[Shinrei]

Truth is often neither ideal nor particularily satisfying.

[Yellow]

 Sir Thursday, on 11 December 2010 - 02:48 AM, said:

- Will the knowledge of the amount of debt going to University will create prevent people from getting a degree, bearing in mind that they're not going to be paying off the debt until years after they make the decision to be saddled with it?

Raises an interesting point. I can only speak for myself but back in the day (1998) when they were just about getting rid of grants and replacing them with loans, I did seriously consider not going to uni at all. However this was more to do with the fact that my halls of residence were asking for money up front that I just did not have, whereas you can't get your loan until after you've registered.

They treat students like thieves at the beginning of the year - or at least they did. You must register with the university before picking up your cheque, and you can't register with the uni until you've registered with your department. Even once you had the cheque, that took minimum 3 days to clear... and that's if they even had it there waiting for you. Some people's payment was missing.

All of that adds up to something like two weeks without any money, even though you're supposed to have paid your first term's rent before then. Sometimes the uni would give you leeway due to hardship, but you can kiss that goodbye when you move into private accommodation.

Even the "good" side of the tuition fees coin is bullshit as well. They tell you not to worry, that you'll only pay off the loan once you're earning a certain amount. This is irresponsible advice and goes completely against the direction young people should be pointed in. BUY NOW PAY LATER just means more interest, a larger debt. 18 year olds should not be encouraged to take on debt. Usually the first thing that happens when people go to uni is they get themselves a student credit card and a massive overdraft, and it's often a slippery slope from then on (I learned that one the hard way, let me tell you). Many people never get out of debt again after that first foray, and the government should not encourage it.

I know that lots of people borrow responsibly, so I'm not saying it happens to everyone, but very many are not able to properly manage those kinds of finances at that age. I realise that probably sounds patronising, so apologies for that, but I believe it's true.

[Shinrei]

I still don't understand why they don't make money management, setting budgets, learning about credit, assets, liabilities etc. part of required coursework in school. If young adults know nothing about finance, debt and investing, they're heading out into the world with a serious handicap.

[Mentalist]

yeah, but that's what the establishment wants, Shin. more people with a "live life in constant debt" mentality, who won't think about upsetting the status quo.

sad, but true.

[Shinrei]

 Mentalist, on 11 December 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

yeah, but that's what the establishment wants, Shin. more people with a "live life in constant debt" mentality, who won't think about upsetting the status quo.

sad, but true.

Yes. We happen to live in a world where capitalism is reality, and IMO it would work a lot better if people were given the tools to understand the system they find themselves living in. It's one of the reasons I believe in free-compulsory public education, because education should be something that doesn't allow those who are already successful to pull the ladder up behind them. Ed. system is dropping the ball.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 11 December 2010 - 12:51 PM

[Mentalist]

hehe. Once again, that's expecting the system to work for the people.

System exists for itself.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, since the closer we get to the idea of "rational people always making rational decisions" (a hopeless ideal, the better the system will function.
But that won't really benefit the people in charge of the system, who are currently benefitting from the inequalities its imperfections are creating. So, it's unlikely we'll see any change in that direction.

[worry]

 Shinrei, on 11 December 2010 - 08:32 AM, said:

Truth is often neither ideal nor particularily satisfying.

The truth is that some people thirst for human blood while others staunch the wounds, and malleable human inventions (you know, like capitalism...like capital) can be utilized for either end. If you're starting from the position that "life isn't fair" is an immovable state of being and not a challenge to overcome, then you have failed to grasp the very impetus of social progress. As it is, we're practicing human sacrifice.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 11 December 2010 - 10:08 PM

[Shinrei]

 worrywort, on 11 December 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

 Shinrei, on 11 December 2010 - 08:32 AM, said:

Truth is often neither ideal nor particularily satisfying.

The truth is that some people thirst for human blood while others staunch the wounds, and malleable human inventions (you know, like capitalism...like capital) can be utilized for either end. If you're starting from the position that "life isn't fair" is an immovable state of being and not a challenge to overcome, then you have failed to grasp the very impetus of social progress. As it is, we're practicing human sacrifice.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what your're saying here. We can progress against "life isn't fair", and we most certainly have progressed (in some areas better than others).

However, I believe life will never be fair for a couple of reasons. First, because people's idea of what is "fair" are wide and varied, so by that fact alone makes it an impossibility. And second, the world is a complex and diverse place, and as long as people are people, this will remain so. Herding billions of cats is neither possible nor particularily desirable.

[worry]

I'm not suggesting that life is fair or ever will be, I'm suggesting that "life isn't fair" is not an excuse for anything. It's a rationalization for bad behavior and a pretense to hide behind in case that behavior is called out. It doesn't matter if you're born with a silver spoon or you earn one, if you're feeding on human flesh. Encouraging those with wooden, steel, and even plastic spoons to dig in to their peers as well. And plenty enough are convinced that it's the only meal they're gonna get. We like to pretend that's capitalism, the same way we like to pretend the Soviets practiced socialism. It's all been cannibalism, from the top down. The education you're talking about might increase one's chances of not getting eaten, sure, and some might even join the top of that food chain. But that ignores the fact that cannibalism shouldn't be the status quo in the first place.

[D'rek]

 Adjutant Stormy, on 11 December 2010 - 06:53 AM, said:

Basic education is a right, but an advanced degree is a luxury, a privilege. If you find it difficult to afford, then suck it up. If it is going to bankrupt you, take time off, earn some money. If you cannot, then that sucks.

It is never going to be fair. Never. Going. To. Be. Fair. Such is life.

In Canada at least, and I'm sure in many other countries, secondary education was not free several decades ago. Some people paid and went to school, getting advanced diplomas representing their education up to the secondary level, others dropped out of school. Eventually it was decided that secondary education should be a right and now it is provided by the government for free.

How is that any different from what we currently face with tertiary education?

[Shinrei]

 worrywort, on 12 December 2010 - 02:25 AM, said:

I'm not suggesting that life is fair or ever will be, I'm suggesting that "life isn't fair" is not an excuse for anything. It's a rationalization for bad behavior and a pretense to hide behind in case that behavior is called out. It doesn't matter if you're born with a silver spoon or you earn one, if you're feeding on human flesh. Encouraging those with wooden, steel, and even plastic spoons to dig in to their peers as well. And plenty enough are convinced that it's the only meal they're gonna get. We like to pretend that's capitalism, the same way we like to pretend the Soviets practiced socialism. It's all been cannibalism, from the top down. The education you're talking about might increase one's chances of not getting eaten, sure, and some might even join the top of that food chain. But that ignores the fact that cannibalism shouldn't be the status quo in the first place.

I absolutely agree that it should never be an excuse. However, you make it sound like those who have been successful in the current system are most probably cannibals unless proven otherwise. I don't think that's accurate or fair.

[worry]

Then we agree on one thing: people's idea of what is "fair" are wide and varied

I'm not without sympathy for those afraid to rock the boat their family is sitting in. But that fear is singled out, targeted, and exploited. It's a deliberate tactic to freeze people in their tracks like a deer in headlights. And it's not capitalism -- or if it is, it's the Mr. Hyde version of it. The competition isn't healthy, the stakes are manufactured and out of all reasonable proportion, and otherwise good people are going nuts over it. Perhaps that's an inevitable result of defining success one way, teaching people there's only a few paths to it, and by the way, none of those paths are going to be fair (and that's just the way it is). Making "Life isn't fair" a global mantra is one sure-fire way to nourish a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Horangi]

Goaswerfraiejen said:

Again, there are obvious differences between institutions, provinces, states, and countries. Nonetheless, it's a fairly widespread myth that the arts and social sciences are not profitable. You might be interested to check out UCLA's own recent numbercrunching, for example. Another good example would be the controversy surrounding the recent decision to close Middlesex's philosophy department, which was both profitable and independently assessed to be the university's strongest research contributor (ahead of even all the science programs--not that the RAE means much anyway, but yeah).

Goaswerfraiejen- Thanks for the well thought out post. While I disagree with the utility of the government paying for university education, I certainly don't believe that non-applied science degrees are a waste. However, as Shinrei alluded, perhaps universities should add personal finance to the University 101 curriculum. I'd go one step further and require that the students do a projected cost-benefit analysis of the particular degree (or degrees if they are undecided) they are pursuing that takes into consideration debt accumulation, availability of jobs, and expected income on graduation. That way, students go into the process with their eyes wide open and can make more informed choices. Therefore, when a student does graduate with 200k in debt with a degree in philosophy, it is by personal choice.

Also, thanks for the link. Its good to see that humanities are in general not a drain on the rest of the university. However, I think that article slightly misrepresents the sciences by keeping the discussion centered on tuition. I'm sure the tuition does not cover the costs of running a nanotechnology department, for example, but generally that difference is more than made up for through grant funding far in excess of what a humanities department could acquire.

Mentalist said:

Each Faculty here has their own endowment fund. The money the Alumni give is designated to that fund. There's also a "general" fund, which the alumni can contribute to, if for whatever reason they do not feel particular affinity to their faculty.
Like I said, to date, from the start of the school year, our call center has raised about 250 K in total, most of it going to the various endowment funds. just because endowment funds exist, does not mean they will be overflowing at every university.

Thanks for the information Mentalist. When you say 'Faculty' do you mean individual professors or departments? Although it may differ between schools, if I recall correctly, a significant percent of the grants at the universities I am familiar with get earmarked by the department and the university for general costs. This is in addition to paying for the summer salaries of the principle investigators and for the tuition/stipends of grad students mentored by the faculty member. With regards to the endowments, I wanted to specify that I wasn't talking about the little $50 contribution requests that the Alumni guys are always spamming my mailbox with. Rather the major donations that go into whatever 501©(3) organization that supports the university as a whole. Just checking my old university's website, the minimum endowment contribution is $25,000- 250k would be a typical single fat-cat contribution. I believe you can request that it aid a particular department or faculty member, but I suspect that after the value of the original gift is paid out via interest to the targeted faculty, the future interest income becomes discretionary.

Drek said:

In Canada at least, and I'm sure in many other countries, secondary education was not free several decades ago. Some people paid and went to school, getting advanced diplomas representing their education up to the secondary level, others dropped out of school. Eventually it was decided that secondary education should be a right and now it is provided by the government for free.

How is that any different from what we currently face with tertiary education?

I'd posit that primary or secondary education is not a right. In my opinion, no proposal that requires another person to act (as opposed to not act) is a right. That is not to say that there aren't pragmatic reasons for offering free primary or secondary education. Rather that the proposal for free elementary school or university education (or health care for that matter) should be evaluated through cost-benefit analysis rather than some nebulous idea of universal human rights.

worrywort said:

But that ignores the fact that cannibalism shouldn't be the status quo in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that this is an is/ought fallacy. Why is this competitive cannibalism, as you put it, necessarily a "bad" thing?

This post has been edited by Horangi: 12 December 2010 - 05:36 PM

[worry]

The is/ought problem isn't a fallacy, it's a gripe (not all together illegitimate). I suppose if the "is" is that we can be more collaborative without great cost and the "ought" is that we should go ahead and do that to mitigate suffering, then I'm guilty; but I'm not missing the "because" statement that would leave a gap between "is" and "ought". I'm suggesting that what "ought to be" ought to be so that we're not a world full of perpetually conniving jackasses. It's a fallacy to presume that what "is" has always been or should always be though, by virtue of tradition or other momentum.

I'm not going to debate with you on whether a survival-of-the-fittest model is "right" or "wrong" for the world. That's not even what capitalism is, at its best, and we're hopefully moving on from that nonsense with or without you. If you wanna cling to it, go ahead. Congratulations, you're an asshole, and you're going down with that tired ship. Suffice it to say, if we're going to the trouble of establishing human inventions to lubricate social systems, we might as well go with the ones that maximize stability and minimize suffering. Nostalgia for the good old days of dog-eat-dog resource competition a) is unnecessary b ) is mean-spirited c) is stupid and d) can go to hell.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 12 December 2010 - 06:50 PM

[Horangi]

 worrywort, on 12 December 2010 - 06:48 PM, said:

The is/ought problem isn't a fallacy, it's a gripe (not all together illegitimate). I suppose if the "is" is that we can be more collaborative without great cost and the "ought" is that we should go ahead and do that to mitigate suffering, then I'm guilty; but I'm not missing the "because" statement that would leave a gap between "is" and "ought". I'm suggesting that what "ought to be" ought to be so that we're not a world full of perpetually conniving jackasses.

I was referencing the naturalistic fallacy in assuming that cooperation, stability, and/or minimizing suffering is unequivocally "good" and thus we ought to be choosing a different direction.

worrywort said:

It's a fallacy to presume that what "is" has always been or should always be though, by virtue of tradition or other momentum.

Agreed, I don't make any claims about the goodness or badness of reality. It just is.

worrywort said:

I'm not going to debate with you on whether a survival-of-the-fittest model is "right" or "wrong" for the world. That's not even what capitalism is, at its best, and we're hopefully moving on from that nonsense with or without you. If you wanna cling to it, go ahead. Congratulations, you're an asshole, and you're going down with that tired ship. Suffice it to say, if we're going to the trouble of establishing human inventions to lubricate social systems, we might as well go with the ones that maximize stability and minimize suffering. Nostalgia for the good old days of dog-eat-dog resource competition a) is unnecessary b ) is mean-spirited c) is stupid and d) can go to hell.

Hehe OK I can live with that.

This post has been edited by Horangi: 12 December 2010 - 08:09 PM

[worry]

1) It's not an assumption so much as a goal.
2) It just is? It just isn't. I understand that sometimes hippos bite people in half, volcanoes erupt, and hailstones occasionally nail people in the temple. But mostly we have human problems that can be dealt with using human solutions/management techniques. Even "natural" problems we couldn't handle if we tried are few and far between, and there's plenty of good to do in their wake.
3)

[Mentalist]

@ Horangi: I mean "departments", I suppose. though in Canada, there tends to be a breakdown in several levels.

related disciplines are often lumped together into "general faculties", based on the type of degree you are likely to receive. thus, you have a "faculty of Arts", which includes departments for history, English, Geography, Sociaology, Philosophy, etc. teh "Faculty of Science", which includes cham, bio, physics, math, etc, as well as specialised faculties (like Nursing, Education, Engineering, Commerce). Each professional school (Law, Medicine) would also be considered one. the number and size varies based on the university.

and each one has its own needs and expenses. and fundraising goes to cover those needs, rather then general University projects. University as a whole gets direct government funding it uses to cover its operating costs. It also receives Tuition, and any operating fees (parking, any food places/shops that it runs).

Thus, whatever fundraising contribuitoins alumni make, go in their entirety to the designation of their chioce. and there's no upper/lower cap. "Endowment" funds are generally just all-purpose funds, kept separate form things like "bursaries/scholarships".

Once again, I'm not sure if the same system is used throughout the country, but that's how it works in my uni, where I had a chance to see it work.

[Shinrei]

 worrywort, on 12 December 2010 - 09:51 AM, said:

Making "Life isn't fair" a global mantra is one sure-fire way to nourish a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course, there's the other extreme of the "life's not fair" way of thinking. One is to use this as an excuse to "cannibalize" others, as you put it. The other is to say the system is rigged and give up and be petulant about it. Either work for change, or get out there and work the system as best as you can (or both). Painting oneself as the victim is several shades of wrong, too.

That's why (to bring this back on topic), I think it's those students' right to get out there and protest. They won't sit down and be a victim.

[D'rek]

 Mentalist, on 13 December 2010 - 01:00 AM, said:

@ Horangi: I mean "departments", I suppose. though in Canada, there tends to be a breakdown in several levels.

related disciplines are often lumped together into "general faculties", based on the type of degree you are likely to receive. thus, you have a "faculty of Arts", which includes departments for history, English, Geography, Sociaology, Philosophy, etc. teh "Faculty of Science", which includes cham, bio, physics, math, etc, as well as specialised faculties (like Nursing, Education, Engineering, Commerce). Each professional school (Law, Medicine) would also be considered one. the number and size varies based on the university.

and each one has its own needs and expenses. and fundraising goes to cover those needs, rather then general University projects. University as a whole gets direct government funding it uses to cover its operating costs. It also receives Tuition, and any operating fees (parking, any food places/shops that it runs).

Thus, whatever fundraising contribuitoins alumni make, go in their entirety to the designation of their chioce. and there's no upper/lower cap. "Endowment" funds are generally just all-purpose funds, kept separate form things like "bursaries/scholarships".

Once again, I'm not sure if the same system is used throughout the country, but that's how it works in my uni, where I had a chance to see it work.

As far as I can tell that's how it works here, too. Some guy who made it big donated 15 million or so to the school of architecture and it (supposedly) all went towards architecture (and they renamed the school after him)

[Mezla PigDog]

 The Tyrant Lizard, on 10 December 2010 - 12:11 PM, said:

You think attacking the heir to the thone of Enlgald is a trivial matter?

Considerably more trivial than forcing the youth of the country into thousands of pounds worth of debt in order to get on in life. I've never seen a more fitting example of the haves and the have nots in this country. I hope Camilla did get poked with a stick, those of us not born into a life of privilage have experienced worse at the hands of our fellow citizens, I'm sure. They will get over the car being trashed, they didn't pay for it and they're familiar with the smell of fresh paint.

 Sir Thursday, on 11 December 2010 - 02:48 AM, said:

I will now proceed to ask a series of questions that, given the above, I am curious to know the answers to.

- Will the knowledge of the amount of debt going to University will create prevent people from getting a degree, bearing in mind that they're not going to be paying off the debt until years after they make the decision to be saddled with it?

There are swathes of the UK containing families who have had zero exposure to the life that a higher earning job can get you. They genuinely have no experience of how much money people can earn and the doors that can be opened. The average salary in this country is about £20k if I remember rightly. An average family who work really hard and are really careful not to get into debt because they understand the interest will kill them will look at the prospect of being 21 with £30k+ debt and have no idea of the salary and lifestyle that can be achieved with a good education. On the other hand, they will see a basic office job or vocational training with a salary that they are experienced with and they will choose to start earning as early as possible with no understanding of the glass ceiling they are starting under.

People I went to school with who were probably bright enough to go to university did the same. They all chose the option of starting to earn as soon as possible rather than deferring an income while they got more qualifications and debt. And back then the potential debt was considerably smaller. I'm sure your own experience can inform you of what they are missing out on.

Quote

- To what extent does the Student Loan that is available to everyone cover the cost of living? (I should note that as a relatively frugal non-drinker, my cost of living was probably a lot lower than a lot of other people)

I don't know how much a full loan is now. Back in my day ( ), it was about £4k a year and over £1k of that went on rent. The worst off had top up from hardship loans. People could live off that but I wouldn't call it comfortable!