Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[CampbellsTransgressions]

Originally Posted by nik-

I can't seem to find anything in the Liberal platform directly related to the oil industry. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I see a lot of "green energy" "climate change" stuff, but nothing relating to the industry itself.

This has me annoyed. I intend on voting for the Liberals, yet they can't be bothered to acknowledge an industry that is losing jobs by the thousands? Meanwhile they have come out with opposition/undecided opinions on some of the pipelines?

Trudeau gave us a nice spiel about his view on pipelines at the economic debate. It would be great if he didn't conveniently ignore them in his platform.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'm a policy nerd so I read through the Liberal policy book released today. Quite good. Very comprehensive and pragmatic. I think it would help restore some of the idiotic and demagogic moves the Harper government made.

Is that just the "Explore the Platform" link on their website or was there a separate PDF from their platform??

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10...ddle-class.pdf

[flylock shox]

On the education front, I think we need to drastically re-tool.

I'm of a mind that kids get enough "general" education by grade 10 (I know I haven't used anything I learned in most grade 11 or 12 classes - why did I spend all that time sweating over chemistry or quadratic equations FFS?).

I think it would make sense to convert grades 11 and 12 to the first 2 years of a 4 year undergraduate, so that kids can get a head start and be done their undergrad degree by the age of 20, and potentially a master's degree by 22 or 23.

That's not to say kids would head off to university at 16 - just that the first 2 years of university curricula would be completed in high school, with the latter two years completed at university. The Advance Placement programs at some schools already do this to a degree, but I'd go way further than that.

[nik-]

I would actually like to see more life skills taught in school. Not CALM, which was basically a one semester out of three years thing, but significant financial management courses, cooking and nutrition courses, communication skills. Way more valuable, imo, than another science or math course. Save those for electives.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by nik-

I would actually like to see more life skills taught in school. Not CALM, which was basically a one semester out of three years thing, but significant financial management courses, cooking and nutrition courses, communication skills. Way more valuable, imo, than another science or math course. Save those for electives.

Agreed. People just seem so unprepared for life these days.

[Ozy_Flame]

It is criminal that students are sent in to take on five or six-digit student loans with no financial planning being mandatory in their high school curriculum. It is the perfect time to educate young people on the upcoming financial burdens life will throw at them.

I do also believe that Physical Education should not optional in grades 7-12; it should also be mandatory, and this includes not just playing kickball in the school gym, but health and nutrition courses, basic kinesiology, orienteering, and medical training (CPR, making splints, treating wounds, etc.)

[Coach]

^^^ Agree with both of the above. Finance, nutrition, maybe a "basic human decency" class?

And I think adding the 1st two years of undergrad to HS curriculum is a great idea. Get the electives out of the way. However, this would pull funding from post-secondary and give it to secondary. But the basics (Stats, Calc, Eng, Humanities, Science req) could all be done in HS with relative ease IMO.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by nik-

I would actually like to see more life skills taught in school. Not CALM, which was basically a one semester out of three years thing, but significant financial management courses, cooking and nutrition courses, communication skills. Way more valuable, imo, than another science or math course. Save those for electives.

I think if the math/science etc is taught properly, the above skills could be covered in a class or two. It's when kids learn nothing about how to learn in their core subjects that you get adults trying to iron the clothes they're wearing.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I think it would make sense to convert grades 11 and 12 to the first 2 years of a 4 year undergraduate, so that kids can get a head start and be done their undergrad degree by the age of 20, and potentially a master's degree by 22 or 23.

Pretty sure they do something like this in Europe right now, where high school is much more streamlined towards a more specific path. Although I actually remember when I took IB in high school, my class was basically the equivalent of my 1st year at ACAD, which was a nice boost.

I agree that it would make sense to start streaming people in a general direction sooner. Not everyone knows what they want to "be" in high school, but typically most people have a general idea of what skills they excel at, and what won't be relevant. I almost failed Physics and Calculus, because by Grade 11 it was obvious that I was not going to need those types of skills in my career.

A more finance-focused CALM course would've had a lot more impact than struggling through another Physics class.

[opendoor]

I'm not sure teaching certain life skills in a school setting will have much of an effect. They teach PE but that doesn't mean teenagers are active outside of that. Similarly, they can teach financial planning and nutrition, but people are going to tend to fall back on what they learned from their parents. If they grew up eating unhealthy then a class in high school probably isn't going to do much to change that.

Financial planning would be a little more useful, but much like nutrition the concepts are quite simple; it's actually putting it into practice that is more difficult for people.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by opendoor

They teach PE but that doesn't mean teenagers are active outside of that. .

Mostly because dodge ball and square dancing are not things that can happen outside a school setting. Perhaps using PE to teach proper nutrition and tailor exercise regimens towards what a student wants to work on would be a better idea.

[Zarley]

A personal finance course including basic concepts like the time value of money and an introduction to investing should be a compulsory high school course.

[Table 5]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, I play parachute almost daily.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Mostly because dodge ball and square dancing are not things that can happen outside a school setting. Perhaps using PE to teach proper nutrition and tailor exercise regimens towards what a student wants to work on would be a better idea.

Agreed. Besides, teenagers can have lots of pent-up energy. Getting them introduced to a gym on a proper regimen can mean positive benefits in many areas of their lives, including fitness, confidence, time management, and overall performance. I remember when I was a teenager I thought to myself that I wish my PE teacher would help set a workout plan, especially since I was playing soccer and wanted to develop stronger leg muscles.

It also has the additional benefit to society by giving them an outlet for their energy, as well as improving preventative health care in the future.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Mostly because dodge ball and square dancing are not things that can happen outside a school setting. Perhaps using PE to teach proper nutrition and tailor exercise regimens towards what a student wants to work on would be a better idea.

That's basically exactly what my high school PE was like. I don't think I played dodgeball once past elementary school. In high school it was pretty much all team sports (soccer, basketball, floor hockey, volleyball, etc), running, and weight training. There was even a classroom component where they taught basic nutrition and healthy living that no one paid attention to.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'm not sure teaching certain life skills in a school setting will have much of an effect. They teach PE but that doesn't mean teenagers are active outside of that. Similarly, they can teach financial planning and nutrition, but people are going to tend to fall back on what they learned from their parents. If they grew up eating unhealthy then a class in high school probably isn't going to do much to change that.

Financial planning would be a little more useful, but much like nutrition the concepts are quite simple; it's actually putting it into practice that is more difficult for people.

You can say this about anything taught in school...

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by MattyC

- If logic says that the entry-level jobs for FA/Arts degrees are less available/lucrative, wouldn't that be more of a reason to have that education be cheaper? If they come out with $20k in student debt and can't find a job to support paying it back, we are automatically handi-capping that person.

I'd take the opposite approach. Fund the actual useful degrees like Science and Engineering so more spots are available and the best and brightest are able to attend regardless of the cost.

If you want to take a frivolous degree you pay the full cost of that degree, that should separate out the people who are actually dedicated from the people who are there just to be there.

Student loans need to be restricted more, I believe its the number one factor causing tuition to rise well above inflation. We need to have an honest conversation about who should go to University and who it's not meant for. As someone who graduated a couple years ago I have almost a dozen friends who are still in school floating through meaningless classes. They went to University just because it was "the thing to do after high school". Cheap student debt allowed them to go and not take it seriously, and now they've wasted 7 years of their lives and tens of thousands of government dollars for nothing. Adding on to that, a lot of them went to University out of town for no reason and are now crying about how much debt they racked up. I'm sorry, but you had your fun studying nothing and partying it up, and now the bill is due. I imagine that a lot of the people bemoaning their student debt have similar circumstances.

Universities keep charging more and people keep paying it because cheap debt is plentiful, its what caused university to go from something my parents easily paid for in the 80's to something that is much less affordable now. I fail to see how relaxing debt terms or further subsidizing degress that will almost surely have extremely low post graduate employment rates helps that more.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You can say this about anything taught in school...

Not really. Most core things taught in school are designed to improve your ability to think and learn. Every student doesn't do algebra or trigonometry because they're useful skills that they'll use later; you learn that type of stuff because it helps develop your ability to handle abstract concepts and think logically.

Sure you can teach financial planning and nutrition, but there's a huge step from learning what are extremely basic concepts and actually changing the way people have lived their entire lives. People who eat at McDonalds or drink a liter of pop a day don't do it because they don't know its unhealthy. They usually do it because they've grown up eating that way.

Not saying they shouldn't teach those things in school, but I think people are vastly overestimating what kind of effect it would actually have on peoples' behavior. Those are things that parents really need to be instilling into their children at an early age. Schools can try to mitigate poor parenting but there's only so much they can do.

[Looch City]

So when can we expect the next appeal from Harper CPC? Next week?

Zunera Ishaq cleared by court to take citizenship oath wearing niqab

The Federal Court of Appeal has denied the application for a stay of the Federal Court ruling in favour of Zunera Ishaq, clearing the way for her to wear a niqab during a citizenship ceremony.

Regulations have banned wearing of face veils at citizenship ceremonies, but Ishaq challenged the rule and won in Federal Court. On Sept. 18, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld that decision in a quick ruling from the bench. The federal government had sought a stay of the ruling and said it intended to appeal to the Supreme Court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/zune...iqab-1.3257762

And yes, this was ONE person. If this isn't an illusion and distraction created by Harper, then I'm not sure what it is.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I'd take the opposite approach. Fund the actual useful degrees like Science and Engineering so more spots are available and the best and brightest are able to attend regardless of the cost.

If you want to take a frivolous degree you pay the full cost of that degree, that should separate out the people who are actually dedicated from the people who are there just to be there.

Student loans need to be restricted more, I believe its the number one factor causing tuition to rise well above inflation. We need to have an honest conversation about who should go to University and who it's not meant for. As someone who graduated a couple years ago I have almost a dozen friends who are still in school floating through meaningless classes. They went to University just because it was "the thing to do after high school". Cheap student debt allowed them to go and not take it seriously, and now they've wasted 7 years of their lives and tens of thousands of government dollars for nothing. Adding on to that, a lot of them went to University out of town for no reason and are now crying about how much debt they racked up. I'm sorry, but you had your fun studying nothing and partying it up, and now the bill is due. I imagine that a lot of the people bemoaning their student debt have similar circumstances.

Universities keep charging more and people keep paying it because cheap debt is plentiful, its what caused university to go from something my parents easily paid for in the 80's to something that is much less affordable now. I fail to see how relaxing debt terms or further subsidizing degress that will almost surely have extremely low post graduate employment rates helps that more.

Alright, well first, who decides what's frivilous and what's not? And why does someone choosing something frivilous (let's say Film) preclude them from "wanting to be there"? I would argue that people largely end up doing things that our society deems as not-frivilous, purely because of the potential future monetary gains and not because it's something they actually like, excel at, or are interested in trying at all. Of course not everyone is meant for post-secondary, and I think the general idea that we HAVE to go to university is more of a detriment to the system than people taking frivilous degrees is.

My main point is that money should not be a motivator or inhibitor for someone attending post-secondary. You can't use the people who may leech off the system as the reason for not having a proper system in place. Healthcare and justice see plenty of people working the system, are those reasons not to have universal healthcare, or rights to an attorney? If you have a few people that got their english degrees because "it's the thing to do" and end up as a drain on the system, does it get offset by those who otherwise couldn't have afforded to go through engineering or med school but did and are bettering society for it?

The more money it costs to go to school, the less people will go into things that are low-paying, but crucial jobs. Social assistance, child development, non-profits, etc... We can't have everyone trying to get through engineering school just because it's the lucrative position of the day. We should want people to end up in positions that interest them, because that's where they will serve society best. People's personal feelings on the frivility of certain degrees is irrelevent. Your thoughts are predicated on the idea that, given the choice, a person would rather choose what is easy but boring, than what is difficult, but interesting. I don't necessarily think that's true.

I agree that the low-cost student debt is what has ended up with prices skyrocketing. If you take that part out of it (IE the need for students to pay their fees), the cost becomes more static and controllable. And yes, that cost would be to everyone through taxes, and that's where a lot of people will just come a full-stop "no", personally there aren't many things I'd rather spend taxes on.