A comment to my bit on Alberta PC Leadership candidate, Lyle Oberg, got me thinking about post-secondary costs in Canada. The comment brought up the standard arguement about the amount of debt that is borne by a graduating student, and this one drives me nuts.
First, post-secondary students in most provinces pay less than 1/3 of the cost of their eductation themselves. The rest is borne by the taxpayers, yet student's unions across the country scream that they need to pay less. They always say that the the government should "invest" in post-secondary education. And here's the hypocritical part...
When the government spends the money, its an "investment". When the student spends the money, it's "crushing debt". Why the difference in terminology?
The simple fact is, a university graduate earns considerably more, both per year and over a career, than a non-graduate. Why then isn't it an "investment" for a student to pay their own way?
Just by way of disclosure, I work in a job that normally requires university education, however, I've earned the job through job experience, not education. Essentially, every university student that I subsidize 2/3 of the cost of, is someone that I am paying to compete with me in the job market.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Most of those students screaming for lower tuition (or more free money to pay tuition) are studying in worthless programs like Women's Studies or Conflict Resolution or Sociology. Not only are these programs not preparing them for the job market, but they are so easy that the students have all kinds of time to involve themselves in extraciricular activities like protests and demonstrations over rising tuition rates. Thus, these programs provide the motivation (poor job prospects meaning difficulty repaying student loans)and the means (lots of spare time) to make noise over tuition fees.
teresa,
Does that mean that I, having not availed myself of the subsidised post-secondary system, should get a tax break now? My taxes are outrageous, and a chunk of them go to help people gain the skills to compete with me.
Honestly, I've barely been in the workforce for 15 years...total. I've been working in positions that call for degrees for the last 10 years, mainly because I don't need anyone to spoon-feed me information.
I take initiative, read a lot, and take risks at work by expressing my opinions.
Once, about 3 years into work, I had someone with a MSc. ask me where I studied for my masters in his field.
I can talk chemistry with chemists, physics with physicists, torts with lawyers, and stresses with engineers. And you know what, I didn't need the government to pay for 2/3 of that education...
Also by way of rebuttal, I've worked a total of 6 months on "government contract" and quit because I was disgusted with the fact that I was not eligible for any type of promotion simply because I didn't have a degree...regardless of the fact that I had both a deeper and broader knowledgebase than any of my coworkers.
teresa,
I love a good arguement, and you've been good enough to engage in one here! Thanks, and I concur on the "agree to disagree part"...
Just to defend myself one little bit, I've never used the term "lazy" with regard to students. I'll cop to "spoon-fed".
To open another can of worms, why is it that so many jobs now require university education. There was a time, not so long ago, that almost any job was available to the unschooled, provided they could show they had the requisite knowlege.
Take for example lawyers. There is a fine tradition of self-educated lawyers reaching the near pinacle of their professions. One prominent example is Justice Robert Jackson, Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court from 1941-1954 and the Chief Prosecutor for the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.
OK, I can accept that, Teresa.
What I cannot fully understand is some of the pointless requirements.
Part of my job is Project Management. To try and legitmize myself, I've gone through the process to become a certified Project Management Professional.
They have 2 tracks to become a PMP. One is for those with degrees, and those without.
With degrees, you need 3 years and 4,500 hours of PM experience. Without, 5 years and 7,500 hours.
Now, here's why it's senseless...the degree doesn't matter. I could have a B.FA in drama, and I would qualify for the lowered requirement.
And in engineering for example, it's not the actual degree that helps you, it's the P.Eng. The fact that the P.Eng requires the degree is the impediment. Same for lawyers, it's not the LLB, it's the Bar.
Would it not be possible (possible, not feasible) to have a way to assess knowledge? If I can prove that I know the law well enough to pass the bar, does it really matter where I gained that knowledge (maybe I've been sued so many times that I know the process)?
Post a Comment