|
Jordan7hm posted:The value of a degree is that you finished something that takes 4 years. Who do you imagine the "we" in this sentence is? Why do you assume you'd be worse off because the government hired more people through an initiative that both reduces unemployment in the labour market and upgrades the skills base of the average Canadian worker?
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
If you have family to support or need to work while in school your grades might suffer for it. As opposed to someone who only has to deal with a couple dozen hours of class time and homework and the trials and tribulations of being 20... but keeps up their grades. I wasn't being serious about true socialist cred. I just don't think university is worth what we pay for it and the last thing I'd want to see is for it to expand and be entirely taxpayer supported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I think the disconnect occurs because some people believe increasing graduation rates at whatever level means meaningfully increasing the average level of education, and others believe that it's s fiction created by the lowering of standards. I'm in the latter camp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
The wealthy (or even marginally-wealthy in the case of some of the people I work with) already have the option of private prep school for their kids, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
As a grad student that Education tax credit was pretty nice  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Daycare in Toronto: lol if you think... I must be the outlier but I'm raising two kids in downtown Toronto and have never paid more than $55 a day for private home daycare (always 5 kids or less) and whenever I couldn't find that in my hood I throw an ad on craigslist and find a nice student / artist to come nanny at my place. I don't get it. E: thats $55 per kid Reince Penis fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Majuju posted:The wealthy (or even marginally-wealthy in the case of some of the people I work with) already have the option of private prep school for their kids, too. Yeah, and? You can't polish a turd. Provided we strictly inspect private schools for grade inflation, which we ought to be doing, I don't really give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
JayMax posted:You guys should try protesting once in a while. No one lost a hockey game
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:If you have family to support or need to work while in school your grades might suffer for it. As opposed to someone who only has to deal with a couple dozen hours of class time and homework and the trials and tribulations of being 20... but keeps up their grades. The societies that provide free tuition are also the societies that tend to have much stronger support for child and elder care and more inclusive social safety nets in general, which alleviates this problem. I don't believe this is a coincidence. Free education, like free healthcare, helps to civilize and humanize society and normalizes the idea of using collective resources to assist families and individuals. I don't believe you can treat government programs like free education or childcare in isolation: we as a society make choices based on our values, and the values embodied by free education would help us advance toward other goals. In a related matter, the rising cost of tuition that you allude to is caused by the same values disconnect that would lead you to disparage higher education. The fact is that because so many people in society share your view of education as a basically private and individually consumed good goes a long way (though certainly there are other factors) to explaining why we've allowed the price to rise so rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
I went to the Andrew Loku protest outside Toronto Police headquarters today. I recognized some of the folks from Occupy Toronto, on activist vacation once again. However, a lot of the anger over another the SIU wall of silence also feels like raw hurt feelings that the Forcillo was indicted for killing a Syrian, and Loku was just an African. It's really tough to say, but I don't think they have any clue about why Forcillo even lost. If the video shows Andrew walking towards the officers with the hammer raised, it's over. That said, they're right that a police officer probably would have been less quick to draw and fire in a Bay Bloor apartment or even one of the nicely manicured lawns across the street. That's just not enough to indict him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
RBC posted:I had like 40k in tuition credits and made out with probably ~7 grand in money back at tax time over the last three years, and that's with an income below 30k, every year Tuition credits are nonrefundable tax credits and independent of your tax bracket (they essentially allow you to reduce your income tax paid, as if it was earned in the lowest tax bracket). It doesn't make a difference whether you are making $200k or $20k a year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Free university tuitions is dumb and bad and just makes things harder for people who already don't go to university. Whats it like to live in a world where financial barriers have never affected your life experiences and choices? As a person that put significant financial struggles on his family just to afford community college, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Tuition credits are nonrefundable tax credits and independent of your tax bracket (they essentially allow you to reduce your income tax paid, as if it was earned in the lowest tax bracket). It doesn't make a difference whether you are making $200k or $20k a year. hence why parents with high incomes use it to make off like bandits
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Tuition credits are nonrefundable tax credits and independent of your tax bracket (they essentially allow you to reduce your income tax paid, as if it was earned in the lowest tax bracket). It doesn't make a difference whether you are making $200k or $20k a year. Except if you don't make enough to pay taxes, you'd need the most help and get the least... awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Whats it like to live in a world where financial barriers have never affected your life experiences and choices? Free tuition does not make it easier to pay your rent or take 4 years off work when you're 26 or 27 (because at 18 what mattered was being able to contribute financially). Free tuition for all is bad, needs based funding is good. Unless you agree with Helsing that university education leads to a better society overall, which I'm pretty dubious about. e: I am getting a ton of osap funding because of the older student / single parent thing, I'm pretty sure I talked about this during the last round of arguing over free university. I have a pretty strong bias around this stuff. Jordan7hm fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
29 billion dollar deficit LMAO. Good job Justin next year we can push it more and add 50 billion 1.6 billion over 3 years to middle eastern countries for "developmental services", shake my head How about you legalise pot and tax it so our deficit is slightly less ridiculous, like you said you were going to do, or is that too 2014?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Remember when Justin said he was going to tax the rich more but it turns out you're only taxed individually more if you make over $199,999 so all the rich people need to do is pay themselves and their wife $198,000 each for almost $400,000 and they get a slight tax cut. Gold Jerry
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Free tuition does not make it easier to pay your rent or take 4 years off work when you're 26 or 27 (because at 18 what mattered was being able to contribute financially). Thats why you supplement it with other social programs. I went back to college at 30 and the financial struggles weighed heavily on every single thing I had to choose to do or not to do. I had to cut a lot of corners to make sure my books were paid for as well as my rent so having to only worry about one side of that equation would have been a significant reduction in stress. You come off like one of those cranky assholes that feel like if you had to endure something lovely its only right that younger generations should also have to suffer. Its a terrible way to look at life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
brucio posted:hence why parents with high incomes use it to make off like bandits No, you are misreading that. Nonrefundable tax credits are worth 15 cents on the dollar (i.e., the percentage corresponding to the lowest tax bracket) against the taxes you've paid, regardless of how much you make. They do not reduce your taxable income. Parents with high incomes are going to be in a significantly higher tax bracket. So applying $1000 of nonrefundable tax credits from your kid to $1000 of income earned in (say) the 29% marginal tax bracket results does not cancel out that income altogether, but results in $1000*(29-15)% = $140 in taxes still owing. Hence the statement that It doesn't make a difference whether you are making $200k or $20k a year. EngineerJoe posted:Except if you don't make enough to pay taxes, you'd need the most help and get the least... awesome. I mean, that's what marginal tax brackets are for. If you don't make enough to pay taxes, you aren't paying taxes. This is kind of like the objection that reducing taxes on the lowest bracket would help people making 100k more than people making 20k. There are other programs that can and should take up the slack for people who are not paying any taxes at all. To illustrate why this is bad, I had zero income for most of my postsecondary education and was supported by scholarships, which were nontaxable income. I accrued something like 60k of tax credits as a result and never paid a penny of income taxes during that timeframe. Should the government just give me an extra $15k for nothing as a result? e: or $60k * 15% = 9k, I'm apparently bad at math. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:29 billion dollar deficit LMAO. Good job Justin next year we can push it more and add 50 billion Do it ironically posted:Remember when Justin said he was going to tax the rich more but it turns out you're only taxed individually more if you make over $199,999 so all the rich people need to do is pay themselves and their wife $198,000 each for almost $400,000 and they get a slight tax cut. You know a partisan shill when they call the Prime Minister "Justin".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Thats why you supplement it with other social programs. I went back to college at 30 and the financial struggles weighed heavily on every single thing I had to choose to do or not to do. I had to cut a lot of corners to make sure my books were paid for as well as my rent so having to only worry about one side of that equation would have been a significant reduction in stress. I guess my point is that I am in favour of someone in that situation getting free tuition, but that isn't the same thing as everyone getting free tuition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Whats it like to live in a world where financial barriers have never affected your life experiences and choices? Listen bud: skool sux! Furnaceface posted:Thats why you supplement it with other social programs. I went back to college at 30 and the financial struggles weighed heavily on every single thing I had to choose to do or not to do. I had to cut a lot of corners to make sure my books were paid for as well as my rent so having to only worry about one side of that equation would have been a significant reduction in stress. My friend's idiot sister changed her vote away from the NDP because oh no, what if rich people use national daycare! Can't have that!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:You know a partisan shill when they call the Prime Minister "Justin". the biggest joke is that i voted for him
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:You know a partisan shill when they call the Prime Minister "Justin". If he was a shill, he'd know that you only get taxed more after 216k and that's after rrsps so a power couple could be pulling in almost 500k without paying higher taxes. 2/10 shilling
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
As someone in science I know that better science is achieved by simply having more people in science. Focusing funding based on accomplishments and track record doesn't work and focusing funding based on scholastic accomplishment doesn't work. There is no correlation. Fund more people with basic living wages and you will get more break-throughs. No strings attached curiosity based blue sky research.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Not trolling: we need cold war levels of academic funding to build an innovative self sustaining economy. No degree of loving tax breaks or vc finding is going to build another loving sv. You need to literally dial the fiscal clock back to 1945.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Not trolling: we need cold war levels of academic funding to build an innovative self sustaining economy. No degree of loving tax breaks or vc finding is going to build another loving sv. You need to literally dial the fiscal clock back to 1945. Totally agree. Pay smart people to do research, implement safeguards against said smart people taking the IP out of the country
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:As someone in science I know that better science is achieved by simply having more people in science. Focusing funding based on accomplishments and track record doesn't work and focusing funding based on scholastic accomplishment doesn't work. There is no correlation. As a former STEM grad student this opinion is true and good, especially the latter part; science for the sake of science pays dividends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
I was watching the CBC stream announcing the budget and the talking heads there were pretty much all in agreement that it seemed like the government was sandbagging like crazy, so that a few years from now they can have the potential to announce a massive surplus right before an election. It sounds about right based on the numbers they were citing. There's a contingency of $6 billion, which is $3 billion more than the Conservatives ever kept, and the budget is assuming a ~$20-25 barrel of oil, which is pretty conservative as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think the disconnect occurs because some people believe increasing graduation rates at whatever level means meaningfully increasing the average level of education, and others believe that it's s fiction created by the lowering of standards. I'm in the latter camp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:I must be the outlier but I'm raising two kids in downtown Toronto and have never paid more than $55 a day for private home daycare (always 5 kids or less) and whenever I couldn't find that in my hood I throw an ad on craigslist and find a nice student / artist to come nanny at my place. Sounds like you got it good if it is a licenses private daycare. I'm not entirely sold about hiring starving artists from kijiji to 'watch' your kids in lieu of actual structure and research based preschool learning though. Maybe they will learn to paint or something. My day rate for a toddler is at $43 in the west end, and they accept visa lmao.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
gently caress you assholes I pay 65 a day
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:As someone in science I know that better science is achieved by simply having more people in science. Focusing funding based on accomplishments and track record doesn't work and focusing funding based on scholastic accomplishment doesn't work. There is no correlation. The last two sentences here are the most gigantic <citation needed> thing I've ever seen anyone written about science. There absolutely is a correlation between prior performance and future performance, and most quality research is done by people who went to fairly high quality postsecondary institutions and demonstrated significant potential early in their careers. M.McFly posted:As a former STEM grad student this opinion is true and good, especially the latter part; science for the sake of science pays dividends. Funding basic and blue sky research absolutely does pay dividends. But that's a largely separate issue from free postsecondary education. IMO, as someone who has taught at the postsecondary level at one of the top universities in Canada, so many students are woefully underprepared for postsecondary education that it's a very inefficient use of education dollars to target that late stage of the pipeline. Merit based funding for qualified students is great, student loan forgiveness is great, but incentivizing students who really aren't at all prepared for the rigors of a proper university degree to go and putter around for a few years isn't benefitting them or society. Funding elementary, middle, and high schools is a way more efficient use of the same amount of money. PT6A posted:I think the disconnect occurs because some people believe increasing graduation rates at whatever level means meaningfully increasing the average level of education, and others believe that it's s fiction created by the lowering of standards. I'm in the latter camp. Ah yes, Goodhart's law in action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:As someone in science I know that better science is achieved by simply having more people in science. Focusing funding based on accomplishments and track record doesn't work and focusing funding based on scholastic accomplishment doesn't work. There is no correlation. Agree completely. I've got a PhD in plant molecular biology and I left academia because at the time I graduated (2010), science was going down the shitter. I'm glad to see a bit more money going to discovery research. I wish we could go back to the days where we just gave out pots of money to scientists and told them to investigate whatever broad area we wanted. This type of work takes a long time but leads to huge breakthroughs that, like others have mentioned, pay dividends and essentially advance our civilization. I'm thinking mainly of things like the computer, cellular technology, and renewable energy. This stuff was basically all blue sky long term research funded by the US government over a twenty year period. Only problem is, in this new world of metrics it's impossible for a government to demonstrate a return on investment in a "reasonable" time. We need even more discovery research funding, and funding to actually let grad students and post docs have a living wage. Their pay for the work they do is reprehensible. I made more working at McDonald's per hour than I did as a PhD student; how is this justifiable, especially in a society that prides itself on knowledge generation? Who wants to put that bone crushing time in with low wages for a future of soft money? Very few I suspect. I know I didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:The last two sentences here are the most gigantic <citation needed> thing I've ever seen anyone written about science. There absolutely is a correlation between prior performance and future performance, and most quality research is done by people who went to fairly high quality postsecondary institutions and demonstrated significant potential early in their careers. I can't find the exact article I want but this covers the general idea. http://elifesciences.org/content/5/e13323v1 The current tri-council likes to give bigwigs more money because they are basically the fox guarding the henhouse, but past scientific productivity has little correlation with future high impact productivity. So it's better to fund ten groups with $100k each than two groups with $500k each although this is what we do in Canada. There are a lot of massive post doc factories burning through huge amounts of research money while many young PIs fail to establish their labs due to the incredible competition for the smaller grants when they only need a bit. Twenty research programs is way better than one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:gently caress you assholes I pay 65 a day Me too. For 2 kids combined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
You know what's cheap? A barren, sterile existence that ends when you die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I can't find the exact article I want but this covers the general idea. The tri-council system actually is a lot more equitable than e.g. what you would find in the US with the NSF/NIH/etc when it comes to grant money distribution (America sure does love financial inequality in all its forms) -- and that link is actually to the NIH. I agree that the system of large mega-labs siphoning up all the grant money is not ideal, but it's also not true that there's no correlation between prior performance and future performance. You can argue that some of it is driven by prestige and network effects, but in my field (math), top researchers generally have a very consistent trend of important results and there are relatively few one-hit wonders. The top 1% of the field almost certainly produces more than the bottom 75% combined. What I don't really see is the connection with widening the funnel at the undergraduate level. If you want more students in the sciences, provide funding for promising students (both for the remainder of their undergraduate degrees and full funding for their graduate degrees), provide undergraduate research opportunities, and so on -- but free tuition is such an unfocused stimulus that it's hard to imagine it having any significant impact on getting really good future graduate students and researchers into the sciences, particularly in comparison to what you could achieve with a really targeted effort to get the best and the brightest (starting even before university).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
M.McFly posted:As a former STEM grad student this opinion is true and good, especially the latter part; science for the sake of science pays dividends. Yes and no. There has to be some level of gatekeeping, on the basis that a high school diploma does not come close to demonstrating the skills needed to participate in an undergraduate education, and increasingly, an undergraduate degree does not by itself demonstrate the capability to do graduate level work. What we need to do is get more people into science who would've been kept out for financial reasons, or societal sexism, or other factors like that. We don't need to get people into science who are going to sit around and bitch that everything is boring or too hard. Do we need people with a perfect high school transcript or undergraduate GPA? No. But the guy who passed high school by the tiniest of margins is either too stupid or too lazy to bother sending to university right away. We don't need to take that gamble with the public's money. Based on high school in Alberta, I'd be really surprised if anyone who, in the absence of large extenuating factors, got less than an 80 average went on to make significant contributions in any academic field. It's just so, so easy, even if you skip most of the time like I did. Edit: I think high school upgrading should be free in most circumstances, just in case there are legitimate reasons why someone's high school career went badly, even if it's just because they were immature. PT6A fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 05:02
|
|