Western Ontario and Fanshawe College

[MolsonExport]

Aren't most Fanshawe students locals or from the surrounding communities? I reckon that 70-75%+ of Western's undergrad population (and 90% of grad students) are from outside of Southwestern Ontario (Toronto mainly, but also across Canada and around the globe).

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

On the other hand, Fanshawe doesn't have a "bubble" like Western. Western seems to exist in isolation from the rest of London, with a student body that considers the whole city to stretch along Richmond Street from Masonville Place to the Greyhound station. At Western I never heard of students from out of town going out to explore what all the city has to offer.

This. A million times this. All my friends at Western think I'm some sort of psycho freak for wanting to get out and explore the city. Moreover, they think I'm weird for even liking the place to begin with. I haven't told anyone that, despite all its flaws, I'd pick London over Toronto if given the chance.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

As a lifelong Londoner I can talk with other Fanshawe students about stuff in London and not be met with looks of puzzlement or exclamations of "wow, that's so far away!"

Another thing that pisses me off about Western students. My fellow students poke fun at me for living at Windermere and Adelaide ("OMG ADELAIDE?!? TEH GHETTO!!!"). I honestly live closer to the University in London than I did to my old High School in Toronto, and people still look at me with raised eyebrows and ask why I would choose to rent a place "so far away". They honestly react as if I chose to live in a farmhouse near Lucan.

[haljackey]

Just keep in mind that one is a university, the other is a community college. These two institutions share some similarities but also have a lot of differences.

As a student going to both schools, I can certainly notice a chance in atmosphere.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Aren't most Fanshawe students locals or from the surrounding communities? I reckon that 70-75%+ of Western's undergrad population (and 90% of grad students) are from outside of Southwestern Ontario (Toronto mainly, but also across Canada and around the globe).

Generally that is the case. My program is a bit different though - about 20% from the London area and 20% international students, with the rest being from other parts of Ontario. My undergrad program at Western probably had the same percentage from the London area, but closer to 30% international students.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wharn

Another thing that pisses me off about Western students. My fellow students poke fun at me for living at Windermere and Adelaide ("OMG ADELAIDE?!? TEH GHETTO!!!"). I honestly live closer to the University in London than I did to my old High School in Toronto, and people still look at me with raised eyebrows and ask why I would choose to rent a place "so far away". They honestly react as if I chose to live in a farmhouse near Lucan.

Yeah...that was a mentality I could never figure out there. I knew a girl who grew up in the east part of Oakridge, and blew her money on an apartment just slightly closer to campus. All so she could say she lived "near" campus.

And the silly thing is, living where she grew up she could get a 10 Wonderland and actually find a seat on it. Once it gets to Sarnia Road sometimes it's full and it drives right by.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Yeah...that was a mentality I could never figure out there. I knew a girl who grew up in the east part of Oakridge, and blew her money on an apartment just slightly closer to campus. All so she could say she lived "near" campus.

And the silly thing is, living where she grew up she could get a 10 Wonderland and actually find a seat on it. Once it gets to Sarnia Road sometimes it's full and it drives right by.

I think her parents may have a bit too much money to throw around. That is certainly the most ridiculous "lifestyle choice" story I've heard from a student, although I do know of several adults who have made similarly stupid housing decisions.

When I lived in Toronto, my house was close to the border with Markham around Steeles Avenue East and Leslie Street. Every day I would take the 51 Leslie (possibly the worst bus route in Canada) all the way down to York Mills Road, and then walk to school from there. Commute was often about 40 minutes in the morning, sometimes over an hour coming home (and people wonder why nobody likes transit). After 4 years of doing that, going from Adelaide Street to the University (even on the dreaded 32 Windermere) feels like a dream. The distance that this girl moved would not even get me halfway along my old route.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wharn

I think her parents may have a bit too much money to throw around. That is certainly the most ridiculous "lifestyle choice" story I've heard from a student, although I do know of several adults who have made similarly stupid housing decisions.

That's the most extreme example I know of, but I've known numerous students who have thrown away money to live closer to UWO. That's about $30,000 over four years.

This is where I think the OSAP system is inequitable. There's only so much funding province-wide to go around, and students from London, for example, have the option to live at home through university or college. Yet they have no problem getting thousands of dollars of OSAP, taking away money from students who really need it. Not so much students like myself who have personal savings, but students who go to university in other cities and due to various family circumstances can't get the financial help from their families that OSAP "expects" them to get. I know of at least one girl who got screwed over by OSAP because of this.

Meanwhile I know people from London from well-off families who would never get OSAP if they lived at home, but get OSAP because they choose to move somewhere else in the city while going to Western or Fanshawe. These students should not be getting that extra $30,000 worth of OSAP that other students truly need.

[Wharn]

Like most government welfare systems, OSAP is broken. Of course, I am quite sure that any attempt to fix it in order to make it more equitable will be met with stiff resistance, especially if the PCs propose the changes.

[Pimpmasterdac]

OSAP is a great system for those that know how to work it! With all the grant money I got, I was able to buy my PS3 and pay for my partying during the year!

The loan portion is collecting minuscule interest, but at least getting something off it. I'll sent them a check for the principle when I'm done a few week and be good to go.

The system does need reform, If the PCs attempt reforming it once they win in October i bet there will be fierce opposition. Anything the PCs cut people will treat it like the good ol Harris days.

Welfare needs reform first as those people aren't contributing whereas students are getting an education and employment thereafter!

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Welfare needs reform first as those people aren't contributing whereas students are getting an education and employment thereafter!

In all honesty though, in Canada we should have some universities that are fully publicly funded, reducing the need for student loan programs and greatly improving accessibility to post-secondary education. Our economy would benefit in that students graduating would be able to own a home earlier. As the baby boomers retire and move into other living arrangements, there are going to be a lot of houses on the market, and if young people can't afford them, that along with excess supply could drive housing prices way down.

Needless to say, it is an interesting exercise to try and explain the concepts of tuition, student debt, and working in part-time minimum-wage jobs not related to my career path to my friends in other parts of the world.

[MolsonExport]

without a clear understanding of the myriad reasons why people (mostly, quite unwillingly) end up on welfare, it is extremely insensitive to make such a blanket statement (re: aren't contributing). I am saying this from the perspective of someone that hits the top tax bracket.

[Pimpmasterdac]

From the prospective of Dundas & Richmond last Thursday, I could see many people that aren't contributing. Your high taxes are going to support a system of endless dependence to welfare queens and people that are motivated by the $650 they get bi-weekly for free! Of course there are exceptions, but many aren't contributing, that's the harsh reality.

Then there's OSAP, an underfunded system that is investing in peoples education and our economies future, specifically the information economy. Failure to invest in education or more generous OSAP terms is a recipe for disaster, rather it will lead to under-educated people, who rather than being independent and successful will struggle to get by and be government dependent themselves.

Given the choice between investing in welfare (Ontario "Works") which is lost money or OSAP that is substantially paid back with interest, OSAP in a heartbeat. McGunity has been increasing the amount paid to freeloaders on OW, while tuition has gone up massively without a substantial enrichment of OSAP. Stupidity personified!

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Given the choice between investing in welfare (Ontario "Works") which is lost money or OSAP that is substantially paid back with interest, OSAP in a heartbeat. McGunity has been increasing the amount paid to freeloaders on OW, while tuition has gone up massively without a substantial enrichment of OSAP. Stupidity personified!

MolsonExport has a point though - OW benefits a wide range of people, some of whom have disabilities and face employment barriers.

There are some freeloaders in the welfare system, but it's certainly not everyone.

[Pimpmasterdac]

I worked for the provincial government a few years ago and I've seen that people with disabilities were not supported adequately. Technically that's apart of ODSP, which is different OW. They def deserve more money with the daily struggles they have that are beyond their control!

My issue is that its more worthwhile to invest in education through OSAP than it is to support endless dependence on OW. I've seen people milk the system like an old dairy farmer for more OW! Women that adopt/foster kids for the added money to their OW checks that don't give a shit about the kids. I'm a cynic because of my personal experience with the system, and how piss poor its managed and lack of accountability.

As far as reforming it through workfare, addiction tests or a definitive cut off date I don't know which is most effective. I just know post-secondary education is getting short changed while OW is getting fatter, bureaucratic, and unaccountable!

[Snark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

without a clear understanding of the myriad reasons why people (mostly, quite unwillingly) end up on welfare, it is extremely insensitive to make such a blanket statement (re: aren't contributing). I am saying this from the perspective of someone that hits the top tax bracket.

Fully agreed. I'm gonna hit harder though. Folks like our friend here got Mike Harris elected at one time.

When you are young it's easy to throw criticisms around and not know how you might sound (i.e. stupid and insensitive) to others:

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

...OSAP is a great system for those that know how to work it! With all the grant money I got, I was able to buy my PS3 and pay for my partying during the year! The loan portion is collecting minuscule interest...

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

...I've seen people milk the system like an old dairy farmer for more OW!...I'm a cynic (of OW) because of my personal experience with the system, and how piss poor its managed and lack of accountability

So let me get this straight: it's awful for the government to provide a subsistence living to the indigent, mentally ill, disabled, substance addicted, etc., but just fine for that same government to give you a nearly interest-free loan for you to in part purchase video games and booze. Those same governments that must fund health care, infrastructure, transportation, environmental protection, etc., should allocate some of my my hard-earned tax money to you so you can party nearly interest-free.

When the poor do it, they're "milking the system". When you do it, you're "working the system".

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

I just know post-secondary education is getting short changed while OW is getting fatter, bureaucratic, and unaccountable!

After reading this nonsense, I'd suggest that the government get out of the student loan business and leave that up to the Banks - where they can charge you a good 6 or 8 percent for your luxury of your video games and booze. After all, OSAP seems just as unaccountable, and the money saved can be poured directly back into the schools to improve the quality of education.

If you want to talk about accountability and the lack thereof, take a good look at yourself.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Originally Posted by Snark

So let me get this straight: it's awful for the government to provide a subsistence living to the indigent, mentally ill, disabled, substance addicted, etc.

No, only the unmotivated! Mental & physically disabled are covered through OSDP, and should get more support than offered. The disabled face real barriers outside of their control and get inadequate support from the government.

Originally Posted by Snark

I'd suggest that the government get out of the student loan business and leave that up to the Banks - where they can charge you a good 6 or 8 percent for your luxury of your video games and booze.

Already done! Banks are the ones that hold these loans, OSAP is the intermediary between the bank & student in school. Once your out, the bank is the one that contacts you for your loan repayment. I think the rate is Prime + 5%.

No need to hate cause I invested my OSAP in Sony & John Molson. It helped my education experience, which UWO is touting as the best in Canada

Either way I gotta pay the loan portion back so its no free ride, unlike OW and I won't perpetually be on the government tit. Get outta school, get working cause millions on welfare depend on it

[Wharn]

Whoa, leave for a day and come back to a flame war.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

In all honesty though, in Canada we should have some universities that are fully publicly funded, reducing the need for student loan programs and greatly improving accessibility to post-secondary education.

I disagree. I think that the student loan porgram should be comprehensive and cover all expenses, but getting rid of it entirely is a bad idea. If you did that University students would essentially receive a "free ride" on the back of everyone else, and they wouldn't be forced to do a cost/benefit analysis for their education. The results would likely be even more crowded universities and even more pronounced dumbing-down of the courses (read: scantrons) to deal with crowding issues.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Our economy would benefit in that students graduating would be able to own a home earlier. As the baby boomers retire and move into other living arrangements, there are going to be a lot of houses on the market, and if young people can't afford them, that along with excess supply could drive housing prices way down.

I'm sorry but this made absolutely no sense. Assuming the baby boomers even want to move out, they will have to find housing elsewhere. There is no new excess supply being created; it remains unchanged, and people just move around inside the existing stock. An increase in supply would only occur if all the baby boomers died (which is still a while off) or if there was an increase in population which necessitated an expansion of the housing stock, but the latter would occur only after a demand shock.

Here's what will happen: first of all, there will be too many graduates. Since the supply of people with degrees has increased with demand remaining constant, they will have to accept lower salaries. On top of that they will be trying to outbid each other in the property ownership market instead of renting, so the end result will be a decrease in their purchasing power with regards to property. Renters, on the other hand, would benefit from decreased demand in their own market, which will either lead to stagnant or declining rents (in real terms adjusted for inflation). In the long run, there would eventually be an expansion of housing supply, but who knows how long that would take.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wharn

I disagree. I think that the student loan porgram should be comprehensive and cover all expenses, but getting rid of it entirely is a bad idea. If you did that University students would essentially receive a "free ride" on the back of everyone else, and they wouldn't be forced to do a cost/benefit analysis for their education. The results would likely be even more crowded universities and even more pronounced dumbing-down of the courses (read: scantrons) to deal with crowding issues.

I am saying the program would be reduced, not entirely eliminated. For example, if you go to a private university and don't have enough money, OSAP would still be available.

The public universities would have to raise the standards for entry in order to prevent overcrowding and dumbing down.

The problem with not having fully public universities and colleges is that students are forced to divert attention from their studies to work part-time jobs that have no relevance to their field - thereby taking away jobs from others. And these others have been fighting back - at Western, some students found themselves out of a campus job last fall when the UWO Staff Association fought to further restrict students from working part-time at Western as part of their new collective bargaining agreement. The number of residence work positions for students almost completely evaporated.

Had I not had to work 12-15 hours a week during university to get by financially, I could have spent more time on my studies and been more involved in campus life, something I still regret to this day. But I had no choice.

Originally Posted by Wharn

I'm sorry but this made absolutely no sense. Assuming the baby boomers even want to move out, they will have to find housing elsewhere. There is no new excess supply being created; it remains unchanged, and people just move around inside the existing stock. An increase in supply would only occur if all the baby boomers died (which is still a while off) or if there was an increase in population which necessitated an expansion of the housing stock, but the latter would occur only after a demand shock.

This is more of a long-term issue than an immediate issue. As tuition continues to rise in Ontario, the burden on OSAP will continue to rise, and student debt will continue to rise. As the population stands now in Canada, as the baby boomers die off there will be houses on the market. Excess supply means lower prices. And students graduating from university at that time not being able to afford to purchase a house will mean housing prices will decrease further.

This scenario will be less likely if our birth rate increases, or if immigration increases.

[MolsonExport]

Another thing. Just focusing on the so-called undeserving Welfare cases. What do you think will happen if they are destitute?

Just look south of the border for a taste of the social disaster (unparalleled anywhere in the rich world) wrought by a less caring great society. Pay less taxes, but then, to keep safe, live in a gated community, pay insane premiums for health insurance, etc.? Lose your job and you are thrown to the wolves? No thanks.

I believe the state has a strong role in leveling the playing field (education, health, infrastructure) while at the same time, caring for those who need assistance.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Fair enough. I don't want Canada to become like the United States either with its eyeballs in debt, rampant violent crime and major inequalities. Their asinine spending with inadequate taxing is not a roadmap for Canada's future.

That said the question is not what we want Canada to be idealistically, but rather where Canada needs to be realistically to compete. We're in a global economy now, facing fierce competition from developing countries like China & India which quite frankly have the work ethnic and fortitude that will eat our lunches if we don't step up.

The pre-free trade days when Canada could cut ourselves off from the world and live in our own protective bubble are over!

Investing in healthcare, education, and infrastructure are needed. But the excessive frills in our social services are a decadence that we cannot afford as it will hurt out competitive advantage. Taxes are going down, and to avoid become a debt ridden nation like the US, we either need to raise taxes to support existing and some new programs, or the most likely path to cut those programs that are excessive and are not truly needed. Either people get with the program, step it up and become apart of the new information economy or the rest of us will endless be supporting them!