On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
Does anyone ever ask the question -- Why is it so expensive? Or does this just escape everyone?
On March 13 2012 18:03 targ wrote: Speaking from the viewpoint of a former student and current taxpayer, I wouldn't mind subsidizing people who are learning something useful for the society, such as engineering or medicine or programming or accounting, etc etc. I would, however, not be very happy if my tax money was used to subsidize a bunch of students sitting around discussing something like art history or certain social subjects I've heard of (I heard a certain UK university has a class on David Beckham). They can do that - on their own money.
Programming/accounting more important than art/history/social sciences? Lol, give me a break. You can't be serious.
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
I have a very simple way of determining whether a course of study is worthwhile. How much money will an employer pay you after you graduate with that degree? By that metric, "gender studies" is worth about as much as a course in burger flipping at McDonalds.
Teachers need to get paid somehow, which is why they get tax money. Internet requires money too but you can get half a lifetime of education from Khan Academy for free, so.... in short, nothing in this world is truly ever free. Except air.
On March 14 2012 04:09 Areon wrote: Teachers need to get paid somehow, which is why they get tax money. Internet requires money too but you can get half a lifetime of education from Khan Academy for free, so.... in short, nothing in this world is truly ever free. Except air.
Air isn't free. It costs resources/capital (land / plant life) to produce oxygen (or Air). TANSTAAFL.
k-12 should be free/mandatory in all countries that can offer it (thankful I live in the western world where this is already in place).
Secondary education should have something like "maintain "x" grade average and we'll pay up to 3/4 of your tuition or 100% of it"
1/2 should be paid (I think this is how it is in canada, goverment pays 1/2 of all tuition) regardless for post-secondary. World needs ditch diggers but it also needs quality professionals and it shouldnt be out of reach for anyone.
Yes it should be free, or as close to free as possible. Your academic success should not depend on the income of your parents. It's not only fair, but also a societal waste of talent to deny young people the chance to fulfill their potential.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places. However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
I find going to college just to get a high-paying job instead of trying to actually educate yourself to be saddening and pitiful.
I think there should be a fee, but a fee that is covered by the college/government depending on the student's HS/college grades. Like a person with high grades should have to pay less than a person with low grades. Incentive to learn.
I've always found it weird, though, that you have to pay for intelligence, and then those dumbshit reality TV show stars get paid to be stupid.
On March 14 2012 03:43 Nagano wrote: Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
You reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million (given that all ages choose to go to higher level education), then what? Instead of getting government assistance in one form, they get it in another through education which is vastly more expensive, solving no budget deficit issues whatsoever, just making the problem worse.
There is also no difference between state and federal programs, the opportunity cost is still the same for both institutions. Granted the fed can print the money and inflate the currency, but is that a solution? No.
You seem to think government has infinite capital...
Let me tell you one thing, education even if it seems to be highly expensive (in terms of state annual budget) it pays off 10x or more if properly done. Highly skilled workers (generic term) will produce a hell lot more income to the budget than a sheep herder (extreme comparison but it works). It's up to the "government" to ensure high revenues to its budget and a healthy economy ( by fostering high level education and a healthy economic environment that emphasize on high level qualified workforce). But lets have a look at US/Apple and China (just an example). That's a major WTF but a good example.
Making school free just doesn't make sense because there would be nothing stopping someone from getting a good education in Canada, and then moving to another country that pays better (example - USA).
Education should be available to everyone, same as food, same as a home, also the ability to pursue a hobby etc etc. Just because it should BE doesn't mean we can soak up all of the costs involved because our country is already in too much debt trouble.
Favoring elitism with grades is stupid for so many reasons, and I would rather it be just expensive but anyone could go. You should never exclude people based on grades because someone might have personal issues (parents die in a crash, or they were raped or sick or anything like that) and now their grades slump. Are we supposed to tell them they're not good enough anymore? Now they have to work a crappy retail job?
I'm from Ontario and we pay much more than you do in QC, and I think you probably already struck a nice balance. In my opinion, I think schools need to do better at providing students with more summer work opportunities (would solve the cost problem). I think schools should have to work harder to ensure students get working after they get a degree because fees keep rising. The government should be doing a better job at controlling costs to the average citizen, but unfortunately the conservatives are in power now and they don't care.
On March 13 2012 15:42 Datz2Ez wrote: Hi fellow members,
Let's start first to give you the context of my thread I live in montreal, quebec, Canada. We live in a society that was founded mostly with left politic. Our health system is free and our education fees are low. At the moment, we pay around 1075$/semester (+/- 2000$/year) to go to university. Even if the fees our low, the average student end university with +/- 15 000 in dept. Our governement wants us to now pay 1600$/year more. In other terms, they are asking the students to double the dept they end with Students are now on strike and asking the governement to cancel the raise. You have to be aware that this only represent 1.2% of the global education budget so we are not talking about a huge sum.
Where do I stand? To be honest, I always tought everyone should have equal access to education. The best way would be to make it free. I think we should favor more an 'elitism' way of choosing the students by looking more into the grades.
I will not get into the details and argue on both side but I was really interrested to see what people all over think about education.
EDIT: We pay around 40-45% in tax... so yea we have low fees but we pay it back in some way.
P.S. This is no democrat vs republicans Forgive my poor english it is not my first language.
Well in Finland education is free. Most of good uni spots go to kids of rich parents anyway. I find it kinda weird that poor/lower-middle class have to pay for their education via taxes.
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places. However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
I find going to college just to get a high-paying job instead of trying to actually educate yourself to be saddening and pitiful.
On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way.
Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
Of course. I'm am from a very poor family, and I have worked since I was 16 while going to school. I studied very hard, and now I am going to a good engineering university and paying nothing. Being a white male, I didn't get any money for my ethnicity or anything like that, just private scholarships based on my grade.
It is very possible. You just have to work REALLY hard for it.
Guys you are ALL confusing me with this make education free thing. Education is FREE. You can learn anything with a bit of research.
Do not confuse education with the piece of paper and a prestigious university slapped onto it. the piece of paper is not free, but education is. colleges just make us think we are paying for high quality and exclusive education that cannot be found anywhere else.
On March 14 2012 04:34 zezamer wrote: Well in Finland education is free. Most of good uni spots go to kids of rich parents anyway. I find it kinda weird that poor/lower-middle class have to pay for their education via taxes.
I find your statement quite awkward, free education ... kids of rich parents getting almost all spots ... , is it free or not? Or is it something else?
On March 14 2012 01:16 liberal wrote: How much is New Jersey spending per classroom? $17,501 per student * 17.9 average students per class = $313,268 per classroom, at John F. Kennedy High School. If we estimate the teacher's salary at $55,000, that's $258,268 going somewhere besides the teacher. And this school isn't the exception, it's in the middle of spending. Abington Avenue Middle School spent $436,096 per classroom. In some schools, up to 90 cents of every dollar goes to something besides the teacher's salary.
Where is that money going? Waste, fraud, abuse, excessive administrator pay... Documenting it all here would be a serious task, so here's just a taste of it: Keansburg Superintendent Barbara Trzeszkowski received a retirement and severance package of $740,000, which is in addition to her annual pension of $120,000 per year.
Interesting statistics but as far as this "waste" goes, there are more expenses than the teacher's personal salary. You have 1. Rent for, and maintainance of, the property in which you teach. 2. Administrative personell (which should probably be around another 50k$ per classroom) 3. Cleaning staff, also salary for any fulltime maintainance worker, on a big school this might be several people. 4. Books, educational material, nowadays, computers and technical equipment. Also lab equipment, protection. 5. Extra expenses. (Perhaps you need to make sure you follow a certain standard or code set up by the state, requiring you to hire an expensive consultant. Or fix vandalism to a number of lockers. Etc)
Obviously this is a lot more than the estimated 55k$ per teacher. At least try to be honest when presenting problems such as this one. I'm sure there are a lot of problems and a 740k$ severance package is obviously unacceptable. A year's pay might have been more in line (rather than just over 6 year's pay).
Textbooks and educational material is another thing I generally found quite worthless at a high school level. Kids don't read them, and you don't need them to teach.
It was only in year 12 and at universities that I read textbooks seriously.
Too much gimmicks in education.
I'm amazed you think textbooks are gimmicks.
I'm not sure you're aware of this but some people learn better through reading texts rather than being told (taught) by other people. So it's rather irrelevant if, for you personally, the contact with your teacher was enough to get you through basic schooling or not. What matters is what works for everyone as you want everyone to get through basic schooling with at least acceptable grades, while still doing it at as cheap as possible.
On March 14 2012 03:12 Presidenten wrote: Why shouldn't education be free? Like this guy^ said, Scandinavia ftw. I get almost $400 a month, and I can lend about $900 at a very low interest rate from the Swedish government, for studying. I do of course have to buy my own books and stuff but other than that, university is free.
the problem is that nothing is ever free. you pay for it through your taxes. so, the question is not "should it be free," it is "should we raise taxes to pay for it?"
No fucking shit. What is with people repeating this? It's not like you refuted anything he said (in fact he didn't really even say anything).
Isn't it better to just dl those books or make photo copies of them? They're meant to be public knowledge for hundreds of years... pretty sure they intended to share that info...