On February 1st, students from across Canada are displaying their dissatisfaction of rising tuition costs. At 11am, show your support with the nation-wide movement by participating in the on-campus rally and march. The gathering location is at Mills Plaza and the march will be around campus.
McMaster students rally to:
* REDUCE TUITION FEES
* REDUCE STUDENT DEBT
* INCREASE EDUCATION FUNDING
* MAKE THE 30% TUITION GRANT INCLUSIVE TO ALL STUDENTS
Speeches and live music will prelude the march.
Snacks and hot drinks provided!
Two poster-making sessions will be happening on Monday Jan 30th and Tuesday January 31st at 6pm, in the MUSC Atrium near the fireplace. Materials will be provided!
__________________ Alvand Mohtashami
Commerce III Cootes Paradise Club Leader MacTV Executive Producer
EngStud, sf2fs all say thanks to Alvand for this post.
* REDUCE TUITION FEES! ----> And reduce the amount of money available for programs that spend money on real, valid items like laboratory equipment and updated facilities.
* REDUCE STUDENT DEBT! ----> Pay less to school, recieve less from school. You get what you pay for.
* INCREASE EDUCATION FUNDING! ----> Well this is just counterintuitive? You want the government to spend more on our education to make up for the above two items, and you want to spend less? When will people realize that governments don't grow money... If you're not paying for the current level/quality of your education, then the government has to, and that just means higher taxes. 1 year after you get your lower tuition, if schools maintain their level of quality, then you'll be Rallying for lower taxes.
* MAKE THE 30% TUITION GRANT INCLUSIVE TO ALL STUDENTS! ----> Again, where is this money coming from? You know that our governments are in debt right? "Spend all your money on STUDENTS!" Yea, then you graduate, work for a year, and again, you rally and b!tch and complain because you're paying too much tax.
Hey look! There's 2 sides to your arguments... And I just exposed the other side. Whoops, Sorry.
DISCLAIMER: Not saying the educational world is all right as it is. Administration and educational institutions could use some budget auditing and some EXTREMELY critical judgement for various expenses. I remember when we were paying $30,000 or something like that for the previous President to go and do business in Australia for a couple weeks. You know who gave him that $30,000? Me, and my ~3 buddies. Yea, true story... On September 1st, we logged into Solar, gave him $30,000, and he booked his flight to Australia. (N00bs will not recognize the reference I'm making here.... Anyone here for >2 years might remember though)
DISCLAIMER: Not saying the educational world is all right as it is. Administration and educational institutions could use some budget auditing and some EXTREMELY critical judgement for various expenses. I remember when we were paying $30,000 or something like that for the previous President to go and do business in Australia for a couple weeks. You know who gave him that $30,000? Me, and my ~3 buddies. Yea, true story... On September 1st, we logged into Solar, gave him $30,000, and he booked his flight to Australia. (N00bs will not recognize the reference I'm making here.... Anyone here for >2 years might remember though)
I agree, there is significant inefficiency and wastage in a large variety of Public Sector Institutions in this Province. You can look up stuff by Don Drummond who spent the last year investigating this and will be releasing his report on the 16th of February. Universities are also guilty of this through the weird public/private hybrid model that the run with that partly explains the reluctance by the government to exponentially increase funding from current levels.
I do inherently believe that the governments do recognize the importance of PSE for economic prosperity but the current structure at Universities is not conducive to efficient use of taxpayer funding. For any other crown corporation or ministry, the government has much stronger control. That is why I often get frustrated by seemingly one dimensional calls by student groups to "increase funding", I cannot in good conscience support that knowing the wastage. This paper further expands on it: http://www.ousa.ca/wordpress/wp-cont...ntability1.pdf
As for your concern about Peter George, there is a valid argument on the topic of why his Salary was so high(after bonuses) and why he made these trips abroad. When PG became President McMaster was a middle tier Canadian Institution, by the time he left last year we were firmly in the top 100 punching way way above our weight; beating out institutions like Western and Queens. There are multiple reasons for that ascent, but a significant part of it is that exponentially remarkable rise in public and targeted private research funding over a decade(Well over $500 Million). At one point only Uoft and McGill had higher funding revenues coming in. Argument is made that his salary/expense account is a result of his performance. The same approach is applied in the Corporate world where CEO's make Millions a year, but if they fail they are very quickly fired. Yahoo has gone through multiple CEO's since even the best recruits have not delivered.
With a President when analyzing the net worth which translates to how much remuneration they "deserve", people often don't include the Virtual Resource Capital they have through their "connections" and "lobbying ability". There will always be other Universities willing to pay the salary/perks even if McMaster somehow through massive student protests cuts the President's salary.
But the other side of it is that Publicly elected officials all earn alot less(eg: Harper earns $317k) and that there is a lack of accountability with some of the excessive spending.
__________________ Huzaifa Saeed BA Hon, Political Science & Sociology, Class of 2013
Warning: This post has been reported This post has been flagged as violating the MacInsiders Code Of Conduct, and is being reviewed by one of our staff. It may contain offensive material. Click here to view.
For those who support equitable access to Education - ALL OUT FEB 1st!
"Clearly identified in the supporting literature is the presence of a profound gap in post-secondary
attendance by high school graduates from families with lower incomes and those whose family
incomes are higher—in short, the poorer Canadian is not, for a variety of factors, accessing a
university education, while the relatively wealthier high school graduate is. This inequity alone raises
concerns about social policy in a democratic nation, but more disturbing is the fact that Canadians
without post-secondary educations are less likely to participate in electoral activity, less likely to
maintain a high quality of health, less likely to feel financial security, and less likely to, in turn, have
the means to facilitate their own children’s post-secondary education. In effect, alienation from postsecondary education,
especially from a university degree, creates a two-tiered culture in which the have-nots are cyclically reproduced."
- Center for Studies on Democracy, Queens University
HA! The other point that became obvious (Sorry for those who don't have critical thinking skills?) through that piece of propoganda video is: Public Funding went down, and enrollment went sky high! Not necessarily hand in hand, but the government can't fund 85% of tuition fees given the enrollment numbers of today... Heck, half of the people fighting wouldn't even by IN University if enrollment was back to where it used to be when Educational funding was 85%. That's a bit of a ZINGER against any activist that goes marching when they just barely scraped into this institution of learning by their high school marks.
So I say: Take you're cut of education funding, be THANKFUL you got in, and go rally for something that doesn't contradict your enrollment at this school... i.e. HOW your money is spent. Because looking at the rally for higher education funding vs. a rally for efficiency, Only the former will result in you RERALLYING in 10 years for lower taxes... {insert offensive term here, becaue this whole "thinking for other people" thing is getting tiring}
01-26-2012 at 12:53 PM
#37
WalkerBlue
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 66
Thanked:
15 Times
Liked:
73 Times
I have no idea what any of you are talking about.
We pay thousands less than Americans for tuition at schools that are often better. We've been given a 30% tuition break, with the provision we attend school full time and our parents don't make an absurd amount of money per year. Might I add that the returns to education for these individuals will probably be dwarfed by their inheritance.
I have paid my way through school- entirely. I borrowed, but I do not feel burried. I have supported myself since highschool- rent, food, tuition. Make no mistake, education is a privilage. In this country, that privilage more often goes to children born to the right parents. Money is rarely a factor.
This country has an education system that acts as a great equalizer. The American dream is more alive in this country than in its namesake.
Finally, I should note that my financial stake in my education has driven me to want to do well. I find that all too often children from wealthy families have less trouble wasting their parents money, than children from broke families have wasting their own. I do not wish to create a generation of entitled brats.
So go ahead, accuse me of trivializing debt burden. My reponse? Don't accumulate 30,000 in debt if you have no hope of making money or cannot live with the repayment costs. This isn't speaking from a point of entitlement. I grew up in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country.
Last edited by WalkerBlue : 01-26-2012 at 12:59 PM.
Last edited by WalkerBlue : 01-26-2012 at 01:01 PM.
01-26-2012 at 02:09 PM
#39
mike_302
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,086
Thanked:
98 Times
Liked:
422 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkerBlue
Don't accumulate 30,000 in debt if you have no hope of making money or cannot live with the repayment costs.
That.
Just in general. School. House. Marriage. Kids. Just don't go doing it and then complaining because you had no plan of how to deal with it after.
"I'mma go get me an edumacation... I'mma learn about history with ma guvermint lown, and den.... And den.... I don't know what I'll do with it. But I'll yell at people to lower the cost!"
Again, DISCLAIMER: That imitation was not generalizing everybody that's FOR this movement. I'm just imitating (in jest) the people that have no plan of what to do to pay off their debt. And don't say "there shouldn't be a debt in the first place", because that's just silly... The government can't fund 100% of higher education.
You are already getting a cheap education compared to other countries and what the actual price of your education should be if the government didn't make it cheaper.
Universities are a business and need to make money so the only way you'll get a cheaper education is from the government. 1) I rather the government spend it on other things. 2) Don't rely too heavily on your government.
Therefore be quiet. Spoiled kids these days.....
Spoiled kids ? I'd rather be a rebellious spoiled kid to change the status quo, rather than being a lazy old person that wants to let Tuition skyrocket or let the govt destroy the environment in Alberta.
Other countries are worse, so Canadians must do nothing ?
That's like saying: "Well, there is no democracy in Iran, so it doesn't matter if we have an un-elected Senate in Canada."
I don't know about you but I care about freedom and democracy. People have the right to express their opinions, another reason why you're allowed to spout your Ad Hominem nonsense here.
People also have a right to complain and get lower tuition costs. Europe has a pretty damn low tuition cost.
But of course, you gotta compare Ontario (a province) to corrupt countries like the US and .... Let me see.... Oh wait, there isn't any other country with a higher tuition.
Most of us are comparing Ontario to Quebec, if you want to compare Ontario to the US, that would be fine in a 1st grade debate.
* REDUCE TUITION FEES! ----> And reduce the amount of money available for programs that spend money on real, valid items like laboratory equipment and updated facilities.
* REDUCE STUDENT DEBT! ----> Pay less to school, recieve less from school. You get what you pay for.
False, Quality is not affected by lower tuition costs. Firstly, it's a non profit school so free markets laws of "quality" don't apply to tuition.
Let's use your logic. Let's assume an increase of tuition = better quality.
If you've been a Mac student for the past 4-5 years, you've seen your tuition rise without quality rising proportionally. Inflation plays a role in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_302
* INCREASE EDUCATION FUNDING! ----> Well this is just counterintuitive? You want the government to spend more on our education to make up for the above two items, and you want to spend less? When will people realize that governments don't grow money... If you're not paying for the current level/quality of your education, then the government has to, and that just means higher taxes. 1 year after you get your lower tuition, if schools maintain their level of quality, then you'll be Rallying for lower taxes.
Grow money ? No one wants to create hyperinflation.
However, if funding is what people want, this can be easily achieve by cutting spending in other sectors of government spending. There is no need to increase taxes.
Instead of building a bridge to nowhere or bailing out auto industries, we could fund universities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_302
* MAKE THE 30% TUITION GRANT INCLUSIVE TO ALL STUDENTS! ----> Again, where is this money coming from? You know that our governments are in debt right? "Spend all your money on STUDENTS!" Yea, then you graduate, work for a year, and again, you rally and b!tch and complain because you're paying too much tax.
Cut spending in other areas of public spending...
Raise taxes on corporations or tax private jets more.
If the Ontario parliament wasn't getting contaminated by Lobbyists, maybe students wouldn't have a debt problem.
Last edited by EngStud : 01-27-2012 at 12:29 AM.
01-27-2012 at 08:50 AM
#42
mike_302
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,086
Thanked:
98 Times
Liked:
422 Times
^ Who ARE you? You missed the points of half my arguments, and then you made some very far out claims.
a) Cut tuition and you DEFINITELY lose quality of education. We're not talking about cutting tuition by the amount that it has increased over the past 5 or 6 years... This rally wants tuition lowered by thousands to "make it more affordable for everyone". You cut out a $1,000 tuition from every student in a school with 22,000 students, you've lost millions that fund labs, profs, research, etc.
b) I wasn't even suggesting that we should grow money. Way to take the comment out of context. Cut spending in other sectors? Again, this leads to the point I already made: In 10 years, you'll be rallying to get that funding back in "Child care benefits" or some other sector that affects you in 10 years. Here's a shocker for you: Students aren't the only priority for the government.
c) "Cut spending in other areas of public sending..." I think I just covered why this comment is void already. You then claim we should just tax the people that have money. Mmmmmhmm, there are so many economic reasons that won't work, it's ridiculous. Or maybe you're right... Maybe you just solved Ontario's problem... The government should just tax the rich a whole lot more. You're the first person to think of that. Unfortunately, that's not what these lobbyits are going out for. They just want the school to lower tuition, and the government to put more money into their education. They offer no solution that doesn't end in reduced school services, or increased taxes for the rest of the provincial population.
^ Who ARE you? You missed the points of half my arguments, and then you made some very far out claims.
a) Cut tuition and you DEFINITELY lose quality of education. We're not talking about cutting tuition by the amount that it has increased over the past 5 or 6 years... This rally wants tuition lowered by thousands to "make it more affordable for everyone". You cut out a $1,000 tuition from every student in a school with 22,000 students, you've lost millions that fund labs, profs, research, etc.
b) I wasn't even suggesting that we should grow money. Way to take the comment out of context. Cut spending in other sectors? Again, this leads to the point I already made: In 10 years, you'll be rallying to get that funding back in "Child care benefits" or some other sector that affects you in 10 years. Here's a shocker for you: Students aren't the only priority for the government.
c) "Cut spending in other areas of public sending..." I think I just covered why this comment is void already. You then claim we should just tax the people that have money. Mmmmmhmm, there are so many economic reasons that won't work, it's ridiculous. Or maybe you're right... Maybe you just solved Ontario's problem... The government should just tax the rich a whole lot more. You're the first person to think of that. Unfortunately, that's not what these lobbyits are going out for. They just want the school to lower tuition, and the government to put more money into their education. They offer no solution that doesn't end in reduced school services, or increased taxes for the rest of the provincial population.
Mike just ripped Engstud a new one !
JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!
__________________
Alumni
01-27-2012 at 03:53 PM
#44
EngStud
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 115
Thanked:
5 Times
Liked:
30 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_302
^ Who ARE you? You missed the points of half my arguments, and then you made some very far out claims.
a) Cut tuition and you DEFINITELY lose quality of education. We're not talking about cutting tuition by the amount that it has increased over the past 5 or 6 years... This rally wants tuition lowered by thousands to "make it more affordable for everyone". You cut out a $1,000 tuition from every student in a school with 22,000 students, you've lost millions that fund labs, profs, research, etc.
b) I wasn't even suggesting that we should grow money. Way to take the comment out of context. Cut spending in other sectors? Again, this leads to the point I already made: In 10 years, you'll be rallying to get that funding back in "Child care benefits" or some other sector that affects you in 10 years. Here's a shocker for you: Students aren't the only priority for the government.
c) "Cut spending in other areas of public sending..." I think I just covered why this comment is void already. You then claim we should just tax the people that have money. Mmmmmhmm, there are so many economic reasons that won't work, it's ridiculous. Or maybe you're right... Maybe you just solved Ontario's problem... The government should just tax the rich a whole lot more. You're the first person to think of that. Unfortunately, that's not what these lobbyits are going out for. They just want the school to lower tuition, and the government to put more money into their education. They offer no solution that doesn't end in reduced school services, or increased taxes for the rest of the provincial population.
I don't like repeating myself.
Those students want to cut tuition costs with the help of govt FUNDING. One of the factors causing an increase of tuition cost is inflation.
These students claim is to halt the inflation and increase funding but you like to use the Straw man fallacy too much. There is no loss of quality if funding takes over.
Then again, I told you Mac is a non-profit school. You just won't get it.
Child care benefits ? Straw man again.... There's the corporate tax cut, good place for a revenue. Legalize marijuana would reduce crimes and weed trading dramatically. It would also reduce funds needed to fight that war. There's a list of things that can be cut.
You clearly don't know what a lobbyist is. A lobbyist works a for a union or corporation. These students don't have the funds to hire a lobbyist. It's corporations who will hire lobbyists to get a corporate tax cut.
Again, I wasn't talking about taxing the rich, it's more about taxing corporations. Corporations are not people, they are not individuals. Therefore, they should be taxed more.
McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.
