tjhorton@csri.toronto.edu (Tim Horton) (10/17/88)
rhubbs@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Robert (NetJunkie) Hubbs) writes: >I would just like to let anyone who does not know, that a march is being >held Oct. 31 on Queens's Park to protest the current state of education >in this province. >The issues are serious and here is a partial list. > >- In the last 10 years tuition has more then doubled > ... This sorta stuff always gives me a hoot. On what scale has tuition doubled? The number of dollars (or rubles or pesos), or the value thereof? If this is the first and foremost of these "serious issues", I can't tell you how concerned I am. >- A recent report recomends tuition deregulation upto $2500 Don't want to pay more, but you want more? Where's it gonna come from? What happens when you pump the well dry? Students pay a few percent of the costs of running a university. Should everyone else be the first to pay? So many of the people I know who crossed the line from university to real life turn from rampant socialists to rampant capitalist conservatives, it makes one wonder why nobody seems to see both sides of the question. Marches with dozens of self-righteous people chanting slogans is not a good way to deal with real questions. It's not so black and white, and I resent people painting things that way to suit their own desires. "CUT TO THE FAT" might be an equally justifiable subject line.
eastick@me.toronto.edu (Doug Eastick) (10/17/88)
tjhorton@csri.toronto.edu (Tim Horton) writes: >rhubbs@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Robert (NetJunkie) Hubbs) writes: >>I would just like to let anyone who does not know, that a march is being >>held Oct. 31 on Queens's Park to protest the current state of education >>in this province. [ Tim's opinion of University protesters becoming capatilist conservatives deleted. Not because I disagree with it, but because it doesn't directly apply to what I'm going to say ] I attended the similar OFS rally last year and was quite suprised. My main reason for attending was to protest the condition of some of the labs we were working in (Elec. Eng, at the time). Out of 5 labs during the term, 4 screwed up because of 40yr (seriously) old equipment broke on us. That's why I plan to attend again this year. BUT, what I don't like about these rallies is the "extras" that come along with any kind of protest. I'm speaking of the people handing out the latest edition of "Rebel Review" or some other similarly named publication. I went to the rally (and will go again) to protest the condition of some of the labs I work in. I am not a "rebel" that hates "the system", and don't like to be tied/linked to such people. Well, that's my $0.02, and I'm back to doing homework..... -- Doug Eastick BITNET: eastick@me.UTORONTO UUCP: ...!utai!me!eastick EDU: eastick@me.toronto.edu -- Doug Eastick BITNET: eastick@me.UTORONTO UUCP: ...!utai!me!eastick EDU: eastick@me.toronto.edu
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/17/88)
Indeed, if tuition has doubled in the last two years, you should be very thankful. Many argue that the level of tuition in modern universities is on the decline. As for tuition fees, they may have gone up, but that's only reasonable if the tuition is at twice the level of 10 years ago. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rhubbs@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Robert (NetJunkie) Hubbs) (10/19/88)
I don't want to start a war but a question has been raised and I feel some responsability to answer. Here goes. Who will pay and how is a very serious issue in many ways. While I am not looking for handouts to the Universities I am looking for the government of this province to do what it has promised and is supposed to be doing. Ontario recieves money from the federal government in the from of transfer payments designated for educational use only. While it is the provinces responsability to administer education (and therefore all transfer payment for education) it is the federal governments money. Much of the money transfered is not spent on education. Rather the province put it to other uses. Of late this has been hospitals. I am not against hospitals obiviously, but the money is ment to be spent on education. It gets spent on hospitals because the predominate group of people who voice opinions to the government are more concerned about hospitals (this is of course a function of the average age of the population). The provincal education policy is not supportive of students in part because student are not putting pressure on the government. this has happend before to other groups. A case in point is the proposal to change the Indexing of Pensions in Ontario. This move brought a wave of protesters, letters and media attention . The elderly community was suitable upset and made that known. The province knuckled under right away. They expected sheep to follow, they got people thinking for them selves and choosing something else. I still feel now is the time to stand behind education in the province and in the contry as a whole. I have some friends from other countries (England, Germany, Nigeria and Austraila) who all made the trip over here to study because they had heard about the quality of our educational system in this country. I believe they were right. But I believe we must work to keep what we have and make the best of it. What price can we put on an education or the ability to think? What is the cost of losing that education? to the individual and to the country as a whole. - Robert Hubbs
ian@dgp.toronto.edu ("Ian S. Small") (10/19/88)
On Oct 19, Robert (NetJunkie) Hubbs continues to air his views concerning provincial government funding to universities and the lack thereof. Without descending into the somewhat arbitrary question of style, I note the following: > some responsability to answer. Here goes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sp: responsibility > supposed to be doing. Ontario recieves money from the federal ^^^^^^^^ sp: receives > use only. While it is the provinces responsability to administer should be provinces' ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sp. again - marks for consistency > education (and therefore all transfer payment for education) it is the ^^^^^^^ should be payments > federal governments money. ^^^^^^^^^^^ should be government's > Much of the money transfered is not spent on education. Rather > the province put it to other uses. Of late this has been hospitals. I ^^^ should be puts or previous line should be was > am not against hospitals obiviously, but the money is ment to be spent ^^^^ sp: meant > on education. It gets spent on hospitals because the predominate group this is a verb; presumably ^^^^^^^^^^^ you mean predominant > The provincal education policy is not supportive of students ^^^^^^^^^ sp: provincial > in part because student are not putting pressure on the government. ^^^^^^^ should be students > this has happend before to other groups. A case in point is the ^^^^ should be This; forgivable in netland ^^^^^^^ sp: happened > The elderly community was suitable upset and made that known. The ^^^^^^^^ wrong part of speech; you mean suitably > province knuckled under right away. They expected sheep to follow, > they got people thinking for them selves and choosing something else. ^^^^^^^^^^^ sp: themselves; second sentence is a run-on sentence > province and in the contry as a whole. ^^^^^^ sp: country > and Austraila) who all made the trip over here to study because they ^^^^^^^^^ sp: Australia (probably a typo) > What is the cost of losing that education? to the individual and to > the country as a whole. ^^^^... not a sentence > - Robert Hubbs It seems to me that in this case, the problems in the educational system lie more at the grade school level than at the university level :-) . Perhaps we should be more concerned about trying to convince the provincial government to improve the quality of basic education in the province. -- Ian S. Small Dynamic Graphics Project Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto (416) 978-6619 Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4
chris@mks.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (10/19/88)
> What price can we put on an education or the ability to think? > What is the cost of losing that education? to the individual and to > the country as a whole. > > - Robert Hubbs From the rest of the posting, we can see that the cost includes having to put up with shoddy grammar, misspelt words, and bad reasoning. I am no longer on any campus, but I certainly hear a lot about the problems of underfunding, especially in undergraduate studies. I have heard a lot of proposed solutions; one of some interest would be to raise tuition to cover the full costs of a program, and make the universities free of direct government influence. To cover the higher tuition, a program of investing in students could be set up with the federal money that is being transferred to education via the provincial governments. This would work like venture capital: the student receives a sum of money for tuition. This money is paid back as a portion of future earnings, so that the higher the subsequent income, the higher the returns to the progam. Students would be encouraged to take smaller sums up front to prevent paying as much back in future years; however, unlike Canada Student Loans, the amount paid back depends directly on income. With the appropriate formulas, such a program would be self-funding. It would require initial startup capital, of course. Chris Retterath MKS Inc.
jimb@watcsc.uucp (Jim Boritz) (10/21/88)
It is extremely disappointing to see that people have resorted to
petty tactics in order to criticize Mr. Hubbs. Are we to understand that
this method of discourse was taught to students at a time when the underfunding
issue did not exist?
Underfunding is a serious issue. It deserves serious consideration. It
certainly does not deserve to trivialized by ridiculing its proponents. I
am disappointed that those that have reaped the benefits of the public education
system would begrudge said system to others.
There are more students in our universities today than there were a few years
ago. The level of funding has not kept pace with this increase. Funding is
the issue. Funding is what you should be concerned with, not picking out
typos (excuse me, typographic errors).
--
Jim Boritz
University of Waterloo {uunet|clyde|utai}!watmath!watcsc!jimb
Computer Science Club jimb@watcsc.waterloo.edutjhorton@csri.toronto.edu (Tim Horton) (10/24/88)
jimb@watcsc.uucp (Jim Boritz) writes: >It is extremely disappointing to see that [some] people have resorted to >petty tactics in order to criticize Mr. Hubbs. Are we to understand that... >Underfunding is a serious issue. It deserves serious consideration. >It certainly does not deserve to trivialized by ridiculing its proponents. I agree, it ("underfunding" if you will call it that) is a serious issue. Myself, I objected to a few empty statements presented as some sort of prime motivation for lots of angry people to get out placards and yell slogans. That presentation was either not serious or not responsible, or so it seemed to me; Propoganda is not a prime ingredient of serious consideration. >I am disappointed that those that have reaped the benefits of the public >education system would begrudge said system to others. Begrudging? Are we assumed to be against, if we're not *all* for? How far over backwards do we have to bend? Til we break our collective fiscal backs? Who'll get an education then? Or can we just keep going merrily further into debt, and it won't catch up with us? What's going to happen here? Everybody seems to be yelling for money now, in the short term. Why should we ignore the slightly longer-term implications? Certainly we *should* have a great educational system. We *should* have good health care. We *should* have good day care. We *should* have all sorts of social programs, and on and on... But *can* we afford everything that *should* be? (I *should* jog, and eat right, and read more, and do significantly more for others, and sleep better, but *can* I cover all these *shoulds*? Something has to give.) If we pump universities full of money, where do we take it from? What else is going to suffer? >There are more students in our universities today than there were a few years >ago. The level of funding has not kept pace with this increase. Has the level of funding *available* kept pace with the increase? How do we define "Funding", "Overfunding", and "Underfunding"? By the levels we were able to maintain decades ago when we had much lower fiscal demands from other social programs, and the fiscal pie was continuously expanding? Perhaps you would opt for less money to the hospitals? Perhaps less to daycare? What do you think? One last note of some relevance. I've seen a few of the universities represented on this network pursue some questionable uses of cash. Like buildings with 50% circulation space, like multi-million dollar budgets to keep the place looking like a park, like enormous expenditures on computer hardware, and software development that universities are neither intended nor funded for (Waterloo). Like buying a Cray, like a big-budget research focus at the expense of undergrad programs, like extraordinarily bad multi-million dollar library projects (Toronto). Me, I'm happy to be here in school, while the fat is still available. I ain't complaining, and I certainly don't think there's cause to! What we *don't* need is substitution of emotion and propoganda for responsible justification. If there's something to ask for, please be prepared to justify it. Especially if the pricetag ends in 8 or 9 zeros.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/25/88)
In article <8810240027.AA06108@oconnor.csri.toronto.edu> tjhorton@csri.toronto.edu (Tim Horton) writes: >One last note of some relevance. I've seen a few of the universities >represented on this network pursue some questionable uses of cash... No argument. However, one should also bear in mind that some of the Ontario universities, possibly including some of the ones represented on the net, *are* questionable uses of cash. Possibly the single best thing the Ontario government could do for the province's university system is to take some of the basket cases -- "universities" established at the peak of baby-boom enthusiasm, with little or no long-term justification -- out and shoot them. And then encourage the remaining universities to do the same with marginal schools and departments. Most of those places are slowly starving to death anyway; "'twere best 'twere done quickly". This approach would have its problems, and it would be exceedingly unpopular in the affected areas, but it would free up a fair bit of money that is currently completely wasted on poor-quality education. -- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
heath@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Todd Heatherton) (10/27/88)
In article <8810191618.AA03472@cartier.dgp.toronto.edu> ian@dgp.toronto.edu ("Ian S. Small") writes: >On Oct 19, Robert (NetJunkie) Hubbs continues to air his views concerning >provincial government funding to universities and the lack thereof. Without >descending into the somewhat arbitrary question of style, I note the following: > >> some responsability to answer. Here goes. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sp: responsibility > >> supposed to be doing. Ontario recieves money from the federal > ^^^^^^^^ sp: receives > >> use only. While it is the provinces responsability to administer > should be provinces' ^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sp. again - marks > for consistency > >> education (and therefore all transfer payment for education) it is the > ^^^^^^^ should be payments > >> federal governments money. > ^^^^^^^^^^^ should be government's > >> Much of the money transfered is not spent on education. Rather >> the province put it to other uses. Of late this has been hospitals. I > ^^^ should be puts or previous line should be was > >> am not against hospitals obiviously, but the money is ment to be spent > ^^^^ sp: meant > >> on education. It gets spent on hospitals because the predominate group > this is a verb; presumably ^^^^^^^^^^^ > you mean predominant > >> The provincal education policy is not supportive of students > ^^^^^^^^^ sp: provincial > >> in part because student are not putting pressure on the government. > ^^^^^^^ should be students > >> this has happend before to other groups. A case in point is the > ^^^^ should be This; forgivable in netland > ^^^^^^^ sp: happened > >> The elderly community was suitable upset and made that known. The > ^^^^^^^^ wrong part of speech; you mean suitably > >> province knuckled under right away. They expected sheep to follow, >> they got people thinking for them selves and choosing something else. > ^^^^^^^^^^^ sp: themselves; second sentence is > a run-on sentence > > >> province and in the contry as a whole. > ^^^^^^ sp: country > > >> and Austraila) who all made the trip over here to study because they > ^^^^^^^^^ sp: Australia (probably a typo) > >> What is the cost of losing that education? to the individual and to >> the country as a whole. > ^^^^... not a sentence > >> - Robert Hubbs > > > >It seems to me that in this case, the problems in the educational system lie >more at the grade school level than at the university level :-) . Perhaps we should >be more concerned about trying to convince the provincial government to improve >the quality of basic education in the province. > >-- > >Ian S. Small Dynamic Graphics Project > Computer Systems Research Institute > University of Toronto >(416) 978-6619 Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4 write on!!!!