free tuition! and a new crop of money trees.
do you realize how many young people have no idea why they're in university getting their liberal arts degrees in the first place? and the gov't picks up 75-80% of the tab. at some point you have to balance idealism with pragmatism. this gov't has done that by asking students to pay their fair share, and the schools are happier b/c under the ndp's election campaign freeze they were starving.

The BC Liberals have failed the young, the poor, women and displaced workers with a rhetoric-rich, reality-poor approach to education.

They promise new seats, but do not adequately fund these new FTEs. They let institutions rely on fund raising (begging) to pay for new facilities. At Malaspina we compete with hospitals, food banks, women's centre for money.

Their decision to scrap the Industry Training program and fire all apprenticeship counsellors in the province has set back apprenticeships by years. Their insistence on the development of "McTrades" training will provide workers with limited mobility.

The tuition increases are affecting people's decisions to go to school or find low-wage employment. They also ended many financial supports for students, including the grants program.

They stopped the part-time vocational funding that provided citizens with access to short community education courses that helped people upgrade quickly and cheaply.

Bill 28 - though not yet implemented by employers -threatens academic workers with no control over many working conditions. As for salaries, two years of zero and a year of 1.5% will not attract new faculty to institutions.

I could go on - and on, but it is enough to end by pointing out that the Campbell government does not appreciate that the post-secondary education sector was once a system. Now it is a collection of competing interests, including an expanded and very expensive private education sector.

They have done a bad job.

"Another problem has arisen with the credentials race: lack of capital investment. For at least a decade, post-secondaries have been functioning with almost no slack in the system. It's a seller's market. Classrooms are full, computer labs are jammed, and spare offices don't exist."

The article seems to be about lower tuition fees. But this line is very telling. We needed investment in post-secondary education.

He also states that educated workers make a lot more money. Well, paying a few thousand more dollars now to make hundreds of thousands possibly millions more is the future is really not that bad.

Many people don't realize you need to spend money to make money. There needed to be market correction in tuition fees otherwise we would have been left with a post secondary educations system in shambles.

sirjohna, thankyou. I may not agree with you but at least you stated something that contained an actual idea or two and not just a raspberry.

The trouble is across the board as far as I'm concerned. Virtually all the political elites end up demonizing and/or damning by association almost anyone connected with the educational systems, primary, secondary and post-secondary. It seems reflexive. Students are ungrateful, teachers are inflammatory, professors live in ivory towers, institutions are money hungry and on and on.

Many young people who might have once thought of teaching as a possible carreer path have very likely been forced to question or even abandon the possibility because our political elites have done such a fine job of belittling and demeaning teachers. (Same is now true of nursing and other on-MD health care professions but that's another story. Ditto the civil service.)

After the second world war the government provided free univertity for returning veterans and gave them money to live on. The result was the biggest growth in Canada's economy ever.

The right-wing has to stop looking at education as an expense it is an investment with returns many times higher.

It will result in more productivity gains than tax breaks for people who don't live in Canada.

I agree whole heartedly, Mel. JIm says you gotta spend it to make it and I agree whole heartedly with that too. But if the spending (investing)is done by individuals who really can't afford it (read: most of university/college students)rather than the community (i.e. taxpayers) then there'll be a lot fewer investors and ever diminishing returns until that point where we achieve JIm's vision of a third world nation. I'm not opposed to having some contribution from students and/or their families but it should also be according to their ability to pay (much like medical services)

I certainly did not say that everyone should be going to university to get a liberal arts degree. There are definitely many students who are in university for the wrong reasons, doing the wrong degree for them. Many of them are there because it's what's expected of them by parents and by the system, and because they can afford it. Many come out with an undergraduate degree and cannot find a job or don't know what to do next because university does not and should not teach job skills.

We are expecting more and more from a university degree. Just as we are downloading social responsibilities from parents to teachers in the public school system, we are downloading job training skills from employers to universities. It is a cumulative effect. The more parents offload onto the school system, the more things get pushed further upstream.

It is sad that universities are taking in students who cannot write a simple essay and have never heard of time management. I feel that children are being driven towards university degrees like cattle, poorly prepared and ill-informed about the consequences.

If you can get a student loan. Why not take that money and INVEST IN YOURSELF? You will make it back. It's not even a risky investment.

You need to find the right balance between tuition and the universities ability to expand and continually make investments in their service. If a university cannot increase revenue against inflation. What happens to the quality and access to education? I would say it doesn't help.

That is why I find the NDP especially hypocritical. They froze tuition and didn't replace that with enough funding to offset those costs, putting post-secondary schools into very tough places. Now it looks like they will do the same. They are scoring political points not helping out students.

J1M, speaking from personal experience, when I finally got out of university/BCIT, I had a 30 grand loan to pay off. In ten years. Now, had I been an American, I could probably have quadrupled that amount.

But you're right about one thing; education is an investment that almost always pays off. Not just for the individual, but the nation and the province as well. That's why America is facing a shortage of qualifed college graduates and we've got a surplus.

Also, studies show you really don't get a better education from the private system. Ask anybody how much a Devry degree is worth (from any school but Calgary)

In conclusion, we need more government funding, not less.

The Alma Mater Student Society of UBC has been working very hard to get PSE on the agenda, but to no avail.

The AMS has set up a satellite website devoted to providing information on educational issues related to the provincial election.

The website features information on the AMS' top post-secondary education priorities going into this election, news releases, and an interactive weekly poll. It includes images and audio clips from the AMS' public awareness campaign.

Please visit: studentsforbc.ca before you vote on May 17th!

sirjohna or JIm.

Could either of you explain to me why free post-secondary tuition is the norm across the western world, yet two countries (Canada, US), seen as having among the best standards of living anywhere, will fall into fiscal collapse if we collectively invest in our future workforce?

I think I know, it's that collectivity word, right?

When I was 18 nothing was going to stop me from going to university. So I took out a student loan, Saskatchewan and Canada. I started at the University of Saskatchewan, but decided to take a degree course in BC. I had to keep taking out Sask Student Loans because those were the rules (stick with the province you start in).

The BC gov't at the time had loan forgiveness, bursaries and scholarships, I believe- however I was not eligable (Saskatchewan being a have not province(?) did not offer these same benefits - this issue of disparity between the provinces of Canada is an important one). The school I went to only had a few small scholarships, while a friend at SFU was able to go through her entire undergrad degree on scholarships because she maintained a high GPA.

In 1997 the Federal gov't changed the rules for student loans so that students could not declare bankruptcy for ten years after graduation. To add insult to injury, if a former student did take another class again- even if they paid for it with their own money- the clock was reset! (see horror stories here: http://www.canadastudentdebt.ca )

This move was/is intended to protect the Royal Bank which took on student loan administration in the mid-nineties (among other banks). I still have my account with them, and am paying on my very large loan (over $35,000) at a interest rate of 'royal bank prime' plus 2.5% which is currently at 7%. I could get a house loan for less than that.

However, I cannot afford a house or condo while my student loan payments are so high. I have another 5 years to go at this rate. After graduating I applied for interest relief, and used up 5 year's worth before getting a job that allowed me to repay my student loan. I haven't done the math- but the amount of money the Canadian gov't will have already given to the Royal Bank for my 'interest relief' will be significant, in the thousands of dollars. Why wasn't that money (and the money spent to administer my loan) not used to give me a grant to study in the first place?

It irks me most of all that the Royal Bank is profiting off my eduation.

I don't know how students are supposed to come up with all the money it takes to live and pay tuition before or during a program. I worked when I was in school to pay for the expensive materials we needed for my program. I lived on about $830 a month which came from my loan, I worked in the summer, but only made enough to cover my expenses over the summer. I knew a few crazy co-students who worked full time while in our full time course, but the quality of their student work was really low. I wanted to focus fully on my studies, and I'm glad I did.

I'm proud of what I learned during my school tenure, but the price of paying it back, and lining the pockets of the Royal Bank is maddening. And I know with tuition fees rising it's going to be even harder on the current crop of students.

I think our current system is wasteful and short-sited. We need a well educated population for many reasons. It is in our best interests to support as many people who are interested and able to enrich themselves, and our communities by spending a stressfree (at least monitarily) period at one of our higher institutions of learning.

typical lefty nonsense allan. the gov't picks up 75-80% of the tab but it's not enough for you. if it were completely free we'd have even more starbuck's barristas with liberal arts degrees.

education is a essential service,
cheap rent means a low paying jobbb,,,,
i get paid for my knowledge,, how gratifying,,
in canada no one is dennied suppport,,
i like that,,
living for the end of the month is not a career choice,,,, so,take care of yourself o.k.

Stories like Mary Jane's scare me. I don't want to get a student loan, but I love going to University. And no, sirjohna, I haven't figured out what I'm going to do. But since when is education ever a waste? To cope, I've applied for scholarships, worked a part time job, lived at home in order to avoid student loans. Something is wrong with this picture!

This is turning into a referendum on the meaning of higher education.

The choices seem to break down into: (a) it's for getting a decent job, and (b) it's for self-development.

Both are valuable goals, and I suppose you could make a case for supporting both through the public till.

But the stronger case is for (a).

That's because fairness dictates that a loan should be repaid. If I borrow a lawnmower, I'd better be returning it in good condition with a full tank of gas.

It's pretty clear that those who are going on to decent jobs are going to be refilling the gas tank -- well, paying taxes anyway.

The self-developed may continue to ascend along the plane of enlightenment forever but without a steady job, they ain't paying back nuthin.' Consequently I don't see why there should be heavily subsidized tuition for courses that don't lead to sweet gigs.

'Course, it's hard to make the argument that liberal arts won't lead to gainful employment, since there's nothing better for pre-law than, say, philosophy or English.

sirjohna, so what's your preference? Under-educated, unemployed people desperate to graduate into a minimum wage ghetto?

As for the Starbucks barristas with liberal arts degrees sirjhona, I wonder why corporate BC has never followed through on delivering all those private sector jobs their Liberal party friends promised voters our bosses would create.

In fact hasn't BC business been using that line itself for years now when it's fishing for support for its favourite political party?

I think a lot of those barristas likely wonder the same thing after investing in post secondary education.
But then, I suppose they also have the option of applying at McDonalds' or A&W with its $6 bucks sucks pay rate, if the coffee scene isn't so hot.

Besides, if you are stuck doing front-line service sector work in an eatery, I'd bet a liberal arts degree would be as useful as any other degree.

The Greens will lower tuition by 5% a year. We will provide bursaries. Forgive 50% of every student loan when a graduate works in BC for 5 years after completing degree. Money from taxing pollution would help pay for this, as well as taxing marijuana.

sirjohna -

May want to actually check your facts before spewing off random estimates.

I go to SFU - tuition accounts for 50% of revenues. You can ALSO take note that professors are mandated with half teaching/education and half research. Universities are half educational institutions and half research institutes.

In this sense, by contributing 50% of the revenues, we are paying for our ENTIRE education.

Also, allan makes an excellent point. Comparisons to the U.S. system are such a ploy. I'm studying in Prague right now in exchange. University is fee. Finland - free. Sweden - free. Higher education is free or with nominal fees across Europe. The UK recently introduced tution. The number of students of lower socio-economic status has plummetted.

Excuse my typos - message was written with significant frustration.

seannor - that sounds like a good direction.

One must always be aware that education for it's own sake is a notion that embodies a latent threat to certain power structures within our society. Much better to allow education to devolve into mere job training.

Education for it's own sake can result in far too many citizens insisting on exercising their sharpened critical faculties.

Starting in the 80's right-wing ideologues have been attacking public education and branding universities with the "ivory tower" label to discredit them.

The right-wing realised that the more educated the population the less likely they were to vote for their black\white definitions of issues. We can see how effective it is in the U.S. by the election of George W.Bush. This hasn't been as effective in Canada because of the success of centre\left political parties which disproves a lot of the the right-wing ideology.

This is one of the good things being exposed to so much of U.S. thinking because we see a lot of what doesn't work. Now we see in parts of the U.S. they want to use the bible as a science text book.

The peasants who settled Canada and the U.S. realised how important education is so they set up a public school system. Lets make education free for those who want it. We can't deny education to smart people because they can't afford it. They are the future of this country.

seanorr; please please please please please could you tell me the location of the money trees? my line of credit is killing me.

Spot on Banquo's ghost. Educating oneself for the sake of personal development (and by extension community development) is a huge threat to extant power structures. Thus better regard schools of any kind starting from pre- as meat grinding factory. Dumb it down and dumb it down... produce workers and any cost (well... ok not any cost) avoid producing citizens

sirjohna

Care to respond to the debunking of your arguments, instead of shooting off rhetorical one-liners?

sirjohna

the business entertainment deduction which pays 50% of the cost of restaurant meals, hockey tickets etc. cost the taxpayers 1 Billion dollars a year. Perhaps we should make people at the top end of the economic food chain pay for their own meals or seminars in the caribean.

Let's not forget the taxbreak for leasing and gassing up vehicles.

There, I have probably found enough money to pay all the tuitions in the country.

avh; i promise a response if you'll just let me in on the location of those wonderful money trees.

It really comes down to pay now or pay later, for both student and government. Full support for institutions from government + free tuition for students + cost-of-living grants for low income students. (Sliding scale for grants depending on ability to pay.) Put this together with a fully-funded and well-organized apprenticeship program, and you will have a highly educated, motivated, and self-sustaining work force that creates its own jobs. Small businesses + well-educated, well-trained workforce = sustainable, stable economy.

Money tree, money tree, money tree. You're really getting quite repetitive sirjohna.

The only thing I've ever seen that looks like a money tree was the tax cuts given to the wealthy by Gordon Campbell.

Now that was fiscal and social madness.

Campbell's money tree Is called taxes and and fines forgiven for fish farmers and of course the wealthy.

Sirjohna, you greatest problem is you know the NDP did a better job of balancing the books than this current government, you've seen the auditor's report for 2000 and 2001, but you just can't seem to mouth the words, can you?

Hey man, it's official history, signed, sealed and delivered to the Liberals when they took office in 2001.

I'd suggest you're the revisionist pal. Please, quit repreating obvious political lies that Campbell and Co. are making up.

ameynert, I really like your recipe for better post-secondary funding and subsequently more graduates bringing 21st century knowledge and skills into the workplace.
This is what I thought Canada's employers have been complaining about for years.

Have they filled all those jobs they can't find educated people to fill.

Or do these educated workers piss you off because few of them will accept your Six buck sucks wage packages.

wrong again allan, as usual. the ndp is a bloody joke, and even most of their supporters know it. they only support them b/c they have no alternative. if carole james survives and manages to cut the umbilical cord to the big unions they will have to create their own party, which would also be a big bloody joke. as a result the libs will be in power for a very long time to come, so you'd better get used to them brother.

The Greens will lower tuition by 5% a year. We will provide bursaries. Forgive 50% of every student loan when a graduate works in BC for 5 years after completing degree. Money from taxing pollution would help pay for this, as well as taxing marijuana, gambling, a ten percent junk food tax, the cancellation of harmful mega-projects, keeping Jobs in BC and subsidising made in BC goods, value added forestry including preventing raw logs from being shipped out, and investing in the long term, not just the next election.

sirjohna sez:

"please please please please please could you tell me the location of the money trees?"

He should look in the vicinity of the Olympic Village perhaps? Or temporarily on loan to the Libs so they can shovel it off the back of the campaign bus like they've been doing.

Strange - we can apparently afford to pay millions and millions for what amounts to a great big party, but we can't afford to educate our own children?

What's with that?

"they only support them b/c they have to alternative,' offers our resident right-wing sage.

For a minute there sirjohna I thought you were commenting on all the former Socreds, Tories, fascists and fellow travellers who ran to the Liberal Party in 2001 after the right-wing's former power base (Social Credit) choked itself to death on a meal of greed, political pork, lies and more than a glass of stupidity.

I think if you check out the executive of the BC Liberal Party today and compare it with the executive of Social Credit back in 1996 you'll find the same names.

Talk about any port in a storm! Talk about revisionists!

Actually JIm and sirjohna are turning me around. Why should we pay for someone else's education? What's in it for us? I mean, personally.

My two children are fortunate that the contributions to their RESPs are maxed out each year. They'll be able to go to the university or college of their choice. It is only in their best interest that fewer people will be able to compete with them for seats at their choice of post-secondary institution. Why should I lobby government for more money for students when it could be a disadvantage to my children? Sure we'll see the gap of who can afford to go to university grow, but that's life I guess. The poor better work their tail's off and get a scholarship like I did (mine was athletic ... har har) or join Trump's "Street Smart" team.

Of course, I don't really believe any of that crap. We owe it the children in our province to make post-secondary opportunities stay in reach for the poor as well as the rich. And, hey, it just might be good for business! Ya, think?

Sean Orr says the Greens will reduce tuition by 5% a year. Take Cap College's $1,500 for a full semester in 2005. That gives us $1,425 in 2006, $1,353.75 in 2007, $1,286.06 in 2008, $1,221.75 in 2009, and $1,160 in 2010.

Not much real relief there, and government funding would still have to cover any increase in fixed costs; otherwise we're back in the days of Potemkin Community College, offering a false-front education system.

The problem with the tuition debate is that it's been framed on a dubious premise: That education is of far more benefit to the individual than to the society, and that therefore the individual ought to pay as much as possible of the cost. This is the position of the Fraser Institute.

I would argue that an educated population will not only pay far more in taxes than would a population of McJob holders; it will also be a healthier population, making fewer demands on the health system, and a more informed population, capable of making wiser political decisions.

A cynic might reply that all those grads in West Point Grey are voting solidly for the Fraser Institute's party (and what's more, those ingrates got their degrees when BA's were highly subsidized). Perhaps so, but that seems to me prima facie evidence that those folks just weren't educated enough.

I don't know too many post-secondary students who wouldn't want those savings Crawford. Consider the fact the tuition and inflation have been on the increase, a 5% decrease in fees would be incredible. It would be major relief. I wouldn't count on it though. The chances of that happening are about the same as the Greens forming government.

jtothemfk posted: "Educating oneself for the sake of personal development (and by extension community development) is a huge threat to extant power structures. Thus better regard schools of any kind starting from pre- as meat grinding factory. Dumb it down and dumb it down..."

When I went to school, teens were often cynical and anti-authoritarian, eager to devour material that showed the hypocrisy of the ruling class and well aware that their lives were being steered into a mode of thoughtless consumption. Maybe that has gone out of fashion. My point is, it shouldn't take much to make young folk question the world and their supposed destiny.

Along with the heretofore unmentioned notion that the value of education should be stressed by the parent(s), high schools (can) impart a basic desire for self-betterment.

What's pretty useless is the wandering drift through education as a stall. I knew lots of that type in university and, sad to say, might have been that type myself. I want people in university to be committed to being there. Buttressed by public grants and loans, for sure, but the biggest thing is to have the drive. If it was free for all, would it not be, well, a free for all?

My student loan payments are near $450 each month. I also had to use a line of credit to live on during my last year at UBC. Currently, I'm working full time and I also need to work part time weekends/evenings in order to pay off the loan, line of credit and maintain a minimum decent quality of life. I have the BC Liberals to thank for my 7 day work week.

ruby; thank god you have someone to blame. i know that's very important to you lefties. welcome to the real world sweetheart.

Ruby, don't mind that asshole just below you on this thread. That's the type of individual who the Liberals attract.

Loud, uncertain of who he is and the hostile and aggressive writing he is displaying in the last day or two appears to be related to stress or fear.

I suspect it's the latter because he knows a lot of Liberal MLAs, (not including those who baled even before the election), won't be returning to Victoria.

you're finally right about something allan. yes, a lot of liberal mla's won't be returning, probably 25 or so, but gordo won't mind that a bit. do you know how difficult it was to keep 77 politicians happy for the last 4 years?
as for the writing, i'm just trying to have fun before my contract expires.

sirjohna, I have to wonder who you are, because you definately like to push people's buttons for the sake of pushing buttons, and your lack of substance combined with your last comments sexist overtones makes me think that you aren't really that well educated after all! Your "welcome to the real world" comment makes me feel sorry for you because you must have it pretty bad if you think Ruby's situation belongs in the real world. Were you unable to afford an education yourself? What's your story?

crazyfool; as i suspected you're not bright enough to understand. yes, ruby's situation does belong in the real world, it's called earning your way. as i did, as everyone should do, b/c you'll be a better person for it in the long run. constantly taking from the gov't as you lefties persist in demanding is counterproductive to individuals and society, and that's the real difference between the left and the right. it's also why so many on the right have such contempt for extreme lefties. they're bloody tired of paying, not only their way, but someone else's too. best of luck in achieving enlightenment crazy.

It's hard to achieve enlightenment when you avoid answering the question put to you and go off on another of your right wing rants. In not responding directly, you confirmed my thoughts of you and your reality. You are bitter because you have had to earn your way in life and never had a helping hand from anyone. You have not achieved enlightenment yourself, because the true lesson in this life isn't about taking care of yourself and being totally self-absorbed. It is about caring for others and helping them to become better people. Earning your way sure didn't make you a better person as you assert it would. Rather, it made you a bitter person unwilling to help others!

sirjohn, the money tree is called "chartered banks". Since they've been deregulated and the 20% reserve demand abolished by the great Mulroney in 1991 in Canada's case, the banks are permitted to use the collaterals they're creating and loaning money against as their own assets. This permits them to create more money out of the air, using their own loans as collaterals ad infinitum. In short, since deregulation "Money ceased to exist at a certain level and became a licence to control resources/energy, issued by a special interest sector for its own benefit" This has resulted in an incredible degree of inflation going into overcapitalization to deprive billions of their livelihoods and lives. This is called enslavement. "Neoclassical economics have now become the biggest crime wave in human history, killing more people on a long term, daily basis, than both world wars and the death camps of Stalin, Hitler and Mao put together." "Profits are also a form of taxation without responsibilities, or accountability ". These are my definitions and laws. I also hold the 1991 copyright on the only scientifically correct definition of economic efficiency, that says, in more words "Costs can not be cut, only transferred on other sectors, or the environment" "Monetary costs are not realities, but often violence induced temporary perceptions, therefore can not be used in economic calculations". Therefore, if we we can have a monetary system created for the benefit of a sepcial interest class, without any responsibilities to humanity, we could, or can have one for humanity's benefit. It would only take a bit of courage for people to stand up and demand their legal and human rights for survival and creative lives. By the time I was 21, I've lived under 5 different monetary systems, therefore they're no untouchable icons, but, as in the case of the US Dollar, worthless, outright fraud.
By the way, if you're such a big hero in defence of your ideas, why do you have to hide behind a nom de plume, instead of standing up for them ? Ed Deak,Big Lake,BC.

strong late charges by crazy, whose message was pretty much incomprehensible considering all of his assumptions were wrong, and fiat, who must have his head firmly inserted where the sun don't shine. keep up the good work gents, better late than never.

Good reply, my friend, excellent example of the level of your intelligence. Mr.Campbell must be proud to have you in his ankle biting section. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

actually my contract ends tonight big ed.
by the way, where is big lake?

Big Lake is a small, ranching and acreage lot mining community in God's Country, the Cariboo, about halfway between 150 Mile House and Likely, with a high percentage of European, big city, now including American refugees. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

To the person back there (sorry, I tried to find you again to address you by name, but I couldn't find you quickly and I'm kind of in a hurry) who had a progressive attitude but was fearful of higher education being free because it would let a lot of non-serious students in. Here is how I would solve that one: entry into higher education would depend on how good one's marks were in high school and this would mean everyone over a certain grade point average would get free higher education and anyone under that grade point average would not--EVEN IF their rich parents could pay for it!

I know that this system would cause other problems: i.e. suppose a student is having a traumatizing family life that prevents him or her from being able to study, or supposing the final exams are geared to letting only elites in, etc. But, in a truly progressive society that believes in free higher ed if you're smart enough and not if you're not (regardless of whether or not you're rich), these other problems would be being worked on too.