News   Nov 12, 2024
16 Storey Tower Proposal South of Warden Station Grows to 27 Storeys
 375     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
News Roundup for November 12, 2024
 446     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
Financial Core Nightlights
 509     0 

Should post-secondary education be a Right?

  • Thread starter Abeja de Almirante
  • Start date
A

Abeja de Almirante

Guest
I'm debating with a friend on whether post-secondary education in Canada should be a Right, meaning that no matter how intelligent or financially able you are, the government should guarantee you either a post-secondary university, college or trade-school/apprentice education.

I'm of two minds. On one side, we need a well and relevantly educated work-force, and only through education can we acheive that (unless we continue stripping developing nations of their educated classes - something I do not support). However, at what point does the government and tax payers responsibility for the nation's education end? Should the government ensure that everyone with the necessary IQ can get their BA, but that their Masters and PhD is on their own coin? However, if a BA becomes (or has become) the 21st Century version of the High School Diploma, i.e. the minimum, then IMO there is something wrong with our secondary school system.

What I would like to see is strategic education support from government. If we need more tradespeople, then money that would go to teaching BAs in Philosophy and Sociology should be redirected to tradeschools. Anyway, that's off topic....

Should post-secondary education be a Right to all Canadians?
 
Would you support stripping developed nations of their educated classes?
Click to expand...
A fair question. I suppose I've concentrated on developing nations, since their educated classes, meaning those best able to contribute to the growth and development of the country are such a small percentage of their population. This is not the same as Canada recruiting MBA or Engineering grads from Western Europe or the USA, as they've got plenty to spare.
 
A lot of it also fall upon credentialism within the private sector as well - do we *really* need someone with a bachelor's degree for say, bank tellers, for example?

Yes, post-secondary/trades education should be a right, so long as you can get there.

AoD
 
"(unless we continue stripping developing nations of their educated classes - something I do not support)."

Would you support stripping developed nations of their educated classes?
 
Yes, post-secondary/trades education should be a right, so long as you can get there.
Click to expand...
But to what level? If post-secondary education is a right, does this mean the taxpayer has to cover to my Masters Degree? I like the idea of making undergrad degrees more accessible, but I'm somewhat adverse to the idea that the taxpayer is on the hook for taking care of adults' schooling well into their mid to late 20s. At what point do we consider our citizens as adults, and push them out of the nest to fly?

Good point on the credentialism. Though, if we've essentially decreed that a BA is the new high-school diploma, AND if those with OSSDs are not educated sufficiently in maths, literacy, etc. then we can't blame the bank for asking for BAs. Let's start by making a high school diploma mean that you've got the skills to work, and not just at McDs. My father completed high school in Europe in the 1960s, went into a sales job, and now earns a nice living, and runs his own firm. His high school education consisted of heavy work loads on mathematics, sciences, multiple languages, including Latin (needed, if nowhere else at church, since service was in Latin then). My father chuckles when we sees the high schooling today. One of my best friends is from India, and he is astounded by the low level of mathematics taught in elementary and secondary schools in Ontario compared to what he learned in India. He believes that we're setting the common denominator too low, thus making a unversity education essential to finish what one should have learned at high school (i.e. basic math, science, literacy, etc.).
 
That sounds reasonable - making a BA (or a College Diploma, apprenticeship) more accessible (cheaper), or free, as long as the student demonstrates that he/she has merit and is serious. Additional fees, such as housing/food plans, etc, should remain, but be eligible for grants/scholarships based on need (income and geographic).

There's few things I hate more than those who counter proposals like minimum wage increases or against user fees by saying "should have got a better education".

The problem with fee deregulation and saying the poor can get more grants to cover, is not the way to go. Somewhere there will be a low-income cut off point, where the lower middle class will be hit. Also discriminates against students from multi-child households, those whose parents can't help (like extra money lying around for RESPs) or won't help.

There's lots of grants and scholarships for grad school (that's how I got my MA paid for) - bump those up, but I don't see this as a big issue, as long as they remain regulated. Professional schools (after a full or partial Bachelors) should also have regulated fees so they are not a deterrent, but as they are more exclusive than the now almost-necessary BA.
 
"but be eligible for grants/scholarships based on need (income and geographic)."

Well, to a point...one might wonder why should we pay for Suzy's cross-country trek to UBC so that she can "learn more about herself" when she's perfectly capable of doing the same in a hometown school? (provided her hometown has a school, of course)
 
Post secondary education is already a right. The question is whether it is accessible to those who want it, and to what degree. That, in itself, makes the issue of accessibility an extremely complex question. By accessible, I include everything, ranging from cost, to the ability of individual students to carry out their studies. Just showing up should not be the benchmark for access.

The fact that possessing a BA has come to be considered the new high school diploma says something about the place of high school in society. Rather than isolating university education in a debate about rightful access, some clear consideration must be given to high school and its role in education.
 
Yeh- I agree with Bizorky.

"relevantly educated work-force"

Now that's another question.
 
The most significant problem in Ontario now is access to professional programmes. With tuition fees being $15,000 to $25,000 in medicine, dentistry, law, etc, not as many students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are considering those options.
 
You can't pick and choose which family you're born into, and because university age students are so dependent on their parents, access has to be made possible to everyone. If you look at the complete spectrum of people I met in university, some graduated with $50,000 owed in student loans, while others effectively received a monthly allowance of over $1,000 at age 20.

Neither situation is necessary fair, which is why financial assisstance absolutely has to be granted to those who need it. Everyone deserves the chance to enroll in any program they want, and everyone is entitled to go to a university 5,000 km away if they so desire. It's not as though you can help how much money your parents have.
 
Here's the deal:

It is to the advantage of the country economically speaking that everyone who is so inclined and of sufficient academic standing be able to pursue secondary education without paying tuition, etc. These costs are recouped several times over by the increased tax contributions by post-secondary graduates vs. non-grads.

Masters/PhD doesn't cost a whole lot in tuition, anyway, once you take into account scholarships, bursaries, grants and pay for acting as research or teaching assistants. From my experience, it's entirely possible for Graduate/PhD students to live quite comfortably.

A Bachelor's on the other hand, is expensive. Probably way too expensive. It should be free, in my estimation...

Now, whether people should receive subsidized education regardless of their intelligence (I suggest saying merit... intelligence alone won't get you there), this is already the case. If you don't meet the cut-off in terms of grades, you get turfed. Some programs are harder than others, and some have higher standards than others. As it is, undergraduate studies are already subsidized something in the neighbourhood of 50 - 70%.
 
I support entirely free education, not so much on economic grounds but rather for social reasons. I consider it a social good to have a highly educated population. Democracy can only function if citizens have the rational capacity to critique and understand their world.

In honesty, if I had the choice, I'd trade public healthcare for free access to education.
 
Re: Should post-secondary education be a Right?

NO!, it should be a left! ;)


if we want to compete in the global market and continue to be prosperous nation, post secondary education needs to be accessable to our population. times, they're a changing.
 
But almost everyone needs healthcare. Not everyone wants or needs a post-secondary education.

As appealing as free post-secondary education sounds, I don't think it's feasible. Keep the costs reasonable but the individual should contribute to it. After all, it's an investment for the individual as well as society.

If we were to start a new social spending programme, I would want it to be drug coverage or dental coverage.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top