Page 1 of 3
Budget Cuts
Posted: 2/2/2004, 8:33 pm
by nelison
I think the top quote in my sig denotes how I feel about this one...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040202/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_cuts_3
Now I know some of you will say that "they needed to cut down on the deficit", but it seems like some priorites are a tad mixed up.
Posted: 2/3/2004, 11:46 pm
by Bandalero
yeah, education should never get cut, under any circumstance.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 12:32 am
by I AM ME
education determines our future
Posted: 2/4/2004, 1:51 am
by Johnny
It does...it affects the teachers as well. Here in AB for example, there was alot of education cuts which resulted in the loss of many teaching jobs. Its sad really.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 2:00 am
by Dabekk
exaclty!
let's stimulate the economy by leaving people jobless, and comprimising the education of those soon to be joining the workforce. [/sarcasm]
Posted: 2/4/2004, 10:48 am
by Neil
Bush can suck me....
Bush can suck me...
Bush can suck me...........SUCK ME OFF!
Posted: 2/4/2004, 10:59 am
by nelison
This isn't just in the states either. In Ontario post-secondary education has lost 2 billion dollars worth of funds over the last 10 years causing tuition prices to sky rocket.
Today in Peterborough there's a city wide walkout for all high schools and the university to try and get the govt to give back the 2 billion dollars that they've cut. Tomorrow it should be in the Peterborough paper so I'll post the article on here. It sounds like this is going to be a huge thing as literally everyone, profs, TA's, students will be walking out and going to the local MPP's and MP's office to get their voices heard... so ya we'll see what happens. Usually when my school speaks up things get done. Or at least this has been the case in the past.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 11:03 am
by Neil
It's hard to help education when current peoples ideals are "If you're rich you'll make it and if you're poor...........sorry"
Posted: 2/4/2004, 11:20 am
by I AM ME
Manitoba isn't perfect either, but we're NDP so at least our government believes in spending money on Education.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 1:24 pm
by starvingeyes
private education is undeniably better. the whole system should be privatized.
please, no responses telling me it's too expensive, because it isn't. public education is just a big lie politicians use to increase their own power base.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 2:28 pm
by Bandalero
budget to all texas public colleges and universities was cut 14%, and to make matters worse, they've deregulated tuition costs, so they make it up by increasing tuition to all time highs.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 4:57 pm
by Johnny
the alchemist wrote:private education is undeniably better. the whole system should be privatized.
please, no responses telling me it's too expensive, because it isn't. public education is just a big lie politicians use to increase their own power base.
How much does private schooling cost? I'm just curious.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 5:14 pm
by faninor
Johnathan wrote:the alchemist wrote:private education is undeniably better. the whole system should be privatized.
please, no responses telling me it's too expensive, because it isn't. public education is just a big lie politicians use to increase their own power base.
How much does private schooling cost? I'm just curious.
It's expensive.
There was no way in hell that I could go to the private university I applied to last year because it was way too expensive. Hard to argue with that . . .
Posted: 2/4/2004, 8:56 pm
by Dabekk
and if all schooling is private, then children from rich families will always get a better education than those from poorer families. to me, that isn't right.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 9:30 pm
by nelison
I think the argument he's trying to make is that if education was privitized all schools would be on an equal level competing for customers (students). Therefore, if all schools decided to raise prices, there wouldn't be many students who could afford it, causing them to basically lose. So they would need to provide affordable education to ensure that they remain in business.
The reason private schools are so expensive right now is because they don't need to compete. They know that enough people can afford to attend their school to keep their prices at their current levels, and to keep the school going.
I've been reading a lot about their whole "anarchist" system lately. At first it seemed like the stupidest idea I've ever heard, but since I've started university I've been able to read more about it and it's starting to make more and more sense. The only problem is I'm still in the mindset that everyone should have the right to health care and education...
Posted: 2/4/2004, 10:13 pm
by I AM ME
Joel is right though, even if there are competing, there's still going to be schools that are designed for the more wealthy. I agree though that as far as education and ettiquete our current private schools are much better, but i think certain social skills and free thought become some what limited in those institutions.
Posted: 2/4/2004, 11:08 pm
by nelison
Oh I agree. That's something I'm worried about too. Basically it would become a pay for what you get type of deal, but I think either way student's will still get an education. Beside, in Canada there's isn't THAT much difference between schools to make it so that way some people are getting far inferior educations. I doubt things would change. There would basically be maybe Queens that would provide elite education, much like Harvard or Yale, and the rest I feel would be equivalent to one another.
Of course I could be wrong, and it's hard to say since I'm only basing this on what we see from our American counterparts and how they approach university education, but it's an intriguing offer.
Posted: 2/5/2004, 10:24 am
by starvingeyes
exactly. the competition in an unregulated free private education market would drive prices below what we currently pay in taxes to keep our shitty public schools open. and just think of the corporate sponsorship opportunities. you don't think pepsi wouldn't mind throwing down some coin to get their name plastered on the front of a high school?
and honestly, i don't really see what the bad thing about rich kids getting better education is. i mean, why not? if you have a system in which some people can get better stuff, why not let them? there is nothing lost by the poorer kids if the richer kids get better education.
Posted: 2/5/2004, 10:39 am
by nelison
As long as the education the poorer kid is receiving is still taught by profs with degrees and not just Joe Schmo, I don't see a problem with that.
Posted: 2/5/2004, 2:27 pm
by Bandalero
there are well over 20,000 uncertified teachers in this state alone. lower preforming schools will just hire uncertied teachers, making it affordable for the less fortunate, comprimising their education.