picard102
Senior Member
Who are now advocating that their arts degree should not be funded because the same people don't see value in gender studies for tattooed and pierced baristas.
|
|
|
PM Justin Trudeau's Canada
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Indeed. It sucks, as ideally anyone with the grades and tuition should be able to take any government-subsidized post-secondary degree they want, career utility be dammed. That's what we've been doing for decades as a country. Some years ago I wanted to take a MA in maritime history, just for interest and personal development, nothing to do with furthering my career or any investment in the country's economy. But if we want to increase government funding for education in healthcare and other strategically critical areas we need to sort out where that money can come from. With declining productivity we cannot easily look to increasing taxation, so do we instead consider redistributing funding to where it can do the most good? But we're getting more into provincial matters now, less so about Trudeau's Canada.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Well yes. Taxpayers aren't paying to produce over educated baristas. So if those degrees aren't helping their recipients we should be directing that funding towards programs that do help them and fulfill areas where we have shortages.
picard102
Senior Member
The government can fund other areas without depriving education from others based on what joe taxpayer thinks is worthy.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
The challenge for the PM, Premiers and Finance Ministers is that once a government program is enacted and funded, it's very difficult to reduce or eliminate it.
Here's Joe Taxpayer's opinion.
But where can we cut? Can Ottawa tell these nonprofits to pound sand, for example?
picard102
Senior Member
Which is wildly at odds for what Joe Taxpayer actually votes for.
kEiThZ
Superstar
When Joe Taxpayer is paying for something they get a say through their elected representatives. That's how our democracy works.
Growing certain programs and shrinking or cutting others is just prudent management of scarce public funds. And in this case, there's definitely an argument to be made that the individual students, society and the government aren't getting sufficient returns from the public funding being invested in these programs.
And let's be honest, the vast, vast majority of grads in most liberal arts and science degree are there to get a check in the box. They aren't there because they are passionate about the subject and pursuing graduate work in the field. They are there to prove they have sufficient literacy and critical thinking to get a piece of paper. There was a time when that was enough to get a decent job. Today? Not so much. So we're better off sending most of those folks into more focused programs at colleges and limiting those BA and BSc students to those who are highly motivated and sincerely interested in those topics as a field of study.
afransen
Senior Member
Jeez. When was Trudeau elected again? /sYes, and yes. But times change, the country's productivity has collapsed since my days in the early 1990s. The benefits that Boomers and in a lesser degree us Gen-X had, including the accessibility of often employment-unnecessary post-secondary degrees is, like much of Canada's economy and standard of living relative to other Western nations, on the decline. It's unfair, and my own adult children are inheriting a country that has been in decline and robbed by their predecessors for decades. But unless we either decrease the cost or increase the tax revenue going to non-strategic post-secondary education then we're going to have to make some tough decisions. We have a limited budget of tax revenue and are in desperate need of doctors, nurses and other STEM fields - so that's where the money needs to go.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'd prefer capping the number of spots in programs that are less desirable vs raising tuition yet keeping the spots.
To me the former promotes the idea that these programs are about advanced critical thinking and not just 'we'll take any warm body', while preserving relative affordability. The latter, may well see the same number of people getting degrees of questionable utility but also be anchored by higher levels of debt.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
Joe Taxpayer also doesn't want to vote for higher taxes.
afransen
Senior Member
There is definitely too much of a concept of post-secondary as a place to park yourself while figuring out what to do with your life (partying, avoiding 'adulting', networking/finding a partner). A lot of people think of school as a kind of sabbatical interspersed with lectures and exams rather than a job to which they must apply themselves.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I don't think anybody suggested raising tuition. It's also not what would happen. If the government puts up mandates to increase enrollment in certain fields, the universities will adjust accordingly and simply cut faculty and offerings in less supported areas over time.
I would say it's possible that some of these faculty move to private universities. But anybody willing to pay more to study a given subject is quite likely to be of the highly motivated type who would probably be one of the few selected for the program at a public university anyway. And I doubt somebody who just wants a piece of paper would bother with an expensive private university. They'll just choose something else.
This whole, "Just get a degree" thing has to die. Students are being saddled with debt for an education that doesn't give them sufficient marketable skills and that hurts both our economy and socioeconomic mobility in the long run. Most of these folks who just want a piece of paper would be better off in a 2 yr college business program. Honestly, Québec has the right idea with Cégep.
afransen
Senior Member
A lot of 'BS' jobs/degrees will be blown away by waves of AI replacing white collar work. I honestly worry about entry-level technical work. It is easy to imagine AI advancing to the point that most of that low-level technical work can be automated and reviewed by more experienced/senior staff. I just wonder how we will possibly train the next generation of experience/senior staff. It takes years of accumulated experience to develop that judgement, and I already find the 'apprenticeship' period pretty long for entry level workers to develop to the point where they are strong contributors.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's become that way because a lot of our programs (especially generalist degrees) are not substantially rigorous and therefore not burdensome. We also include a ton of fluff. And given that faculty and students all know they are there to check the box, that mentality pervades everything. We could make these programs much more rigorous and knock a year off each.
For example, in the UK, lots of programs are completed in 3 years with a three term structure per year. This was similar to quarterly system I had at graduate school in California. When a course is 8 weeks long (Oxford) or 10 weeks long (California), there is no wasting time. You're studying from Day 1 and you're putting in 30-40 hrs per week minimum. Since you only have 4 courses, it's easy to track and really focus. It goes quick and you're done. 3 years for undergrad in most subjects in the UK and 4 years for an MA. They also don't impose the same breadth requirements that we do. This means the UK is producing decently educated and less indebted graduates at the age of 20-21.
Unfortunately our fascination with all things American has led to us adopting and normalizing their ridiculous system of a 4 yr/8 semester university program.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Which is why pumping out more History and Psych majors and saddling them with $40k in student loans just so they can make $60k at a bank in a job that could be automated in the next decade, is not a solution. We should be getting ahead of the curve. But we won't.
There's already plenty of BAs and BSCs and even some engineering grads who feel duped with their degrees. I can't even imagine what the sentiment will be in a decade.