Le Devoir comments on CLASSE halfheartedly condemning violence – notice how the “condemning violence” issue has become the focal thing, now, rather than the initial point about holding back tuition increases.
Line Beauchamp is said to be meeting the student groups Monday. The presence of the more radical CLASSE is still unclear, although the two other main student groups have insisted on its spokespeople being included.
Academic calendars will be upset by a possible loss of a semester.
The chief of the SPVM defends his men turning to violent means of control in certain circumstances.
A professor writes in Le Devoir: “Un vrai gouvernement ne donne pas du « poing sur la table », il agit.” Another item from the same paper discusses the risk of treating education as a business, and is signed by a group of students and profs from HEC.
And some sensible words in Urbania to round the whole thing out.
Blork 11:07 on 2012/04/23 Permalink
To be fair, we’ve seen in the past how easily protests and parades can get taken over by violent factions (which is to say, opportunistic thugs), so it’s a legitimate concern. Nobody’s going to concentrate on the core issues when the pot is threatening to boil over. Count me among the people who want to remove the threat of violence so we can go back to talking about the issue.
Hamza 04:09 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
There is no threat of violence. The threat is to thousands of students being priced out of higher education and therefore to society.
Of course, that sort of threat can be brushed off by our elites.
Unfortunately, it takes a few smashed windows and *property* damage to be taken seriously in Quebec. (not the humans injured by police)
Kevin 07:07 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@Hamza
That nonsense about ‘being priced out of higher education’ has been disproven so many times it’s ridiculous.
Doubt me? Go look at every other jurisdiction in North America, where post-sec education costs way more — and come back and tell me which place has the lowest per-capita enrolment rate.
Ian 07:27 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@Kevin – Let’s not have a race to the bottom – it’s tough to make ends meet as a student no matter where you are, and while it may be easier here than elsewhere, offloading education funding by means of increased tuitions can only serve as a disincentive to higher education. If we have low enrolment rates, the solution shouldn’t be to make it harder to go to university
Stefan 09:10 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@kevin: what you say has been disproven may be faulty because based on a non-global view. in the united states, student loans have recently become a big business (>$1 trillion in 2011, here), and a lucrative one, since student loans there are not discharged through bankrucpty. therefore one has to also add (or subtract?) the resulting debts to the equation. it seems that there the trend goes (for middle-class families) to start taking out such loans for their children in kindergarten (possible since it is education-related, and often necessary since it is expensive), and they won’t be able to pay by the time they take their pension. i am afraid that is a debt bomb waiting to explode (as the mortgage debt in canada).
Kevin 09:28 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
My argument is twofold.
1) Not everyone is cut out for a university education, and a well-functioning society needs people of all skills. People who are getting BAs in order to become plumbers are, quite frankly, wasting their time and money.
2) I argue that because tuition is so cheap, higher education is seen as worthless by the average Quebecer. If tuition goes up, maybe people will start to realize that it’s worth the personal investment and sacrifice.
I also have no objection to pumping up government-backed loans and bursaries — and think there should be very active campaigns for parents to invest (ie. save) for their kid’s future education.
Simply put, money should not be a barrier, but there’s no doubt that it is a symbol of value, and right now far too many Quebecers do not recognize that value.
paul 09:42 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
Well said Kevin.
@Stefan; I agree that debt is a problem…any less so if it is assumed by the government rather than the individual user? My generation regularly criticizes baby boomers for offloading the real cost of items onto future generations and racking up the debt when it is convenient for them – how hypocritical that when faced with the same option we take the same path.
ant6n 09:55 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@paul
yes. Then again, the student hikes don’t noticeably reduce government debt, anyway.
Ian 14:37 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@paul – an educated population is of benefit to future generations, not just the generation that receives it. Not only do we all benefit from a more open-minded, well-informed population that respects intelligence and knowledge if the general level of education is higher, but on average people with post-secondary educations earn more, so they pay more taxes, too.
@ant6n – I’ve seen the figure 332 million in savings on the part of the government thrown around in 2016-17, once the full hikes are in effect – considering the current provincial government spending figure for 2012-13 Bachand has given is 70.9 billion, that is indeed the merest drop in the bucket. Given how much waste, corruption, and duplication there is in the government’s spending, I can only speculate as to exactly what they hope to gain in alienating an entire generation of Quebec’s educated class.
Josh 18:07 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@Hamza: Love how people keep arguing that the “elites” are the ones opposing the students. Question: Are 60% of Quebecers “elites”? And those upticks in support for the Liberals – they are purely “elites” only finally now coming around to the PLQ as well, huh?
Alex L 19:12 on 2012/04/24 Permalink
@ Kevin: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/icirano/public/pdf/webevents201009_etat_de_la_situation.pdf
Hamza 03:12 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
@kevin (and the rest)
conservative ‘hard talk’ so often sounds good for the second it takes to read but quickly collapses once one thinks about it critically. which ironically is what they happen to teach in those much-maligned arts programs at universities.
i love the new school of luddites lead by Mr. rick santorum who are anti-education. ‘keep the proles dumb! keep the poor poor!’ you shout.
yet you all either fall under one of two categories : those who went to university (like mr. santorum, and i’ll take a wild guess, you too kevin), and those who didn’t (couldn’t because of the $$$).
i.e. hypocrites or ignoramuses. take your pick.
Kevin 07:35 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
@Hamza
You misunderstand me completely, so perhaps next time you should give something more than a quick read.
Quebec has the lowest tuition and the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education. It is my fondest hope that more people take part.
Take a look at La Presse today. There’s a wonderful graphic (unfortunately not available online) that shows that at every parental income level (yes, even those who earn less than $25K per year) at least 60% more people in Ontario go to University than in Quebec — even though it easily costs twice as much.
At which point do we acknowledge that Quebec’s 40-year experiment of low tuition has failed to actually produce an educated population?
Look, here’s an example. On the weekend I was having dinner with a friend who was wearing a red square. She said she was so poor that there was no way she was going to be able to put her kids through university.
I asked if she had anything, even $500 a year to put aside to put into an RESP. She said no, impossible, couldn’t do it.
Today she emailed me wanting to know if I would join her dragonboat team. Fees? $350 for the summer.
Don’t you think that’s somewhat messed up?
Hamza 10:26 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
@kevin Your friend has differing priorities obviously.
the numbers : http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_5_29_4_1_eng.png?2011032512095669
ontario has 23.6% of its population with degrees (the highest) , quebec 19%.
But , not all those degrees were earned in Ontario (or Quebec): http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_5_29_6_2_eng.png?20110325120953297
Ontario also has an edge on us by about 6,000$ per capita GDP .
Which is , sigh, once again, a symptom of lack of education .
The only numbers that matter are how many kids who are in high school now want to go to university , and how many of those kids won’t be able to afford it if we went ahead with the 75% increase . It is folly to think that jacking up the price will somehow encourage anybody, rich/poor, to want to go to university , or improve the system by keeping the riff-raff out .
Kevin 11:55 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
@Hamza
It is folly to think that jacking up the price will somehow encourage anybody, rich/poor, to want to go to university
No, by every metric I’ve ever seen, it’s folly to think that cheap tuition encourages people to go to university. Not only that, it’s an unfair subsidy for the well to do.
Here are the figures from La Presse:
Parental income under $25k: 39% go to university in Ontario / 18% Qc
$25-50: 34%/20%
$50-75: 43%/28%
$75-100: 48%/43%
$100+: 62% / 55%
4 in 10 kids whose parents earn less than $25,000 per year are going to university in Ontario, where tuition is close to $6,000.
Don’t try to tell me that people are being priced out of an education when it is obviously not the case.
The issue is that Quebecers, on average, don’t value getting an education.
I hope that if the government charges (more) of what an education is worth, people will realize it has value.
Hamza 13:16 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
“Don’t value getting an education”
~ is a conservative lie . But anyway, our flame wars will solve nothing. We’ll see what Quebecers say.
ant6n 22:14 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
@Kevin
To what extent plays CEGEP a role in your numbers? Or immigration?