Education and Debt: Scandinavian vs. United States Models

[ilovebacon]

well fuck it, the government is greedy, and greed is good for them. There's nothing anyone can do unless everyone hold hands.
Posted via RS Mobile

[noventa]

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious

? it says right on the picture

if the american gov't cut their military spending, and reformed their justice system they'd have more money to spend on other things, such as education, healthcare infrastructure whatever...which in turn would create greater benefits for society as a whole

To me, the picture pretty much summarizes as:
Free education reduces social inequality, and benefits both individuals and society in the long run.

My argument is that this correlation between "Free education" and "reduces social inequality and benefits both individuals and society in the long run" is unsubstantiated.


To me as a taxpayer, it sounds like someone is asking me for a free lunch. And if I ask them why they should get a free lunch they would tell me that their free lunch would benefit society as a whole.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by noventa

ok hold on here. If I am going to continue with this discussion you are going to have to confirm this statement.

By posting your prison population pictorial diagram, are you saying :
The Nordic Education Model is better because it results in fewer prisoner.

If you agree with that statement, please explain how the Education System is credited with keeping people out of prison. I believe you may be drawing a correlation between two events that is unsubstantiated.

Actually, its a clear correlation, that's been made by many.

The effects of wealth/income disparity are a rise in prison populations. People, already at the margins of normalized society start to feel disenfranchised from the ability to move ahead, and start changing the system through illegal acts. Drugs basically. Most of the prison population is involved either directly through manufacture and distribution of drugs. Most of the rest of the population is there indirectly through the use of drugs and/or addiction such as drinking/alcohol abuse. There are very few cases of crimes of passion-the one offs, such as Andy Dufresne-ing your wife and the tennis instructor.

How does education relate? In general, an educated population has a greater understanding of the world, and how it operates. Post secondary education is really training on the civilized world. All of this usually works to keeping thugs from being made, and subsequently imprisoned.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by noventa

To me, the picture pretty much summarizes as:
Free education reduces social inequality, and benefits both individuals and society in the long run.

My argument is that this correlation between "Free education" and "reduces social inequality and benefits both individuals and society in the long run" is unsubstantiated.


To me as a taxpayer, it sounds like someone is asking me for a free lunch. And if I ask them why they should get a free lunch they would tell me that their free lunch would benefit society as a whole.

Lol. That's how I feel with the federal liberals desire to have free daycare.

I do feel that its extortion. I don't think we should have free post secondary(or really any addition to entitlement spending) but I'd like to see costs capped. And I think you do that by controlling how much money is provided for student loans.

No school in the country is going to keep costs rising if their market has 10k per year to spend on school.

I remember, I was 18...and we were hearded through like sheep. Stamp stamp stamp...tuition gets paid, you get the rest. No questions. No talk of interest rates, or payment terms or anything. I spent more time in line than I did signing it away.

Ridiculously sad.

[noventa]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

Actually, its a clear correlation, that's been made by many.

The effects of wealth/income disparity are a rise in prison populations. People, already at the margins of normalized society start to feel disenfranchised from the ability to move ahead, and start changing the system through illegal acts. Drugs basically. Most of the prison population is involved either directly through manufacture and distribution of drugs. Most of the rest of the population is there indirectly through the use of drugs and/or addiction such as drinking/alcohol abuse. There are very few cases of crimes of passion-the one offs, such as Andy Dufresne-ing your wife and the tennis instructor.

How does education relate? In general, an educated population has a greater understanding of the world, and how it operates. Post secondary education is really training on the civilized world. All of this usually works to keeping thugs from being made, and subsequently imprisoned.

hmm.. let me think about this for a bit. About your education related bit, I want to argue and say that the free high school that we get should be considered the education needed to have a understand of the world. Hence, I will say that post secondary education does not prevent thugs from being made. In other words, I'm saying that people do not become thugs due to lack of education. Maybe lack of opportunities, but not because they are uneducated.

If decreasing wealth/income disparity decreases prison population, then increasing the post secondary education level of the people will decrease wealth/income disparity because higher educated people earn more money. If this is true, then society will be producing more educated citizens per capita. However, the number of available jobs will be the same and you will still have ten engineers competing for one job. Since there is only one high paying job available, the other nine will have to go work at McDonalds. So in the end, there will still be income/wealth disparity despite the average education level being higher.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by noventa

hmm.. let me think about this for a bit. About your education related bit, I want to argue and say that the free high school that we get should be considered the education needed to have a understand of the world. Hence, I will say that post secondary education does not prevent thugs from being made. In other words, I'm saying that people do not become thugs due to lack of education. Maybe lack of opportunities, but not because they are uneducated.

If decreasing wealth/income disparity decreases prison population, then increasing the post secondary education level of the people will decrease wealth/income disparity because higher educated people earn more money. If this is true, then society will be producing more educated citizens per capita. However, the number of available jobs will be the same and you will still have ten engineers competing for one job. Since there is only one high paying job available, the other nine will have to go work at McDonalds. So in the end, there will still be income/wealth disparity despite the average education level being higher.

This is true, but in practical terms you could have elementary school kids flipping burgers at mcdick's for their whole lives--it doesn't take a grade 10 education to get to that point. But we do generally say that you should 'at least' graduate from high school. Why? Because that's the point to which society says "this is the absolute least you should learn". Not because the job training needs it, but because in order to function as a part of society, this is the amount of education you should have. Not even necessarily for the skills you can learn, but at least for the level and amount of discourse you should be able to participate in.

[westopher]

Originally Posted by noventa

I understand what the statement means and my response to it is that giving living allowance to students is stupid.
Reason: I believe it would encourage people who are not interested in actually obtaining a higher education to just freeload off the system for 4 more years or however long it takes.

These aren't going to be handed out to some lazy ass thats taking an entry level sociology course to chill in a dorm room to party. People obviously have to maintain a certain academic standard, which would probably be pretty hard if you were just going to school because you had nothing better to do. People need to be driven to succeed in higher levels of education. The fact also remains, higher level education makes these people more employable at the end of it, which in turn means they are more likely to contribute back into the system that helped them reach that level.

[gars]

People forget that with "free education" - it doesn't mean that you'll dumb down the standards so that more people will end up with a degree. Nor does it mean that you'll end It means that people who traditionally decided to skip schooling because of the costs involved.

I met some guys from Denmark - and I think they said that they were given 5 years to complete a Bachelors degree. That doesn't mean they can screw around, but it gives them a bit of leeway to change their focus subject partway through (Bachelor degrees generally take 3 years in Europe). They were given an allowance, but it's usually not enough to cover everything; they still have to take out small loans to cover the rest of their living expenses.

[falcon]

Originally Posted by metal

It really shouldn't cost you more than $50-60k to get your CPL/MIFR from 0 hours. Unless you're enrolled in some super expensive flight college and getting an "aviation degree" as well. There are a couple of subsidized flight colleges in Ontario that are pretty sweet and cost you just a fraction of that as well.

I'm just doing it at my own pace, not the BCIT "Aviation Degree." But once I have my PPL, Night Rating, Mountain Checks, US Checks, IFR, Multi Engine IFR and Commercial + maybe a float rating it will be almost 100k. If I only got my Night rating, single engine IFR and Commercial then I could fly bush planes which I might do and then do my Multi engine later on. It all depends on cash flow and job prospects the closer I get to completion. But, I need 200 hours regardless to get a commercial lic. so why not make 40 of those hours a Multi IFR? Makes sense.

[metal]

Definitely do your MIFR as part of your commercial build up time; the 20 hours in the plane count towards your TT, so it's only wise to do it that way. Even with all that said and not counting ground school costs, briefings etc; you can finish your PPL in under 10 grand, allocate another 10-12 grand for your MIFR, then we'll just say 130 hours of build up time between all that, and we're only sitting at approximately $37k for flight time to get you to 200 hours and minted. You can claim a lot of that back too. In Manitoba, you can get 60% of your total tuition cost back over a number of years; something to keep in mind when job hunting as well.

[falcon]

I guess when you write it up like that, if I am good on time and can do everything in the min. time req. it will be less. I am going to do my MIFR. My PPL including GS/briefings should be right around $12k based on what I've spent so far and calculating based on that.

I dont want to leave the LM, especially go to Manitoba. Ontario I could manage but I like it here and am OK spending a bit more to keep it in Vancouver.

[metal]

You can do all your training there (I lived my whole life in Victoria until I moved here for work), but don't turn down a job anywhere else. Opportunities for low time pilots are few and far between on the west coast, and usually backed by awful pay and hours/company standards.