.jpg)
It boggles my mind, it seriously does, when people and tabloid rags like Macleans take aim at the student movement. They are openly hostile to a movement demanding lower tuition. Why? It's the moral equivalent of arguing against socialized medicine (and yes there are those who do that) they're called right-wing ideologues who oppose things like socialized medicine and the idea of socialized education as hand-outs to people who 'don't deserve it'. Arguing for tuition increases is the most elitist and barbaric line of "reasoning" a person could engage in. If you read the comments section, you'll see that luckily there are people who get it and have a grasp of reality.
For those with a conscience and a backbone, University ought to be for those who want to go and for those that have the ability. Unfortunately for us, there are too many in this country that believe they deserve to be in university because their parents can pay and that because of this they have some sense of entitlement to their position in whatever university and program they are in.
Someone wrote in the comments section refuting the author:
Again, decades of peer-reviewed research in the social sciences counters this idea. It is true that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to pursue university. But when tuition fees are eliminated, as in Bolivia, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are just as likely as anybody to pursue post-secondary education. Furthermore, scholarly research is near-unanimous in its acknowledgment that tuition fees are the #1 barrier (yes, they pretty much all call it a “barrier”) to access.
Education does have a price. But not educating also has its prices: poor health, more crime, greater poverty, and a growing income gap, to name a few social problems. Education is not just an investment in individuals — it is an investment in a healthy, democratic and vibrant society. A paradigm shift, indeed, is necessary: let’s fight for it.
We have a choice as young people who choose to go to university. We can recognize education as a fundamental right for all citizens regardless of social class, ethnicity, age, gender, use what we've learned in these institution and fight for equality in our universities and in society, equality so that other youths who grow up in modest surroundings know that they have no limits dictated by hostile ideologies and privileged oligarchs. Or you can choose to look upon your position in university as privilege and either do nothing to change the system or actively fight against the movement trying to socialize education.
Make no mistake, the ideology of our student union does not make it possible for those who make it to the top of the student union bureaucracy to fight this fight. It also makes it extremely hard for a coherent movement on UNB's campus to form, especially if the "elected" leadership doesn't support the movement. Unfortunately infantile writers like Carson Jerema tow the CASA line.
Indeed, let's fight for it.
Posts
3 comments:
Cute title.
One quivel though.
You wrote: "University ought to be for those who want to go and for those that have the ability. Unfortunately for us, there are too many in this country that believe they deserve to be in university because their parents can pay"
I am assuming that that is directed at me, but I'm not sure how this reflects anything in my post.
No where do say education is an entitlement for anyone other than those qualified to go.
Participation is a function of sociology not economics. This is only disputed by those who want to see blanket tuition reductions, which is more often than not university students. Doesn't this seem a little self-interested to you? We can couch it in terms of aiding the poor but when students are calling for lower tuition, they are calling for lower tuition for themselves.
Nevertheless I still made this caveat:
"No doubt that at some point, the cost of tuition does become prohibitive, but not only have we not reached that point, we don’t even know what it is. And besides, the vast majority of policy makers and policy analysts support the position that, if cost is too high for some students, then either the university or the state should aid them"
I'm not sure why the idea that blanket tuition reductions attract so many people. Why should the same subsidy go to well-to-do students as to poorer students?
But hey you're the one with the "conscience" and "backbone" so I will defer to you.
The fact that Carson sees "sociology" and "economics" as mutually exclusive domains is a good indicator of his narrow worldview and limited intellect. He's a right-wing naysayer ideologue who rests grand arguments on singular sources. My advice: ignore him and keep fighting!
"No doubt that at some point, the cost of tuition does become prohibitive, but not only have we not reached that point, we don’t even know what it is. And besides, the vast majority of policy makers and policy analysts support the position that, if cost is too high for some students, then either the university or the state should aid them"
I was about to add that but for purpose of keeping the blog short, I didn't. I do agree that there is a place for the government to distribute student aid for needy students, however, advocating the status quo and possibly higher tuition (which to be fair, I think you implied in your article that tuition could go up and that'd be ok). Is creating a needy class of students who rely on student aid in order to get through university. That is the state we are in now, with tuition in this province at such a high level, a large portion of students are forced to ask for student aid. Which more often than not means student loans and that means debt for lower-income students. The situation we find our university students in now is one where working-class youth are clearly underrepresented in university.
The solution to this trend is not to offer more and more aid in the form of loans to students in order to maintain "accessibility". The solution is to properly fund universities in order to render user fees unnecessary and obsolete. What I advocate for is leveling the playing field in order that class position in society has no bearing on access to university. Everyone gets quality education. the same reasoning applies to universal healthcare.
Economic barriers are not the only barriers to access but we know it is one of the determining factors for a lot of students, this is not rocket science and it is well known and well established fact. There are some very vocal opponents of equal access with vested interests in continuing the status quo, or worse, privatizing universities. They are aligned with the university administrations, they are aligned with the governments of the day. This is so well known in New Brunswick to many students, it's bloody obvious our student "leadership" is disinterested in affecting any kind of real change. We see this when year after year nothing is done or said and all we have is the line "we lobby for student interests, we had a meeting with the Premier, change is on its way, honest!" Well look where that has gotten us and our province? We know that tuition is amongst the highest here, and that debt levels are amongst their highest here as well, and that outmigration is linked to these facts. That's why half my friends are in BC, ON, etc., when they'd rather be home where their families live. It's a damn crying shame, and something's terribly wrong, when youth in this province don't feel welcome in their own part of the world.
We know the positive effects of universal access to quality healthcare, and we know, as do a lot of the people who commented on your article, the effects of universal access to post secondary education. Ofcourse this cannot happen overnight and the movement must be realistic and fight for what is attainable. That's why student aid in the form of non-repayable aid only, is part of the fight.
It's not just about fighting for better immediate conditions for students or being "self interested" as you suggest. People who fight for this know that we they will probably never personally benefit from doing the hard work that is involved in organizing students. It's the principle of it for a lot of people which is what motivates me. The benefits of zero tuition and truly equal access go far beyond the immediate ease of burden on poor students, it "builds a nation" in the long-term if you want to put it in CASA terms. Unfortunately their policies don't match their rhetoric.
Post a Comment