the degree. It should be more clear though, as a student progresses through their degree, how much of their loans will be forgiven upon graduation rather than them having to guess at it throughout their studies.
The idea that tuition reductions subsidize the wealthy pre-supposes that the wealth of students is the same as the wealth of their parents. Students have no income and generally have few or no assets. There is generally no requirement for their parents to support them or their education when they reach University.
Using tuition as a form of income tax makes little sense given that we already have income taxes and the "tuition income tax" penalizes only those rich people that raise highly skilled children and is not as well managed as an actual income tax. If people want increased income equality, then they should manage that by raising actual income taxes and using it to subsidize services, like education, that help increase social mobility.
The work of people like David Autor has shown that income inequality is growing because of general trends in the labor market that are leading it to become polarized into high-skill jobs and low-skill service jobs. This appears to be partially the result of machines replacing certain tasks and partially because of exporting of middle-skill jobs. In the long run, if we want to help reduce income inequality and increase overall wealth in Canada, we need to promote and subsidize skill development so that we compete for high-skill jobs that can't be done by machines or in other countries. Subsidizing university and college education to the tune of 15-25% isn't going to cut it, especially when you consider the risk that students take on when following an education that other people have developed for them (as all educations must on some level be). When you consider opportunity costs and you really look at University budgets, that may be a pretty high estimate of what we are currently doing. We need to susbidize at least 30-40% of the cost of education, as we do at the high school level.
But are increased government subsidies of education affordable, considering the current budget situation? That depends on the expected rate of return of education. Think about government like you would think about a business. Would a business take on huge amounts of debt if they had an expected high rate of return and low interest?
Increasing income taxes does not typically generate the amount of revenue commonly assumed, as it encourages tax avoidance and evasion. Income inequality is not necessarily the best indicator, as retired individuals, who tend to have relatively low income, frequently own valuable assets (their residence). Income inequality is correlated with electoral quotient: Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have the highest federal electoral quotients and income inequality, while PEI has the lowest federal electoral quotient and income inequality.
Yeah good idea, subsidize it more...then universities will just increase prices and prices will be right back where they were but now we're paying more in taxes for the same university pricing.
How about we stop subsidizing degrees that are really hobbies (art history, women's studies, etc) and force the universities to charge the full cost. This would free up funds for programs that add value to society (science, medicine, pharmacy, education, engineering, nursing, etc).
It's extremely short-sighted and elitist to think of these professions and their ilk as the only ones that add value to a society.
I think that if graduates work outside the province, then perhaps we shouldn't subsidize them at all.
As a long term commitment, there should be a progressive lowering of tuition fees until there is none, when the economy has sufficiently recovered.
You realize that tuition fees only make up 1/3 of university funding, and although have been rising, mainly due to lower per capital funding by the province compared to other provinces.
Hey Status Report,
I can't speak for all universities, but at least at UofT 1/3 of the funding goes towards the indirect costs of research. And I don't believe that takes into account for the fact that much of the reason for the high wages of faculty is related to research, which is not related to quality of teaching. Nor does it take into account the fact that the largest cost of education in opportunity cost.
make education womb to tomb free
Student should not have to have these loans, they should be able to afford it with their part-time job they have (which they may not have, but that another problem we need to discuss). Have tuition to par with Quebec's which would be more government money. Instead of me paying 7 which I can't afford without as loan, rather I can pay 1000 or 2000 which I can afford and the government would cover the rest. This would lead to little or no student debt, so then students have more capital to pursue their careers.
There is nothing free, when we talk of lowering costs you should mention how much are you prepared to pay for that. Cheap or free education is great, but students don't realize that they will still pay full price only later through taxes. I would rather introduce more co-op programs where during education students have a chance to get some working experience and earn money for paying for education.
Why do you think education should be free? Schools (unis, colleges) are businesses. They sell - you buy. Too expensive? Don't buy. Let the free market decide the price. Maybe people will realize that university education is way overpriced and is not as necessary as one might think. Seek alternative education means. Take free online courses, read books.
Submitted by Charles Kuno 1 year ago
Submitted by Jon 1 year ago
Submitted by tdelville 1 year ago
Copyright © 2014
| Community Guidelines
All discussions in this forum are moderated by Ontario Liberal Party volunteers and are guided by our community guidelines. All posted comments reflect the views of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of the Ontario Liberal Party. Read More