rabaeza@watdaisy.UUCP (12/30/86)
In last articles, posted in uw.general, Mariaurora Mota ask about some
comments on unfairness with foreign students.
Before I come to Canada, I knew that my wife and me (outside the university)
can't work. Also, I knew that the tuition fee were high and that the
scolarships programs for foreign students were very limited. In other
words, I didn't expect an "easy" life.
However, I found other incredible things:
a) we pay unployment insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums from
which we are not allowed to collect benefits (and this is under the law!)
b) that the tuition fee depends in your citizenship. This problem is
worst in Ontario, where in some universities the fee for a foreign
student is 4 times the fee of a canadian student. Now, the only two
provinces that do not impose differential fees are Manitoba and
Newfoundland. Also, in fact, here foreign student means a visa student.
An interesting article in this problem, written by Valerie Shore,
appears in the last issue of "University Affairs" ("Canada closing doors on
foreign students", page 16). Two other articles in the same issue
are related (pages 12 and 17). Some facts mentioned in the article are:
a) the enrolment of foreign students declined 20% in the last two years
b) in many areas, a high percentage of research, is made by graduate foreign
students
c) 4500 jobs are supported by foreign students
The mentioned article is based in a report from the Canadian Bureau for
International Education called "Closing the doors?". I would like to
insert a sentence from that source:
"If this happens (that this problem remains unresolved), Canada risks
losing its already tenuous claim to world class status in postsecondary
education. There will be serious repercussions, not only in our scientific
and academic communities, but in the cultural, economic and diplomatic areas
as well."
Important questions are: Are the universities and student federations
worried about this problem? Exist good reasons for maintain this policies?
Ricardo Baeza-Yates
Mail personal comments to rabaeza@watdaisy
--
rabaeza@waterloo.csnet 1-519-885-1211 ext. 6709 Ricardo Baeza
rabaeza%waterloo@csnet-relay.arpa CS Dept., U. Waterloo
{allegra,decvax,inhp4,utzoo}!watmath!watdaisy!rabaeza Waterloo, Ont. N2L3G1rbutterworth@watmath.UUCP (12/30/86)
There is something I've never understood about the differential fees. Draw a circle around the country and consider the effects of various things (i.e. what crosses the circle in either direction.) McDonalds Restaurants imports some foods, and so exports some Canadian money; it also exports Canadian money to its US owners. The net effect is to remove money from Canada and send it to another country. Stelco exports steel, and imports very little except foreign money. The net effect is a slight loss of Canadian resources and a large gain in foreign money. To me, McDonalds is bad for the country, while Stelco (depending upon how much you value resources and pollution) is good. A typical foreign student will easily spend five or ten thousand dollars of his own country's money a year while staying in Canada. After four years he will leave the country with nothing but one small piece of paper. Now, if I went to the government and told them I had a business that exported paper at $30,000 a piece, with most of that money being spent in small local businesses, I'm sure the government would do all it could in grants and low cost loans to get this business started. So, why can't they look at foreign students the same way? Why not drop the fees entirely and even pay a small allowance as an incentive to bring foreign money into Canada? We would still be economically ahead (not to mention the social benefits as well as the increased likelihood that the foreign company that the student eventually ends up with is going to do more business with Canada). So what am I missing?
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/31/86)
> Draw a circle around the country and consider the effects of > various things (i.e. what crosses the circle in either direction.) ... > A typical foreign student will easily spend five or ten thousand > dollars of his own country's money a year while staying in Canada... > he will leave the country with nothing but one small piece of paper... > So what am I missing? Within that circle, draw a smaller circle around the government (taking the universities as part of the government). During his stay here, the foreign student pays tuition and taxes into this circle; after he leaves, he pays nothing into it. The Canadian student pays taxes into it for the rest of his life. Yet they receive the same services out of it. This is the justification: the Canadian student is paying for his education for years to come, the foreign student gets it as a package deal. Whether you think this is *sufficient* justification for higher foreign- student tuition fees depends on your priorities, and on your philosophy of educational funding. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (12/31/86)
In article <4129@watmath.UUCP> rbutterworth@watmath.UUCP writes: > >A typical foreign student will easily spend five or ten thousand >dollars of his own country's money a year while staying in Canada. >After four years he will leave the country with nothing but one >small piece of paper. > >So what am I missing? The problem is that the student is taking more than a piece of paper out of the country: he or she is taking knowledge. If his or her place was instead taken by a Canadian (the story goes), that knowledge would stay here to enrich the country. Or looking at it another way, the cost of teaching a student is vastly greater under out system than the tuition fees; they account for only about a fifth of the university expenses. (Note to quibblers: this number is probably old, and there is obviously great potential for creative accounting. But the argument holds.) This puts a large hole in the "profit" made from a foreign student. The remaining cash inflow isn't simply thrown at the people of this country; it is used to buy goods and services, and these cost money to produce themselves. Dropping down to an idiot-child ECO 100 approach, from the economic point of view, we should compare the profit made from selling these goods and services to the cost of providing the student with education at bargain-basement rates. I have not seen any analysis one way or the other to suggest that we win or lose on the deal. Of course, this also neglects the advantage of having people employed, even if it doesn't benefit the overall economic system. So am I against foreign students? Most emphatically not. First and foremost, they supply a different viewpoint to what can be a very closed academic community. (Insert your favourite "cultural mosaic" buzzphrases here.) Second, it's not a one-way street. We also send our students to other countries, where they often receive comparable breaks. Third, nations which can't afford decent universities probably deserve some form of foreign aid, and education is the most valuable aid we can give. In short, foreign students are a benefit to Canada. However, the accounting justification is badly flawed. And a strong case can be made for a system in which student visas and tuition are given (a) in exchange for similar privileges abroad, (b) as explicit foreign aid, (c) in appropriate numbers and selected directions to broaden the academic community, or (d) for LARGE quantities of cash. The problem, of course, is that the current policy is not based on any consideration of why we want foreign students, and is thus merely a fuzzy version of (d). -- John Hogg hogg@utcsri.uucp hogg@csri.toronto.cdn "I never understood when he was jesting. In my country, when you joke you say something and then you laugh very noisily, so everyone shares in the joke." ---Umberto Eco, _The Name of the Rose_
wagner@utcs.UUCP (12/31/86)
In article <4129@watmath.UUCP> rbutterworth@watmath.UUCP writes: >There is something I've never understood about the differential >fees. > >A typical foreign student will easily spend five or ten thousand >dollars of his own country's money a year while staying in Canada. >After four years he will leave the country with nothing but one >small piece of paper. Would it be too much to expect that he also leaves with an education? :-) >Now, if I went to the government and told them I had a business >that exported paper at $30,000 a piece, with most of that money >being spent in small local businesses, I'm sure the government >would do all it could in grants and low cost loans to get this >business started. Sadly, this is probably true. Please don't tell them that; they might be convinced (by your incorrect argument). >So, why can't they look at foreign students the same way? >[...] >So what am I missing? You are missing the fact that, for Canadians, tuition is something less than 10% of the direct cost of the education that they're getting (anyone know recent figures?). Visa students pay more (but still not all) of the true cost of their education. This policy is not out of line with many other places in the west. Way back when I was shopping for undergraduate education, there were three rates in many american universities. They were 1. in state 2. out of state 3. out of country The issue here is merely tax realities. The place hosting your education can't be expected to subsidize your education to the same extent as if you had been paying into the tax system all that time. Many countries recognize this. France, I think, is one. If you go to America to study, France sends along with you some of their tax money that otherwise would have subsidized your French education. If a visa student doesn't have that sort of support from their own country, it isn't clear that Canada should (or has the resources to) provide it. In the end, though, I think the business case is the wrong way to decide this issue. Subsidization of education is done, not for direct business reasons, but because society has decided that the whole society benefits from the education of it's young. I think arguments for/against differential rate structures for visa students would be more convincing if phrased in terms of benefits to society. Universities, at least, have always hated being beholden to business. Michael
tjhorton@utai.UUCP (01/02/87)
> A typical foreign student will easily spend five or ten thousand > dollars of his own country's money a year while staying in Canada. > After four years he will leave the country with nothing but one > small piece of paper. > > Now, if I went to the government and told them I had a business > that exported paper at $30,000 a piece, with most of that money > being spent in small local businesses, I'm sure the government > would do all it could in grants and low cost loans to get this > business started. > > So, why can't they look at foreign students the same way? > Why not drop the fees entirely and even pay a small allowance > as an incentive to bring foreign money into Canada? ... > > So what am I missing? 1. Most of a student's expenses (outside tuition and books) are food and rent. The government can tax a small business, but it doesn't generally tax either of these 2 items. And the money isn't exactly trapped in Canada. 2. Cost of educating university student, per year: $5500 Cdn Student's expenses per year in Canada: $8000 ? Goverment collects back: $ ? ($200?) And there's other direct/indirect costs on the social systems. Let's be realistic. Educating foreign students ain't blatantly "profitable". 3. Graduate foreign students are usually supported in full ($9000 - $12000) by their department if they don't have scholarship support (at least in the technical disciplines). That's quite a sum of money. Per year per student. A gift is a gift. Maybe it's not a good enough gift, but it's a gift. Like the education I'm getting. Timothy J Horton <tjhorton@utai>