Prentice student tuition Flip Flop

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by zyzz

Oh the children! Students can pay, life isn't a free ride. Students are generally smug and entitled.

This is untrue, asinine, and shortsighted.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

There's a few ways that I think money could be saved after just graduating from uni:
1. All degrees and post secondary programs are not created equal. Government should pull program subsidies by department. Humanities, Fine Arts, Social Science, and Kinesiology are all fine but if you want one of those degrees you'll have to pay a greater share of the true program cost. I'd rather keep math, science, and engineering well funded to ensure the best possible candidates are able to attend.

I've said this before, but there are wide array of skills you can acquire with a B.A. that you usually wouldn't with a B.Sc. Also, it's not like there aren't industries and opportunities,or social benefits directly related to these degrees.

[Husky]

I have no sympathy for students who major in areas and take stupid degrees for the sake of going to a post secondary school. If you go to school, do something where you have employable skills after.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I've said this before, but there are wide array of skills you can acquire with a B.A. that you usually wouldn't with a B.Sc. Also, it's not like there aren't industries and opportunities,or social benefits directly related to these degrees.

That's true. There are also a lot of people with a B.A. in psychology who now have student debt and no employable skills. It's not that we shouldn't have arts degrees, it's more that they shouldn't be the default option for people who don't know what to do next.

If you're passionate about creative writing or history, I'm all for you spending time to learn and contribute to our society in that way. If you're not sure what to do after high school, SAIT is probably a better option.

[Coach]

I work in a high level investment advisors team at a major bank. The advisor has 4 associates including myself. Those 4 have: BA Economics, BA Spanish/English, BA Psychology, and one without post secondary.

People who come out of university with an "unemployable" Arts degree are just making an exuse. The degree isn't the problem, its the person. Unless you need specific qualifications for something (Engineering, Accounting, Geology, etc..) job opportunities are everywhere as most employers look at a degree just as something that is difficult, that a person has committed to and completed. The perseverence and dedication are the qualities that most employers look for from undergrads.

Whether your degree is English or Engineering, its freaking hard work. It takes time and commitment. I know Engineers that couldn't write a paragraph about any sort of social issue to save their lives. The world requires different skills.

There is always going to be a select few riding their parents gift of school towards some random Arts degree just because it's the "easiest", but you can't judge all students on those plugs. Most people are genuinenly interested in what they study and are persuing to better themselves and by extention society. Lack of an educated voter population is one of the major issues with democracy in general, in Canada, and especially in the US. I can't see why people would be against investing more in education and helping those who are (generally) seeking to contribute in a variety of ways.

Not saying that people who don't go to school don't contribute, of course they do on a large scale. But that doesn't mean we should be crippling those who do. If school was free, (most) everyone would go. So a person goes to school, gets a degree (take your pick, let's say Fine Arts, since I'm sure most of the scientists look down their noses the most at that one) and they end up working construction, is that person still not better for having gone through school, if not careerwise, personally?

[pgsieve]

I think people also fail to realize the money generated by Universities through Arts and Humanities programs. These programs are significantly cheaper to facilitate, with no required labs or high end equipment. There is a reason why these classes have 400+ students in them.

I also know of a large body of science based degrees with low employability options. Even use Calgary Puck as an example. How many Arts students have you seen post - "I have an Arts degree but I don't have a job!" By the same stream- how many Geology majors have you seen post here.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If the justification for subsidizing is that we need people with employable skills, why are we only increasing costs for degrees where students end up with employable skills, and leaving the tuition for the less employable degrees the same?

This. The less employable/useful degrees should be subsidizing the cost of the others.

[GP_Matt]

I think the better solution might be to put a lot more money into needs based bursaries.
There are people who struggle to pay for tuition but I am really curious what percentage that is. Are 10% of the students going to suffer significantly or drop out if the rates go up or is it closer to 50%?
If it is only 10% then identifying them and providing bursaries would go a lot further than a rate freeze.

For the average student who goes to U of C because his family lives in Calgary and he can live for free $6000-$7000 a year for tuition should not be a major issue. That can be paid by working 11 hours a week for $12 an hour. Or 40 hours a week all summer.

Granted, the costs go way up for people from out of town, from low income families and those with families of their own but I would guess that those people are already the minority.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think the better solution might be to put a lot more money into needs based bursaries.
There are people who struggle to pay for tuition but I am really curious what percentage that is. Are 10% of the students going to suffer significantly or drop out if the rates go up or is it closer to 50%?
If it is only 10% then identifying them and providing bursaries would go a lot further than a rate freeze.

For the average student who goes to U of C because his family lives in Calgary and he can live for free $6000-$7000 a year for tuition should not be a major issue. That can be paid by working 11 hours a week for $12 an hour. Or 40 hours a week all summer.

Granted, the costs go way up for people from out of town, from low income families and those with families of their own but I would guess that those people are already the minority.

There's a few things you're not factoring in:

- Cost of living, in most if not all Canadian cities with decent schools is relatively high. If you want/need to live near the school, potentially even higher. Living at home is a potential solution, but not all kids live at home for free. Plenty of people I know started paying rent (albeit generally lower than market) at 18 in their parents house. Even ones who came from wealthier families. Not to mention other costs like books, food, non-essential things (which with phones and computers increases pretty substantially), and we all have to have fun sometimes if we don't want to blow our brains out. Since we're at Dec 24, Christmas can be especially daunting for a student.

- We're not just talking about the rate of people that have to drop out because they can no longer afford it (which itself is seriously tragic. Like come on, you already drop a few grand on this place and they just "sorry, too expensive now" and you're left with nothing to show for it? F*** that). We're also talking about the people who would have/could have gone before and can't now, and those in the future. That number can't be known, but it should be a consideration.

I wish much more of our funding was allocated to education instead of other things. How could it not be anything but good to have the world's smartest workforce?

[GP_Matt]

I may be jaded because we hire a lot of summer students and to a person they always seem to want a month off in the summer to travel.

If they can afford to take a month off and travel during the summer they don't seem that hard done by.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I may be jaded because we hire a lot of summer students and to a person they always seem to want a month off in the summer to travel.

If they can afford to take a month off and travel during the summer they don't seem that hard done by.

I got a summer student job at the firm I currently work at as a student. And I couldn't believe how they fell head over heels for me beccause i could FILE properly. Like who can't do this?

Then I got wind that summer students were generally kids of the people that worked their and weren't actually interested in carrying on in the industry.

Again, that's a problem with that particular person (and whoever hired them), not a blanket sweep of all students.

In regards to travel, some people would rather spend their money on experiences than save in TFSAs and RSPs etc... How people spend the money (even the little they have) is their business. Many student friends I have would basically bankrupt themselves to travel in the summer. But they came back, found a job and continued to go to school. If you're going to hire a student, someone who's life is going through great changes and uncertanties as it is, you have to expect some volatility.