Massive student strike in Quebec

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Whose paying them?

I don't know, that's why i was asking.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


They are a small portion of the citizens, and they're asking for everyone else's money.

Most people don't use all government services anyway. Where's the problem?

[MRT144]

used to be here in the united states, the government actually helped people like MY parents go to school. no more.

[DanS]

A much smaller proportion of the population went to school during your parents' time. College was a lot cheaper for the government to support then. Nowadays, we have loans, so that people can pay their own way.

[MRT144]

wait wait wait, why would you prefer people paying loans for what should be a given by the government? danS, you never cease to boggle my mind.

what happened to a benevolent american government?

[DanS]

I've never thought that college education should be given free by the government. My college loans weren't onerous and I am satisfied that I got my money's worth. If I didn't get my money's worth, then it's my own damn fault for paying that university.

Fee paid. Service rendered.

[MRT144]

Why not? I think it should be heavily subsidized by the government because its an investment by the government. IT shouldnt be looked at as an investment by the individual solely for the individual.

[DanS]

I think it should be heavily subsidized by the government because its an investment by the government.

That's a circular argument. Come up with a better one.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Most people don't use all government services anyway. Where's the problem?

That they think somehow we'll be convinced to give them more money by them refusing to use the service they're being provided (while, incidentally, still taking the money they're being given).

They get money because the govt and the people think it's a good investment, not because some college kid said "give me money!"

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That they think somehow we'll be convinced to give them more money by them refusing to use the service they're being provided (while, incidentally, still taking the money they're being given).

They get money because the govt and the people think it's a good investment, not because some college kid said "give me money!"

"College kids" also happen to believe that education accessibility is an investment.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Don't you get it, DD. The students should have unfettered right to do anything they want and no one should dissade them from their actions. Ever.

Certainly no one should exert inappropriate pressure on strikers. Giving 0's to people who missed a mid term because of a strike would count as dirty pool as these things go.

Besides, the fight is between the students and the government, not the students and the administration. Why should the administration take sides? Coercing the students with grades would be taking sides.

Originally posted by Patroklos

Whose paying them? Sure as hell isn't the students.

Actually, the students pay fees, so yes, the students are paying them to an extent.

I'm not sure where the 'free education' herring got introduced, but it ain't free, even in one of the most socialist leaning provinces.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That they think somehow we'll be convinced to give them more money by them refusing to use the service they're being provided (while, incidentally, still taking the money they're being given).

They get money because the govt and the people think it's a good investment, not because some college kid said "give me money!"

Actually, that's exactly what they think. Except it isn't you, so you can keep your knickers knot-free.

This is a battle between the students and the government. The battlefield is public opinion. The college kids are pitching their case to the public that higher education deserves more money.

The students are winning by all reports.

Of course, one wonders if the students would have struck against a different government, but that is another discussion.

[notyoueither]

Give 'em hell, Boris. Not a lot of times I would find myself on the same side of the fence with Spiffor and General Ludd, but I think you're on solid ground in this thread.

Students should have recourse to public demonstrations/disobedience/strikes without being academically penalised, assuming the collective decides on the action. Whether you're right or wrong on the specifics of this case is for the people of Quebec to decide.

[DanS]

Bah!!!

Why should the administration take sides?

Because the administration is employed by the government?

[notyoueither]

Ahh, no. The adimistration is employed by a chartered institution which is at arms length from government.