Personally speaking, I started university and loved chemistry took on 10k debt for that degree, realized if I wanted the quality of life I had become accustomed too I would have to get something else that makes my skills more marketable. After doing some research decided an MBA was the way to go. What im gonna be taking on another 30 k in debt and have already spoken to the back on how to get out of it in two years. people don't realize is that 30 years ago the number of students graduating from university was smaller then it is now making an undergrad far more valuable, nowadays unless it's engineering a masters is the standard at Which a company sees you the same way they used too. Some of my friends have gotten huge job offers going the way I did and Ive received a few myself.
I have not once stated that having a degree will not result in higher wages than those who do not possess one.
Then what happened in post #698? You said: "The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" resulting from people with a degree simply does not even exist anymore." That seems to be an affirmation that " having a degree will not result in higher wages" to me.
Quote:
This is where those things I posted come into play. If you are deep into the red (which many students are), and wages are remaining stagnant in the workforce, while tuition and inflation is rising, then this investment is becoming less and less valuable.
But this is also true for people without a degree. It doesn't change anything to the fact that in 2012, if you get a university degree, you'll earn on average way more in lifetime wages than one without. You're saying that it's "less and less valuable" as an investment, but it is STILL an amazing investment. It's not the comparatively puny raise in tuition that will change anything.
If there's an investment out there that allow you to earn 100$ for every 1$ you put in the beginning, and that suddenly the rules changes and you need to put 1.20$ instead, it is STILL a great investment.
Quote:
This is the problem. College "investments" are becoming less and less lucrative. Students are getting little return for their dollar. And to top it off, this return is consistently shrinking.
Even if it is less lucrative, it is still a amazingly good investment. You could put the same money in stocks, or buy a house, and never come even close to that kind of return.
If there's an investment out there that allow you to earn 100$ for every 1$ you put in the beginning, and that suddenly the rules changes and you need to put 1.20$ instead, it is STILL a great investment.
Even if it is less lucrative, it is still a amazingly good investment. You could put the same money in stocks, or buy a house, and never come even close to that kind of return.
This. I don't think it's a coincidence that business students are less in favor of student strikes than their social science counterparts. Here in Laval, at their only assembly on the subject (2-3 weeks ago), the students voted 85% for the increase in tuition fees, they didn't even get to vote on the strike. However, to make this a fully consistent argument, the increase in tuition should be higher in med, law, business and engineering than in social sciences and education.
On a different issue, it's easy to play the accessibility card when you're against an increase in tuition fees. Facts are that the vast majority of students would still go to university because it's a good investment. If the increase in tuition fees was accompanied by greater financial help for those who can't afford the higher fees, accessibility wouldn't take a hit. It's a different subject, but I still can't believe I'm paying $7/day for daycare just like a single mom who makes $25k/year working in retail. That program may have helped her go back into the workforce but I'd be in the workforce anyway.
You seem to be restricting this to a very small portion of university's programs. What are you talking about here, information systems, graphical design? Computer sciences? Many of these degrees have proven to be obsolete or of little value within a couple years of graduating regardless of what technology you worked with.
Technology is not only used in those domains. As for technology being obsolete, you cannot be further from the truth. Technology evolves. You need to get on the train. Ofcourse a 2009 software is replaced by a 2010, by the knowledge is transferable, that...does not make the technology obsolete in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
Arts, and even to a great extent, the sciences, which make up something like 70% of degrees at university literally need none of these things.
My undergrad degree is in Arts. Let me tell you something, you can talk theory all day long, your understanding and assimilation of knowledge is far weaker when all you do is talk about your subject. You need to get your other senses involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
You also seem to be overlooking simple opportunity cost as a huge factor. Building on what I said above, why invest a huge portion of money to technology that can become obsolete rather quickly? Horrible investment for a university. Rather, you should be investing in things that retain their value over long periods of time such as excellent professors that can bring money in with their research and have teaching skills. Or recruitment services, which brings in the best students who will bring it money, and provide profs with valuable research.
Cost. That is what a tuition fee and the money that taxpayers pour into the educational system are supposed to cover. They need more. As for technology becoming obsolete, you are just wrong. Technology evolves. Tools evolve. As for retaining good profs and students...guess what is one of the determining factors in that? That's right, cutting edge education and an administration that is interested in pushing the envelope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
Lastly, you seem to be falling into the complete fallacy that the end goal of a university is to provide the "highest marketable skills." Sorry, but that isn't how it works man, and thank god for that.
That is a core issue, yes, I know that education is not job training. But if it does not produce usable skills for society, why should society pay for someone's passion for Theology? Anyone is free to study what they want, but they need to pay the piper, and some of that involves paying part of the cost for faculties that produce engineers, medication staff, software engineering etc. That is what is involved when you are part of the school community, costs are shared. Arts tuition pays for sciences, as taxpayers pay for all education. It is a collective. The question is where is the equilibrium, at what point are you paying too much for the return. Taxpayers in this province are already stretched to the limit, and regardless of what people think, public money comes from raising taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
The vast majority of university classes are a lecturer in a classroom. Little to no technology is needed to achieve this.
White board, projector, computers, web services .... all used in that setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
Technology that may be completely obsolete within a couple years of graduating. That's not incredibly marketable.
Again, untrue. Technology evolves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
You know how you get a job in this day and age? Communication skills. Reading and writing are the most important aspects of every single job, in every single sector. Technology has literally no effect on these completely timeless skills.
No effect you say. I disagree. While communication is of paramount importance, what is considered communication has changed. Social media, display technology, interactivity, animation... these are the ways that successful companies are communicating between themselves and with their customers. If you believe that technology is over rated, well... there may be a traditional industry that interests you. Hopefully it will not be over run by competitors you did not see coming.
Communication is far from timeless. We no longer chisel stone tablets.
From my e-mail. Concordia students got it, but for those not at concordia:
Quote:
Concordia's official position on student protests
Several student associations, including the Concordia Student Union (CSU) and the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA), have passed motions to boycott classes to protest the increase in tuition fees, as announced by the Quebec government in last year’s budget. I am writing to provide you with Concordia’s official position regarding this protest action.
First, as a student you have the freedom to decide whether or not you attend class. While the current protest action is being called a “strike,” the term “strike” is specific to employees who have a collective agreement with an employer. Students are not bound by an employee collective agreement and, therefore, are not eligible to “strike” and cannot be forced to do so by a student association.
Second, the university fully respects the freedom of students to express their views on important issues. We have been working with student leaders to ensure that the freedom to engage in peaceful and orderly protests is respected. Both the CSU and the GSA have advised their members to “avoid any action that would put anyone at risk of harassment or physical jeopardy.” Protest activities should not disrupt the functioning of the university nor prevent people from entering the university’s premises (buildings, classrooms, etc.), as provided by the Code of Rights and Responsibilities (Policy BD-3) [PDF] and Security Policy (VPS-20) [PDF].
Third, Concordia has a responsibility to provide services that are part of its agreement with its students, even if some students choose not to attend class as a form of protest. Therefore, the university will continue operations during these boycotts. All faculty members are expected to fulfill their current duties and responsibilities. Standard services will remain available and all instructional activities, including classes, tutorials, labs and studio sessions, are expected to be held as scheduled. The university has no intention of extending the winter 2012 term.
Finally, please be aware that all academic requirements for courses and programs, communicated at the beginning of term, remain in effect unless specifically modified by individual faculty members, and students are expected to fulfill these requirements. Students who choose to miss classes, or who fail to submit assignments, write tests or quizzes, may be subject to normal academic sanctions administered by faculty members.
For more information, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions about Student Protests [PDF].
Sincerely,
David Graham, PhD
Provost and Vice-President, Academic Affairs
See, this is where it's unfortunate you're not from montreal because you did not attend cegep here. If I recall, cegep was 131$ a semester, as long as you were full time. You could pursue professional degrees such as Mechanical Engineering Technology, HVAC, Nursing, etc... Along with more creative programs like photography, creative arts, theatre, etc...
All for 100-200 a semester. The price is 10 fold in uni, why? because university has a more challenging cirriculum and more in depth on the topics. However, if you're studying for non-monetary reasons, cegep can be done...people just go to university and waste their money, not my fault.
I know guys who did a 3 year DEC(as opposed to standard 2 year) and did an engineering technology based program. They make 40-50k as a technician and easily earn the money for their studies in university. There are ways to pursue your goals.
And this is great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian
Debt is not chains, so long as with that debt comes opportunity. Taking on debt is good when by doing so, you can afford yourself an opportunity you would have not otherwise have had.
Debt is the COMPLETE opposite of opportunity.
Quote:
Like I said, I'll have 20 grand in debt...and an engineering degree from one of the best engineering schools in the country to show for it.
Are you really saying that I'm fettered by my situation? Really!?
That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. That debt will be gone within the first year of my first engineering job, and I'll have likely tripled my earnings potential.
Don't really care about your situation, and if you notice it I didn't even address it last time.
Quote:
Debt is absolutely how the world works. I can only conclude from your statement that you're not an economics major.
I actually minor in economics. I understand how the 'world works' that doesn't make it smart or sustainable.
Quote:
I trust that you will avoid all forms of debt in your life, including credit, loans, and mortgages.
You would be correct.
Quote:
You seem to be in the trap of "I heard Ron Paul say something, and it sounds bad-ass, so I'll just believe it." Every single day people, corporations, states, provinces, and countries responsibly use debt and deficit spending to run their ****. It doesn't make us Greece
Oh god. So you think Quebec is in a good position right now? How about the Euro zone? How about the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI
Wrong. Did it myself. No University diplomas, went from "bottom" to management position... and not for Joe le Roi... one of the biggest corp in Canada in fact.
Let's see them.
Quote:
Look, I'm sure you're learning a lot of nice stuff in your books... but there's a world outside your "study room" you know... and in that world, there's 20, 22 or 25 years old kids who do make 15, 20 and even 25$ an hour, and in that world there's also waiters and bartenders making 300 or 400$ of tips every shift they work... and, you may not believe me, but there's even some of them who like their job
Not sure why the classic 'real world lulz' stuff comes up. Do you think I am some naive student who has never lived in this "real world" you speak of?
I have probably spent more time in the workforce and abroad than you have.
Waiters and bartenders making $300 or 400 bucks a shift is ****ing humourous. Come on man, you can't be serious. The only people that make that much are people who work in extremely high end restaurants, and are either extremely experienced or have managerial positions (we are talking about less than 5% of restaurant workers). In addition, you realize that tips are taxed in Quebec right? Making that kind of money in Quebec is simply impossible for the average person.
My room mate makes top $100 bucks gross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe
Then what happened in post #698? You said: "The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" resulting from people with a degree simply does not even exist anymore." That seems to be an affirmation that " having a degree will not result in higher wages" to me.
I was retorting your hyperbole of hundreds of thousands of dollars being instantly available to people with a simple BA.
Quote:
But this is also true for people without a degree. It doesn't change anything to the fact that in 2012, if you get a university degree, you'll earn on average way more in lifetime wages than one without. You're saying that it's "less and less valuable" as an investment, but it is STILL an amazing investment. It's not the comparatively puny raise in tuition that will change anything.
Yeah, the puny little raise that is going to nearly double tuition in five years.
Quote:
If there's an investment out there that allow you to earn 100$ for every 1$ you put in the beginning, and that suddenly the rules changes and you need to put 1.20$ instead, it is STILL a great investment.
Poor math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cole
My undergrad degree is in Arts. Let me tell you something, you can talk theory all day long, your understanding and assimilation of knowledge is far weaker when all you do is talk about your subject. You need to get your other senses involved.
Not in my experience. Reading, listening and speaking involve all senses, and stimulate the mind.
This current fixation with "stimulation" rather than discipline is very concerning. Next thing you are going to argue is that TV is more beneficial to someone than reading a book or listening to a podcast right?
Quote:
Cost. That is what a tuition fee and the money that taxpayers pour into the educational system are supposed to cover. They need more. As for technology becoming obsolete, you are just wrong. Technology evolves. Tools evolve. As for retaining good profs and students...guess what is one of the determining factors in that? That's right, cutting edge education and an administration that is interested in pushing the envelope.
You didn't address really anything I said.
Quote:
White board, projector, computers, web services .... all used in that setting.
Again, untrue. Technology evolves.
Tell me what university in Canada doesn't have these things?
Quote:
No effect you say. I disagree. While communication is of paramount importance, what is considered communication has changed. Social media, display technology, interactivity, animation... these are the ways that successful companies are communicating between themselves and with their customers. If you believe that technology is over rated, well... there may be a traditional industry that interests you. Hopefully it will not be over run by competitors you did not see coming.
I don't know why you took my post as "technology is obsolete or unimportant." And that is why I parsed much of the rest of your post. I don't think that, never have.
Technology over-investment in undergraduate programs is a bad investment and you still have not rebutted any of that argument.
I can't believe you are expecting universities to "teach" people about social media or interactivity. Do you have any idea how knowledgeable university students are already in this area? These are things an individual can learn very easily independently.
Quote:
Communication is far from timeless. We no longer chisel stone tablets.
The medium is not really very important, the act of synthesizing and articulating language persists the same way.
Whether you 'chisel stone tablets' or 'write an email' changes absolutely dick ****ing all.
But regardless, I am done with the whole tuition debate.
I don't even care. I will be leaving Quebec in less than two years and if there was a "strike" at my school, I would cross the picket line. However, that doesn't mean I can't see why they are doing it.
Ah yes, a film critic teaching us about the economy.
Ad hominem aside ():
Wiki: Hays teaches film studies, journalism and communication studies at Concordia University in Montreal, and has reviewed films for the Montreal Mirror. His writing has also been published in The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, Xtra! and The Advocate, and he has been a programmer for the Toronto International Film Festival. He was nominated for a 2008 National Magazine Award.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Graham, PhD
While the current protest action is being called a “strike,” the term “strike” is specific to employees who have a collective agreement with an employer.
Useless semantics, which deviate from the real debate, but FYI the term "strike" is used in many different contexts. Limiting it to a work environment is being ignorant of the multiple definitions of strike. See: hunger strike, student strike.
I was retorting your hyperbole of hundreds of thousands of dollars being instantly available to people with a simple BA.
Hum... it's not a hyperbole, at all. The numbers are between more than 1M (for people studying in, say, medicine) to close to nothing (for people with a degree with very poor placement), "a few hundred thousand dollars" being the average.
Quote:
Yeah, the puny little raise that is going to nearly double tuition in five years.
Still an amazing investment, with the cost still heavily subsidised.
Quote:
Poor math.
Why?
Honestly, I don't even understand why you are trying to argue this point. I'm not necessarily for the raising of tuition... but to claim it's NOT a good investment? That education isn't worth it? You can't be that out of touch with facts.
Why don't you try to google it first and then come back?
I'm not necessarily for the raising of tuition... but to claim it's NOT a good investment? That education isn't worth it? You can't be that out of touch with facts.
Hey. I didn't read through your previous posts, but this one has me intrigued.
You recognize that education is a good investment, and it certainly is one, both on the individual and collective sense (financially and socially).
Then, certainly you can perceive this loop?:
Increase in education fees => Decrease in number of graduates => Decrease in tax revenues => Increase in education fees (loop..)
Increase in education fees => Decrease in number of graduates => Decrease in tax revenues => Increase in education fees (loop..)
In practice, it just doesn't happen this way. Tuition is higher elsewhere in Canada, but it doesn't lead to the number of graduates being significantly lower. In fact, I think the opposite is actually observed in a few places: IIRC tuition AND college education is higher in Ontario than in Quebec (from memory - for the life of me I can't find a link with the actual information).
Edited to add: that's because cost of education is NOT the primary motivator for getting higher education - at least not when the cost is so low. Social factors are more important: if you grew up in a environment where higher education is encouraged, you have way more chances to go to college/university, no matter the cost.
Hum... it's not a hyperbole, at all. The numbers are between more than 1M (for people studying in, say, medicine) to close to nothing (for people with a degree with very poor placement), "a few hundred thousand dollars" being the average.
Still an amazing investment, with the cost still heavily subsidised.
Why?
Honestly, I don't even understand why you are trying to argue this point. I'm not necessarily for the raising of tuition... but to claim it's NOT a good investment? That education isn't worth it? You can't be that out of touch with facts.
Why don't you try to google it first and then come back?
A bachelors degree will get you nothing. Someone who 'makes a million (this barely even exists by the way, completely ridiculous in itself)' is not doing it because of a bachelors degree or even someone who went through med school.
Why don't you look at the average of bachelor graduates' salaries in North America and see if it is anywhere close to 'an average of a couple hundred thousand dollars.'
It's like banging my head against the wall with you.
I have never (and have stated this multiple times) said that people don't make more money with bachelors.
I am saying this 'investment' is becoming less and less lucrative, for a number of reasons I already addressed, and the economy is essentially forcing you to make this 'investment.'
Wiki: Hays teaches film studies, journalism and communication studies at Concordia University in Montreal, and has reviewed films for the Montreal Mirror. His writing has also been published in The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, Xtra! and The Advocate, and he has been a programmer for the Toronto International Film Festival. He was nominated for a 2008 National Magazine Award.
Useless semantics, which deviate from the real debate, but FYI the term "strike" is used in many different contexts. Limiting it to a work environment is being ignorant of the multiple definitions of strike. See: hunger strike, student strike.
Shows you how genuine David Graham's intentions are, eh?
I'm waiting for economist, labour relations, etc... As relevant info in regards to a strike on the basis of money and not some social 3rd world agenda.
You're right, there is many different types of strikes but he sent out a general letter to everybody. It wasn't a thesis statement, give it a rest. I apparently bring up a fallacy by bringing up his expertise but you analyze and judge one word and disect intention from it.
They will provide services people paid for, boo hoo? They have zero reason to suspend classes. As a matter of fact the issue is with the government, Concordia will get their funding one way or another from the government. I'm going to class and you can do as you wish, I won't stop you. I really don't mind if they charge engineering more and arts the same. I really don't mind, as long as the difference is restricted for engineering funding. Fair enough no? We pay more we get more?
In practice, it just doesn't happen this way. Tuition is higher elsewhere in Canada, but it doesn't lead to the number of graduates being significantly lower. In fact, I think the opposite is actually observed in a few places: IIRC tuition AND college education is higher in Ontario than in Quebec (from memory - for the life of me I can't find a link with the actual information).
Edited to add: that's because cost of education is NOT the primary motivator for getting higher education - at least not when the cost is so low. Social factors are more important: if you grew up in a environment where higher education is encouraged, you have way more chances to go to college/university, no matter the cost.
I'm still trying to dig a neutral source, but student associations claim that 7000 students will not be able to afford University in the post-hike world.
You say the cost is "low", but "low" compared to what/when? Students post-hike will have to work twice as long @ minimum wage than they did in '78 to pay for a year worth of tuition fees (and that's only to pay tuition, not other life expenses). The previous generation had it easier than this one. This shows you that we are leaning away from accessible education.
EDIT: Interestingly, as tuition fees have increased throughout the years, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased, and the middle class has thinned. Correlation? Perhaps.
EDIT2: Found source:
Quote:
Rappelons qu'encore récemment, le Comité consultatif sur l'aide financière aux études (CCAFE), qui a pour mandat de conseiller la ministre de l'Éducation, affirmait que la hausse annoncée pourrait priver le Québec de 7000 étudiants universitaires. L'Université du Québec renchérissait récemment en indiquant que la hausse aura de graves répercussions sur sa population étudiante.
Once again, your math is brutally horrible. A bachelors degree will get you nothing. Someone who 'makes a million (this barely even exists by the way, completely ridiculous in itself)' is not doing it because of a bachelors degree or even someone who went through med school.
Someone with a degree in medicine will earn, on average and over the course of his or her life, 2.3M more than someone who only went to CEGEP. It's 950K for an engineering student, and 327K for a social science student. I'm trying to find the original paper but to no success - I may end up writing to Facal to know where he found his sources. But this goes hand on hand with the numbers I've found for the US and elswhere in the industrialized world.
Quote:
Why don't you look at the average of bachelor graduates' salaries in North America and see if it is anywhere close to 'an average of a couple hundred thousand dollars.'
*over the course of your lifetime*. Obviously, not as a yearly salary!
Quote:
It's like banging my head against the wall with you.
LOL
Last edited by Goldthorpe: 03-09-2012 at 01:13 PM.
I'm waiting for economist, labour relations, etc... As relevant info in regards to a strike on the basis of money and not some social 3rd world agenda.
They're out there. Look for them. That is, if you're open to changing your apparently cemented position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist
You're right, there is many different types of strikes but he sent out a general letter to everybody. It wasn't a thesis statement, give it a rest. I apparently bring up a fallacy by bringing up his expertise but you analyze and judge one word and disect intention from it.
You attacked the messenger.
OTOH, I showed how the 1st point of the message was wrong at best, disingenuous at worst. The other points were fairly neutral.
Someone with a degree in medicine will earn, on average and over the course of his or her life, 2.3M more than someone who only went to CEGEP. It's 950K for an engineering student, and 327K for a social science student. I'm trying to find the original paper but I've yet to found it - I may end up writing to Facal to know where he found his sources. But this goes hand on hand with the numbers I've found for the US and elswhere in the industrialized world.
*over the course of your lifetime*. Obviously, not as a yearly salary!
LOL
That quote is questionable (or maybe my translation of it is). It doesn't even seem like it takes into consideration that X number of medicine graduates will pursue higher studies or med school which would incredibly skew the results. Likewise, someone who doesn't pursue any education at all is not likely to do so later in their life, not in any significant matter anyways.
In addition, comparing someone with one of the most lucrative degrees, to one without is ridiculous in itself.
He doesn't even provide a simple BA or BSc to college level, or no post-secondary education comparison.
Concordia strike is pointless. Still gotta do your assignments, hand in essays and study for exams. Skipping classes to "protest" is only doing you harm.
What idiots.
And for what? My tuition went up 61$ from last semester. That's a grand total of 122$ a year. That equals to working 1 extra 8 hour shift.
The same people that I know who are *****ing about the tuition fee hike are the same people that go out drinking and blow 30$ on drinks + tip twice a week. Or they blow their money buying weed. That quarter ounce would have paid the 60$ hike.
If my semester gets extended because of these stupid ****s, I will go ******* at concordia. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
I'm still trying to dig a neutral source, but student associations claim that 7000 students will not be able to afford University in the post-hike world.
How do they calculate this? From a poll? Not saying they are wrong, I'm just curious.
Quote:
You say the cost is "low", but "low" compared to what/when?
It was a general statement. Low compare to pretty much everywhere else in the world. Read the Facal article I posted above, I wish I had found it before as it explains what I've been saying.
Quote:
Students post-hike will have to work twice as long @ minimum wage than they did in '78 to pay for a year worth of tuition fees (and that's only to pay tuition, not other life expenses). The previous generation had it easier than this one. This shows you that we are leaning away from accessible education.
I've already spent way too much time in this thread, but I'm curious to see the numbers supporting this. Considering how tuition have been frozen in the last decades, but not inflation, you would expect the exact opposite. 2K in tuition back in the '70 is way more than 2K today (assuming constant dollars) (I know there's been some hikes along the road, so without the actual numbers it's difficult to actually do the math).
Quote:
EDIT: Interestingly, as tuition fees have increased throughout the years, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased, and the middle class has thinned. Correlation? Perhaps.
The gap between the rich and the poor as grown everywhere in the world, but the cost of education vary a lot. I doubt there is any correlation.
That quote is questionable (or maybe my translation of it is). It doesn't even seem like it takes into consideration that X number of medicine graduates will pursue higher studies or med school which would incredibly skew the results. Likewise, someone who doesn't pursue any education at all is not likely to do so later in their life, not in any significant matter anyways.
Sorry, I assumed incorrectly that you were french.
I sent a email to Facal in order to find a reference to this Vaillancourt 2004 study for the raw numbers, hope he answers.
Quote:
In addition, comparing someone with one of the most lucrative degrees, to one without is ridiculous in itself.
Social sciences degrees aren't what I would consider "the most lucrative degrees".
Quote:
He doesn't even provide a simple BA or BSc to college level, or no post-secondary education comparison.
Still trying to find more detailed numbers. Which is already better than just saying nonsense without backing it up like someone as been doing in this thread, right?
How do they calculate this? From a poll? Not saying they are wrong, I'm just curious.
Sorry, added the source to my post just a bit ago.. but here again:
>> [...] le Comité consultatif sur l'aide financière aux études (CCAFE), qui a pour mandat de conseiller la ministre de l'Éducation, affirmait que la hausse annoncée pourrait priver le Québec de 7000 étudiants universitaires. L'Université du Québec renchérissait récemment en indiquant que la hausse aura de graves répercussions sur sa population étudiante.
Almost from the horse's mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe
It was a general statement. Low compare to pretty much everywhere else in the world. Read the Facal article I posted above, I wish I had found it before as it explains what I've been saying.
Some have it lower, some have it higher. We must decide what we want as a society. RE the Facal article, I did read it -- but I also read the comment section that rebutted some of his claims. Did you?
Sorry if its in french again, but here is a nice graphic showing the evolution of tuition cost in Quebec universities versus the 1968 cost adjusted with inflation. Pretty telling.
):
