Comments on: Reporting Back: Green Party of Canada Policy Conference, London

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:44:00 +0000

I am surprised that no students were the guests. Seems any university committee has to have student representation. We agitated for that in the 1960′s. Well I didn’t but I benefited from the result. Also no unversity workers. I don’t think this was a people’s party meeting but thats only my opinion based on your blog entry and my vision of the green party going back some 20 years now. Also you don’t mention bending education so that ecology and biology courses could/should be free. Also we can home school post-secondary school and you touch on foucaultian exams and grades determing who goes to school. Interdiciplinary studies are part of the solution and as of course are free studies. Non marks based studies are important. Also the university’s need to live down the lie that they teach people working skills. The majority never work in their field. And btw I am not rich and rarely have I earned more than 10,000 dollars per year. I have attended schools for most of my 48 years of life. Thanks for accepting my comments and posting this to your blog. Good luck being green.

By: Chris Tindal

Chris Tindal — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:55:00 +0000

You’re right Richard. It was mentioned, but I’m sure everyone (or at least most) wished it had gotten more time and attention.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:43:00 +0000

It’s too bad the Irish model was not discussed in detail, or at all. Progressives often point to the Irish model of free tuition (it’s never really free though because citizens tax dollars are what fund it). Ireland has done this with a low tax regime and is one of the most successful and dynamic economies/societies in the world today.

By: Erich "Fuzzy" Jacoby-Hawkins

Erich "Fuzzy" Jacoby-Hawkins — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:53:00 +0000

I have to say, I agree with the panelists about not simply offering free tuition. (Perhaps at the post-grad level it makes more sense). It seems to me that those making the loudest demands for free tuition are those who grew up without having to pay for anything and are now shocked and offended when they are suddenly asked to start paying their own way. (By this I mean the spoiled children of privilege). Those who’ve been working to help support their families through high school (or even earlier), who saw how hard their own parents worked just to put food on the table, seem more willing to accept that they must also put in some work to help pay for their education. So I agree totally that needs-based support is more fair (and affordable) than free tuition.

I have also noticed that parents’ willingness to pay for their children’s higher education seemingly has no correlation to wealth. Which is to say, there are rich parents who write a blank cheque and other rich parents who say “you’re on your own” (a situation which is paradoxically harsh, considering that such students are ineligible for needs-based grants based on their parents’ income). At the same time, there are poor parents who offer no support to higher ed, yet also poor parents who will starve themselves to help get their children better educated. Needs-based will help in both of the latter cases.

So the only ones left out are rich kids whose parents don’t pay. For them we offer student loans. Since highly-educated children of rich parents have a pretty good chance of securing high-paying employment down the line, this doesn’t bother me much. In fact, I am not opposed to income-contingent loan repayment, which seems to balance needs-based help with a form of progressive income tax, depending on whether your piece of paper gets you a good job or not.