Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Does your country compensate Students?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Does your country compensate Students?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

In The Netherlands the government compensates students with an monthly "allowance", free use of public transportation and ability to take a loan with the general rules applying. Of course there are rules for the first too:

The Monthly "allowance" is based upon your level of education, whether you live at home or not, your parents income, and whether or not they are married. Also you can only apply for a limited amount of years, extended only for people who study medicines etc.

This ranks from a standard EUR72 for simple education to EUR92 for higher education with the possibility to get more depending on your situation. The catch being here; if you don't finish your higher eduction (lower eduction is free from this catch) you have to pay everything back including interest, additional charges and your use of public transportation.

You get a card that allows you to travel for free with the train*, bus and metro. You can either choose a week or weekend card. Limitations are not being able to travel for free on certain national holidays and having to pay on other excluded days, but with a 40% discount rate. If you don't finish your school you have to pay back the use of the card which amount about 1536 a year plus interest.

I never heard about other countries offering these benefits to students. So does your country do anything for their students?

*For those that don't know; destroy the trains and we're screwed. Dependency for getting around in The Netherlands is high for most of us. Just like the subways are for New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

@Vasska,

Where I live there is no compensation. There are a lot of scholarships though. Most of them are very petty, like $100.

@Vasska,

England has a lot of benefits, loans, student railcards & such, but then most of the best minds ride bicycles here anyway, eccenrtics the lot of us Laughing

@Vasska,

The education system in South Africa is :
a ponzi scheme full of moronic corrupt incestuous lecherous nepotistic nazis.

@Vasska,

Canada subsidizes post-secondary education through taxes; so domestic students have a cheaper tuition and student fees than international students.

@schloopfeng,

schloopfeng;39879 wrote:

England has a lot of benefits, loans, student railcards & such, but then most of the best minds ride bicycles here anyway, eccenrtics the lot of us

I'm a bit depressed at the way British attitudes towards education have slided into a more profit-focussed model over the last couple of decades.

We are now in the somewhat odd position that we have more people attending higher education than ever before, but that the literacy of the average school leaver in the UK is now lower than that of the average school leaver in the US.

With the abolishment of student grants, and the subsequent need for students to fund their own university time through loans (albeit specially designed low interest loans) it strikes me that the number of people encouraged to go through higher education might be something of a cynical money making exercise - rather than a genuine desire to create a nation of postgraduate thinkers.

What I think we should do is ensure that the extra numbers at universities aren't compromising the quality of education they recieve, and a return to means-tested assistance so that potentially brilliant pupils from poorer backgrounds don't end up cedeing their places to richer dilletantes who "just fancy" three or four years being a student.

@Dave Allen,

I believe we should pay certain students whose countries need their expertice,such as engineres or doctors.Those who are in no great demand should be loan directed. When you consider that certain professions are richly rewarded, why should the dustman help pay for his higher education?

@Vasska,

Sorry, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Firstly you seem to be saying that "certain professions" are required by a society such as doctors and engineers, but that others should not be subsidised by dustmen (a fairly well renumerated job in my area, by the way - even if it is hard and unpleasant work) because they are well rewarded.

But education is not necessarily pursued for the sole purpose of becoming a high earner, and some of the higher earners, relative to most graduates, are doctors and engineers!

You seem to be trying to angle the argument that poorer people should not subsidise society's luxuries unsupported - I agree, but you're aiming at the wrong target. The pressures on the poor are alleviated by taxing them less and affording them more opportunities - not by forcing students into debt (meaning that the children of the poor are less likely to benefit from the opportunities afforded by education).

@Dave Allen,

Im all for the poor,that does include my family members, obtaining the best education thats possible. They must realise that any advantage they obtain from their education must be paid for and that the shop worker who for one reason or another has not had that advantage, has helped them pay for it.
If certain profesions are required by society, a means tested allowance should be considered.

@xris,

xris;88229 wrote:

They must realise that any advantage they obtain from their education must be paid for and that the shop worker who for one reason or another has not had that advantage, has helped them pay for it.

The advantage they win would be payed for in the main by those in higher tax brackets than shop assistants.

As for your point about a poor shop worker who had no particular inclination or opportunity to spend time in higher education - he or she dooms his or her own children and community to the same lifestyle unless they are willing to make a small sacrifice. This sacrifice would be trifling if education was paid for from income tax, which poor people don't have to pay much of providing it's staggered to draw largely from those who earn national average or better.

So why should they pay?

To better the society that nutures us all and to return Britain to it's position of being a well-educated society. A position we ceded because we thought a booming economy would last forever and that money was more important than knowing things.

@xris,

In the United States, university students are very limited as to financial help from the government in terms of education. First and foremost, there is no paid education with few exceptions, like the GI Bill, which in exchange for 4 years basic military service enlistment, you get (last time I checked) $50,000 towards your educational expenses as an undergraduate (or graduate if you enlist). On that note, if you finish your four years of university, you can go through OCS (officer candidacy) and have the past four years of your education picked up in exchange for a given number of years. Also, if you want to go to law school, the government will give you an allowance as well as pay for your Juris Doctorate if you agree to work in a government capacity for a certain amount of time. Same applies to medical doctors. So in essence, one of the few places you can get allowances and help for education is from the government but only in exchange for service time, and the amount of compensation varies as to how intensive your profession is. Corporations (as far as I am aware of) also compensate you for your education in much the same way. Actually, it sounds very bad when I put it like that? and I suppose it is. LOL!

But the closest I can think of in terms of government allowances for university students here are Stafford loans and Pell grants. Stafford loans are available for most students for four years and are usually $2500 a semester. You do have to pay those back, but you do not have to apply for them. Pell Grants are free money, given to those demonstrating financial need. I think the sum is around $500 a semester. So, probably you get $3000 in assistance? out of a typical $20,000 a year tuition costs (private colleges are a lot more). Other than that, its every man for himself. Hope to god you are smart and competitive enough to get extra grants and scholarships, otherwise you cannot afford your education? or get a substantial reduced quality education.

As far as rail passes, almost all schools have discounted cards you can get through the student centers. It's not much, but it can add up. A typical rail card on the Philadelphia SEPTA rail system is about $150 a month. But parking can reach $300 a month, so rail is a good price in the grander scheme of things. But in general, just the classification of "student" gets you lots of things discounted, from movie tickets to buy stuff at a store. Also, many students in the US do not know this, but schools with attached hospitals are entitled (as far as I know) to medical coverage up to a certain point. Pretty sweet considering how much health insurance costs.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;88267 wrote:

The advantage they win would be payed for in the main by those in higher tax brackets than shop assistants.

As for your point about a poor shop worker who had no particular inclination or opportunity to spend time in higher education - he or she dooms his or her own children and community to the same lifestyle unless they are willing to make a small sacrifice. This sacrifice would be trifling if education was paid for from income tax, which poor people don't have to pay much of providing it's staggered to draw largely from those who earn national average or better.

So why should they pay?

To better the society that nutures us all and to return Britain to it's position of being a well-educated society. A position we ceded because we thought a booming economy would last forever and that money was more important than knowing things.

Not everyone has the same abilities and your view demeans those who choose to serve their purpose. Not everyone can aspire to those educated places in society, everyone has a place in a vibrant community. I find many are entering further education for no other reason than its the modern thing to do. Whats wrong with engineering apprenticeships etc ,our past was very successful on experienced youths with added education.
If you enter at tax payers expense, it does not concur you will repay with income tax, you may choose to leave and work abroad.

@xris,

xris;88329 wrote:

Not everyone has the same abilities and your view demeans those who choose to serve their purpose.

No, that's just wrong. If someone chooses to be humble and live on a meagre income a staggered income tax taking mainly from those who earn more than national average would actually help such people.

Your view dooms gifted children to the intellectual turpitude of their parents.

As for tax exiles - such things happen whatever the system. Bah! to such people, but what can you do?

Quote:

Whats wrong with engineering apprenticeships...

Not necessarily anything, though the apprentice is at the mercy of how concientious and skilled at teaching the master (or guild or whatever) is, whereas an engineering degree is taught to a recognised national standard, with checks and balances for poor lecturers or whatever.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;88333 wrote:

No, that's just wrong. If someone chooses to be humble and live on a meagre income a staggered income tax taking mainly from those who earn more than national average would actually help such people.

Your view dooms gifted children to the intellectual turpitude of their parents.

As for tax exiles - such things happen whatever the system. Bah! to such people, but what can you do?

Not necessarily anything, though the apprentice is at the mercy of how concientious and skilled at teaching the master (or guild or whatever) is, whereas an engineering degree is taught to a recognised national standard, with checks and balances for poor lecturers or whatever.

Sorry Dave but not all wish to aspire to higher education , its not wrong to have simple desires.
The problem for many and my daughter is one of them they have a degree but no experience and experience now is more valid than education. She works but not in science where her degree is. Degrees can give false hope to many who want to work in a certain field.

@xris,

xris;88336 wrote:

Sorry Dave but not all wish to aspire to higher education , its not wrong to have simple desires.
The problem for many and my daughter is one of them they have a degree but no experience and experience now is more valid than education. She works but not in science where her degree is. Degrees can give false hope to many who want to work in a certain field.

I agree. Though I don't think society has any obligation to provide jobs for education levels that are just not needed any more.
If someone choses to not aspire to higher education I think that is fine. But today we need computer scientists and engineers, not assembly line workers.
That's just how things change with automatization. It's up to everyone themselves to make themselves be needed.

@EmperorNero,

When were assembly line workers typically degree holders, Nero?

@Vasska,

It is in the interest of any society to identify and promote (educate) its best and its brightest irrespective of their economic, social, ethnic or religious background.

Really enlightened societies would try attract the best talent from around the world.

Publically funded education of the "best and the brightest" would pay high dividends in the future. Very few countries including the US actually do this.

The liberal progressive notion of equality and fairness to the side (we are not all intellectually equal {just as we are all not physically equal) and life and nature are anything but fair} a wise society will recognize differences and promote talent. Societies which supress woman (half of their human talent) or large minorities or religious sects will ultimately lose out to those that do not.

Societies which expend vast resources on the infirm and the incapable to the neglect of the development of other talents will likewise loose out. The current US educational system "no child left behind" is operating on the false assumptions of liberal progressivism (everyone has the talent for college level work and the primary function of schools is college preparation).

The result is a system which neglects its talent and becomes goal directed towards raising everyone to a minimum (quite a low minimum in many cases 50 states 50 standards). Those with means are opting out to private and home schooling where the goal is more one of developing talents to the maximum degree possible.

Our society (US) needs to acknowledge intellectual as well as physical differences and that not everyone is college bound. We need automotive repairman and other vocational and technical skills as much as we need more college students and the educational system needs to be revamped to acknowledge what is true even if not politically incorrect. More vocational and technical training and some will not suceed no matter how many resources are poured in them.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;88674 wrote:

When were assembly line workers typically degree holders, Nero?

I'm not sure if you read me right there. My point was that they are not.

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 01:12 AM ----------

prothero;88809 wrote:

It is in the interest of any society to identify and promote (educate) its best and its brightest irrespective of their economic, social, ethnic or religious background.

I think I agree with the larger of your post.
But define "society". Who would benefit if we educate the best and brightest?
I for one am have to admit that I benefit from people in India not being able to get educated to their full potential.
Here is an excerpt from the book 1984 that you might want to consider:

It was "clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared...hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations". However, since the Party wants to maintain a hierarchical society with itself on top, this real possibility of eliminating poverty and inequality is a deadly threat rather than something to be desired: "If leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves" - eventually sweeping away the oligarchy ruling them. "In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;88860 wrote:

It was "clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared...hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy and disease could be eliminated within a few generations". However, since the Party wants to maintain a hierarchical society with itself on top, this real possibility of eliminating poverty and inequality is a deadly threat rather than something to be desired: "If leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would learn to think for themselves" - eventually sweeping away the oligarchy ruling them. "In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."

A little too bleak, cynical and conspiratorial for my taste. Societies that take this tact would still lose out to societies which were more open, fair and better utilized both their human and material resources.

I strongly promote equal opportunity (insofar as it is possible, genetics and social influences not withstanding. I strongly despise the notion that equal opportunity ever will result in equal results for everyone. Everyone can get in the game (sex, religion, economics, race are irrevelant). There will still be winners and losers. Life is competitive. Progressive Liberalism like communism is based on a myth about human nature and about nature in general. Truth stands by itself and will win out in the end.

@Vasska,

Vasska;39325 wrote:

In The Netherlands the government compensates students with an monthly "allowance", free use of public transportation and ability to take a loan with the general rules applying. Of course there are rules for the first too:

The Monthly "allowance" is based upon your level of education, whether you live at home or not, your parents income, and whether or not they are married. Also you can only apply for a limited amount of years, extended only for people who study medicines etc.

This ranks from a standard EUR72 for simple education to EUR92 for higher education with the possibility to get more depending on your situation. The catch being here; if you don't finish your higher eduction (lower eduction is free from this catch) you have to pay everything back including interest, additional charges and your use of public transportation.

You get a card that allows you to travel for free with the train*, bus and metro. You can either choose a week or weekend card. Limitations are not being able to travel for free on certain national holidays and having to pay on other excluded days, but with a 40% discount rate. If you don't finish your school you have to pay back the use of the card which amount about 1536 a year plus interest.

I never heard about other countries offering these benefits to students. So does your country do anything for their students?

No country compensates students.
All some countries do is forcing students to offer a bond in their future income to pay their education expenditures. - The political class pays their education and then it forces them to give a part of their now higher income in return.
The students are no better off than if free market mechanisms were in place to voluntarily offer bonds in their future income for education expenditures.
But by forcing it at the point of a gun the plebs think they get free money and the political class has more power as the money flows through them (and they can squander a part).

As education enhances future income, in a free market, the cost of education would reflect the value it brings to a person. I.e. how much it enhances future income as skilled labor is more valuable.
If governments subsidize education all that happens is that the cost of education will go up to artificial levels. To be squandered by corrupt layers of bureaucracy.

"Compensating" students is truly following the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
It's socialism and it doesn't work. It's essentially paying people to stay uneducated.
It's the reason we have unemployment and simultaneously a scarcity of educated workers.
Plus we all lose the value that those people would have produced.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Does your country compensate Students?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Does your country compensate Students?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know