[Fighting Madd]

Should OSAP be based on provincial & national needs?

As a caveat, I have to admit I'm an Arts grad (BA, 1995) and have finally (almost) paid off my once $25,000 OSAP loan.

Now, I've been thinking...should OSAP be provided more favourably to students pursuing education in areas where the government (ON and/or Feds) determine there is a labour shortage? For example, there are shortages or predicted shortages (due to retirements) of many types of engineers, scientists, mathematicians, second language teachers and tradesmen such as crane operators, welders, elevator mecahnics and forestry specialists.

On the other hand, how many English, phylosophy, socialiogy and history grads (like me) do we need? Sure, many go onto make a lot of dough (sometimes me) and pay a lot of tax, but it's a crap shoot for the government financing the education bill; you may become a top generalists or a waiter.

What if instead, the government said, we need 10,000 new mechanical engineers and thus those accepted will receive $5,000 non-repayable grants while those in some of the less needed (per gov't) arts programs will get no loans at all?

 

[EnviroTO]

The number of spaces should be based on needs. OSAP should be based on giving equal access to those spaces. If a person not requiring OSAP can get access to a certain education a person with OSAP and equal qualifications should also be able to get access to that same education. We shouldn't allow a scenario where wealthy individuals can get history degrees and OSAP users are forced to compete for medical school admissions.

 

[Fighting Madd]

However, some may not want their tax dollars paying for education in unneeded areas. If a wealthy individual can afford to pay for an education in a non-strategic area, then go for it; they'll either do that here or outside of Canada, so we might as well get their money spent here.

OSAP isn't about giving equal access, it's about assisted access. If equal access is what you want, then we should have no tuition at all, and just have the state pay for all post-secondary education. Come to think of it, that's kind of what I'm suggesting; that the state pay most of the way for strategically needed education. Perhaps I'm a communist after all?!

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

However, some may not want their tax dollars paying for education in unneeded areas. If a wealthy individual can afford to pay for an education in a non-strategic area, then go for it; they'll either do that here or outside of Canada, so we might as well get their money spent here.

Just how is "need" defined, exactly? And at any given moment, "some" may not want "their" tax dollars paying for anything - should we by default follow their whims when making public poicy decisions?

GB

 

[EnviroTO]

However, some may not want their tax dollars paying for education in unneeded areas. If a wealthy individual can afford to pay for an education in a non-strategic area, then go for it; they'll either do that here or outside of Canada, so we might as well get their money spent here.

Seeing as there are employers that require a degree (i.e. not caring which one it is) the need for the individual is often to get any degree. Even though Canada may not have a big demand for History degrees it opens doors for an individual just the same.

OSAP isn't about giving equal access, it's about assisted access.

I disagree. Admission requirements such as grades, interviews, pre-requisites, and space limitations are the criteria that should be used to determine whether or not people can access higher education. OSAP should be about taking finances out of the equation so that the most qualified people can get the degrees that are available. OSAP is about removing financial disadvantages and if a wealthy person can get a degree that someone born into a poor family can not then the financial disadvantage still exists.

 

[bizorky]

If I remember correctly, such attempts at regulating educational access resulted, for example, in reducing the number of spaces for nurses and doctors. Surprise! There is a now a severe shortage of nurses and doctors.

I have to agree with Geeky: exactly how is "need" being defined? With respect to arts programs like philosophy, there is no profession of philosophers outside of the university. Yet I happen to think that some reasonable introduction to philosophy is necessary for an individual to participate in society. If someone wants to go all the way and get a degree in it, let them. I don't see why these students should be discriminated against because philosophers don't number up there with welders. A capacity for philosophical understanding and investigation is essential to society and to modern civilization, yet it won't get you a job as a philosopher.

 

[Fighting Madd]

Other nations, such as India and China are churning out a much higher proportion (vs. arts) of high tech university grads in order to compete agressively on the world stage. While, in Canada the vast majority of unversity grads are in the arts.

This is reminiscant of the Industrial Revolution. In Britain, any one who went to unversity generally studied the classics and literature, while in Germany you were studying engineering, mathematics. This lack of strategically needed training led, along with several other factors (population size, capital/equipment cycle, etc...) resulted in Britain being overcome by Germany industrially by the end of the 19th century.

While I don't suggest we take on China's model, perhaps we need a government plan for educating Canada's population. Currently there is no plan other than assisting access, capping tuition (somewhat, mostly provincial) and allowing the universities to offer any courses they want. If Canada has a shortage of new doctors, nurses and engineers, well then, is it wrong for the government to offer greater incentives to educate folks in these needed roles?

I have a good friend who's a crane operator. He's the youngest guy on the site, and makes about $75,000. The governments of Ontario and Canada paid 100% of his tuition plus EI to move from general equipment operator to apprentice crane operator to finally fully licensed operator. This was all done because Canadian industry needs crane operators, and the current batch are only a few years from retirement. This is a case of what I'm suggesting, the government making a special investment in education in strategically required employment.

I don't see the problem. When I graduated from high school I studied general arts at Uni. If I had been told that if you study forestry your education will be more subsidized, well then I would go towards that. If I didn't pass the competition in any of the more subsidized spots, then tough for me, and I'd better go back to school to up my marks.

We've created a society in Canada that everyone needs a BA to get a job. If we made high school more serious and cut throat, then people would graduate in Grade 12 with some real skills. You could still have tech schools for those not academically capable, and thus again fulfill the shortage of welders, construction workers and skilled trademen.

Now if only we can get parents to support their children when they want to be mechanics, plumbers or welders. It doesn't help if little Johnny's parents are pushing him into whatever University and program that will take him regardless of his career prospects (and debt load) afterward would be. I would be proud as stink if one of my daughters chose to be a top grade welder or machinist; they'd have a real highly demanded skill AND be paid far more than your philisophy grad at McDs.

There's nothing wrong, IMO with the government that foots most of the education bill in choosing which programs have priority and funding students accordingly.

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

Except this sort of centralized planning has a tendency to be rather inflexible. The goal of the education system should be to produce, in most fields, general workers who can adapt to changing conditions.

Teach individuals how to think properly, and let them decide what path to follow (given pressures of the external environment).

GB

 

[SD2]

Arts degrees are underrated. Science is great, but a lot of those degrees are as impractical as Arts degrees (if you want to call Arts degrees impracitcal)

 

[bizorky]

We've created a society in Canada that everyone needs a BA to get a job. If we made high school more serious and cut throat, then people would graduate in Grade 12 with some real skills

Maybe if we just gave up on the idea of the individual person, the concept of a free citizen and notion that each of us is unique and ought to have the opportunity to pursue our own interests, we could have your broad-shouldered, anti-personal, centrally-planned "you are nothing but a cog-in-the-machine" type of collective. Hail to the hive!

Okay, I'm being harsh.

Before the Second World War, there was no dominant focus on what the actual purpose of high school was. There were diverse aims and ends, and quite a few focused on the idea of the development of the person. Some, for example, were loosely based the philosophy of "personalism" which was an attempt to understand and pursue the ideals of a fully self-actualized human being. All of that was wiped out with the rise of the cold war and the preparation of all individuals for eventual warfare. That concept gelled quite nicely with the concept of international trade as a kind of economic warfare. Lost in all of this was the notion of the citizen, the person, the human being who counted for more than his or her ability to produce for the economy.

Why don't we just try to balance high school out. Let's not sell it so short.

 

[EnviroTO]

I agree that the job market probably does enough to ensure that people get the education they need without trying to steer people at enrolment. Probably it makes sense to remove capacity controls as well and focus on grades, pre-requisites, and other testing to determine eligibility into a certain educational path. Trying to master plan education would require fortune telling skills to predict what demand will be 5 years down the road and doesn't allow for the fact that some people have greater skill in one area over another.

We shouldn't steer people away from what they want to do and what they are good at because it will leave us with people that aren't good at what they do and don't like what they are doing. Imagine Pierre Burton was forced into an education of medicine, Einstein was forced into an education of business administration, etc. There are jobs in every field and there are people who excel in each field and switching people away from jobs they may be good at is probably more of a disservice to the country.

Focus on abilities to determine how far a person can go. Don't restrict based on the financial situation of an individual, a generalization of market needs, etc. Only by focusing on an individuals abilities can we ensure we have the top people for each role.

 

[Fighting Madd]

So basically leave things as they are, with the preferred additional of more taxpayer $ for improved access?

How about making a high school education count for something?

 

[afransen TO]

I agree with improving high school, and certainly teaching some basic life skills. A mandatory personal finance course is a glaring omission from secondary school curriculum in Ontario.

Master planning training/education can be tricky and cause as many problems as it solves, but if done well, I think it could yield some benefits.

Overall, I think the burden of education should be taken off the student (or at least make it more backloaded) and placed more on society. University grads pay way more taxes than high school or less grads.

 

[bizorky]

How about making a high school education count for something?

How about also making it about helping to develop interesting and interested human beings?

 

[Fighting Madd]

How about also making it about helping to develop interesting and interested human beings?

Are you claiming high school doesn't already accomplish this? I'm not.

In addition to developing interesting and involved people, how about making it count for something? People are graduating from high school in Canada with poor literacy and mathematical skills. Ask any first year university prof and they'll tell you that they spend the first year just trying to correct spelling, grammar and prose. I can't imagine what a first year math or science prof must see.

I don't see why anyone is disagreeing with my suggestion to make high school count. What's wrong with training our young people so that by the time they're twenty years old they have the skills to get a job beyond McDs?