Reference no: EM133444665
Assignment:
Some students argue that the Ontario government's move to make post-secondary financial assistance less generous is unfair and unreasonable. Are they right, or are they still getting a good deal?
Let's start with why the Progressive Conservative government is picking on students. The simple answer is because student assistance is an open-ended entitlement program whose costs have gone up by $600 million in just two years, nearly a 50-per-cent increase. For a government with a $14.5 billion deficit, that cost is not sustainable.
The reason the sustainability problem exists is because the previous Liberal government decided it could give students far more free money without a net cost to government. Not surprisingly, this proved untrue. Now, the new government has reverted to a loan and grant system similar to what the Liberals said was fair and reasonable two years ago, plus it has cut tuition by 10 per cent.
Free money has not gone away, but the government says it will concentrate on students from families that earn less than $50,000. That group will get 82 per cent of all grants, up from 76 per cent under the Liberals.
Before the Liberals decided tuition should be sort of free, a university student living at home with a family earning less than $50,000 received $3,342 in Ontario government assistance, $564 of that in the form of a loan. Under the free tuition program, the same student got $300 more, all in grants. The student was better off under the most-recent Liberal plan, but not hugely better off.
As a concept, free tuition never made sense.
Both of those figures are somewhat higher than the same student will get under the new PC plan. Two years ago, our sample student would have received $10,243 in grants and loans, federal and provincial combined. The comparable figure for the next academic year is $8,900. Of that, $4,800 is a grant. Now, factor in the tuition reduction, which the government pegs at $660 for a typical arts student. Allow for tuition increases in the last two years, and that same student is looking at about $850 less in assistance than she would have gotten two years ago.
The PC plan does not mark a return to student debt, however. It never really went away. The federal program, whose dollar value can be more than twice as much per student as the Ontario plan, is 71 per cent loans.
The rules for repaying student loans are now slightly less generous, but they're still pretty darn good. Students don't have to pay interest on their loans as long as they are in school. The provincial government is now charging interest on student loans once they graduate. The federal government already did that. Students still don't have to make payments for six months. If they aren't yet earning $25,000, that can be extended. Not bad.
Depending on what they choose to study, students get a good return on post-secondary education. People with degrees and diplomas have higher lifetime earnings than those without. It's reasonable to expect students and their families to pay part of the cost of that benefit. As a concept, free tuition never made sense.
Students should be grateful that government isn't asking why all post-secondary education is deemed worthy of subsidy. Society supports universities and colleges largely on the premise that we need to educate workers. And yet, Ontario will spend more to help someone get a degree in 19th-century Russian literature than it will to give them practical training at a community college. Pursuing one's passion while others pick up much of the cost is quite a privilege.
Post-secondary education in Ontario is still a good deal, just not quite as good a deal as we pretended it was for the last two years. Smart students know that. Really smart ones work for a couple of years and save for university or college, rather than taking on debt at age 17
Editorial 2 Questions
1. What is Randall Denley's opinion on the changes to OSAP made by the Ontario government?
2. Identify two reasons Denley gives to support his opinion?
3. Describe the tone of Denley's editorial. Refer to at least two phrases from the editorial to support your opinion.
4. Given that the writer of the editorial, Randal Denley, is a former candidate for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, how might his background influence his perspective on this issue?
5. Which of these two editorials do you agree with? Provide two reasons for your opinion.
6. Are there any aspects of your personal situation or background that influence your opinion on this issue? Explain why or why not.