I was looking at the following chart in this link, and thinking back to the time when I had to pay tuition for myself, and when I paid tuition for my son here in NL at Memorial University. Viewing the chart, I am able to see why more and more students from NS, NB and ON are coming to Memorial for a university degree.

Personally, I had a $5600 student loan (since I did not live at home, unlike my son who lived here all his university days) which I used to earn three univesity degrees. That would be about $25,000 in today's dollars.

I am just curious what others experienced in paying for university or college, re tuition and fees.

CBCNews.ca - Post-secondary tuition across Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/tuition-canada/)

Two years finding myself and two years getting real education in tech college = $26,000 in student loans + $2,500 in forgiven student loans (it was a government initiative at the time). The rest of my education was funded through grants, scholarships, and a part time job. My final year I paid $4,600 in tuition.

On a side note, I really have no idea what the Quebec students are protesting about. Seems like some excuse to play domestic terrorists.

Two years finding myself and two years getting real education in tech college = $26,000 in student loans + $2,500 in forgiven student loans (it was a government initiative at the time). The rest of my education was funded through grants, scholarships, and a part time job. My final year I paid $4,600 in tuition.

On a side note, I really have no idea what the Quebec students are protesting about. Seems like some excuse to play domestic terrorists.

Interesting, dona83. Re the situation in Quebec, I wonder if this semester is totally lost to the students, and if they already paid tuition for a semester that they never received due to these actions?

I can't quite remember exactly what tuition was between 10-15 years ago at UWaterloo, but I do very distinctly having my program designated a professional program (there was a special name for this, which I forget) which meant that we had a 19% tuition hike. (Everyone else had 9%.) Since UW has year round school for co-op students, that meant that when they announced the 19% increase in April, those of us in school in May had one month to come up with an extra $400... which meant that I paid about $2400 in tuition for 4 months of school that year, though things did continue to rise.

Didn't affect me too badly as I saved a lot of money living at home during co-op terms (Toronto jobs usually paid well) but it blew the budget for a lot of students.

So including all associated fees, I estimate my undergrad cost around $20,000 or so. My parents paid my first term plus housing and books; after that I was able to pay for everything through what I earned in co-op.

I can't quite remember exactly what tuition was between 10-15 years ago at UWaterloo, but I do very distinctly having my program designated a professional program (there was a special name for this, which I forget) which meant that we had a 19% tuition hike. (Everyone else had 9%.) Since UW has year round school for co-op students, that meant that when they announced the 19% increase in April, those of us in school in May had one month to come up with an extra $400... which meant that I paid about $2400 in tuition for 4 months of school that year, though things did continue to rise.

Didn't affect me too badly as I saved a lot of money living at home during co-op terms (Toronto jobs usually paid well) but it blew the budget for a lot of students.

So including all associated fees, I estimate my undergrad cost around $20,000 or so. My parents paid my first term plus housing and books; after that I was able to pay for everything through what I earned in co-op.

Also interesting. Co-op programs cost a bit more here at Memorial, but the students do get paid ............. all students other than our student teachers, who have to pay their tuition and fees, and teach in a school for 14 weeks, but do not get a dime.

I finished University at the University of Manitoba way back in 1990. So my memories of how much was spent is a little vague. I lived on my own for the 4 years and worked some summers. This was for a 4 year Bachelor of Sciences Degree (Major in Computer Science). Couldn't make it into the Honours program. I see they still have both programs University of Manitoba - Student Affairs - Admissions - Faculty of Science - Computer Science (http://umanitoba.ca/student/admissions/programs/computer-science.html)

Probably about $8,000 in loans, and another $3000 in bursaries (a loan you don't pay back), $17000 in personal savings, $1500 borrowed from parent, and another $6000 in work wages, etc. That rough estimates, though, the loans may have been more.

Finished my first degree in '88, with $16,000 in student loans, $4,000 of which was forgiven.

Wish I could recall some 'real' numbers from my university experiences ... did BSc, MSc, and post-grad in the 1960's ... too long ago to be of any relevance, but they could/might be interesting and fun to recall with the big "numbers" I'm reading here!! :-)

Wish I could recall some 'real' numbers from my university experiences ... did BSc, MSc, and post-grad in the 1960's ... too long ago to be of any relevance, but they could/might be interesting and fun to recall with the big "numbers" I'm reading here!! :-)

I was in the same boat, johnp. I thought and thought and then remembered what my tuition was way back when. I went back to the website of my old university to see what university would cost me today ............... and was shocked. I figured that being a resident of New York State, and going to two state universities for my BS, B.Ed and M.Ed., I paid a grand total of $1000 in tuition and fees for these three degrees, with scholarships paying for the rest of the fees. My student loan of $5600 paid for living the $1000 tuition and the other $4600 paid for living expenses away from home for 6 years. Those were the days.

Paix, mon ami.

Spent about $23G going to a tech college. Worth every penny.

On a sidenote, Charest was already voted in. Why he is letting these spoiled brats vote on his changes is beyond me. Now every time they don't like something they will protest.

Went to UWO '78 thru '82. I think Tuition maxed out around $800/$850 in my final year. I think residence in my first year was about $1500. My university education was covered by OSAP loans, grants, parents and summer jobs. Now my daughter is at Carleton full time in the fall and tuition will be around $6000 for one year. It's all relative I think.

In other words, the inflation rate for tuition fees in the past 30 years was 7% a year. Too bad you can't buy stocks in education. :)

.

My kids were away from 1995 through 2005. None lived at home. at the start tuition was about $3500 per year. By the time they were all finished it was about $5000. the two oldest took engineering and the yongest rebelled and took business.

My oldest was able to take an intern year and came out pretty much debt free. The next one had just under $20,000 in debt. By the time the last one went through, he had trouble getting jobs and the costs were escalating. He ended up with about $29,000 in debt.

By the time of the last one the total cost per year was in excess of $15,000 per year. We hoofed in asmuch as we could.

they all have jobs in their field, but it was not easy for any of them. the yongest still has some debt left.

Though the student loan programs do provide access to money, it does disturb me that (a) they had to come out in debt and (b) it is the debt of an indentured servant that cannot be discharged in any of the normal ways in the case of misfortune and(c) the interest rate appears high for a fully guaranteed loan with no bankruptcy options. I say this because this is a major investment where I see the returns going down. My brother graduated in the late 60's. His comment was the if you didn't rape maidens at miday on main street a good job was guaranteed. the proof was he went from forestry at UNB to a chartered accountanxy firm in Hamilton to start his career. It has been a long long time since a degree gave that type of latitude. also ther are class actions going on in th States against some of the law schools who fudged their placement figures. apparently some of the graduates who ended up at MacDonalds did nto consider this to be a successful post graduation placement.

I hate typing on ipads

Dup post sorry

My oldest was able to take an intern year and came out pretty much debt free. The next one had just under $20,000 in debt. By the time the last one went through, he had trouble getting jobs and the costs were escalating. He ended up with about $29,000 in debt.

I finished my undergrad in 1987 with about $30k in debt. I payed most of that back by working (in computing - my degree was in genetics) for three years before returning to graduate school.

While grad school didn't drive into as much debt, a few years of postdoctoral work in the U.S. at the height of the dot-com boom certainly did, and by the time I was able to get myself and my family back to Canada, we'd racked up a very sizeable debt; I'm still paying it off.

My brother graduated in the late 60's. His comment was the if you didn't rape maidens at miday on main street a good job was guaranteed.

Yes, it used to be that even an undergraduate degree was essentially a guaranteed good job. But that's part of what ruined it; everyone went to university and got baccalaureate degrees, so now they're worth almost nothing. A masters degree is the new baccalaureate, and even that certainly does not guarantee you a job. However doctoral degrees are still (correctly) viewed as indicative of highly specialized and esoteric academic training, and are appropriate for only similarly specialized and esoteric jobs. So the net effect is that, even though the statistics still say that university education correlates with better long term earning potential, this is largely due to the weight of history, and it isn't really true any more.

I still think it's a good idea for many (probably most) people to go to university, simply as a personal development opportunity, but it's not about job-training and it shouldn't be viewed as a means to securing better employment opportunities.

Yes, it used to be that even an undergraduate degree was essentially a guaranteed good job. But that's part of what ruined it; everyone went to university and got baccalaureate degrees, so now they're worth almost nothing. A masters degree is the new baccalaureate, and even that certainly does not guarantee you a job. However doctoral degrees are still (correctly) viewed as indicative of highly specialized and esoteric academic training, and are appropriate for only similarly specialized and esoteric jobs. So the net effect is that, even though the statistics still say that university education correlates with better long term earning potential, this is largely due to the weight of history, and it isn't really true any more.

It has been that way for some time. Just how bad depended on the year and both how the economy was doing at the time and how the baby boom and baby boom echo were progressing through the system.

I came out in 1975. Apparently that was one of the worst years ever to graduate. I know people who trained as teachers and engineers and were never able to find work in those fields. This went for other professionals too. the first big push of the baby boom had gone through plus there was recession, so the jobs were already occupied and would stay that way for years. No internet in those days. Jobs were from newspapers and bulletin boards on campus. I remember getting the Globe and Mail to look at the jobs and there would be one.

When my kids came out it was a mixed story. My eldest was ahead of the curve in the baby boom echo and opportunities were there. My daughter two years later had a tough time finding work and her boyfriend had no luck at all in Ontario. They are now married and out in B.C. Her job is pretty secure but his I wonder and worry about. My youngest was the other side of the curve. He has had to scape and claw through some really really abusive situations to get where he is now and though where he is now is better, it is still very demanding.

I still think it's a good idea for many (probably most) people to go to university, simply as a personal development opportunity, but it's not about job-training and it shouldn't be viewed as a means to securing better employment opportunities.

I would agree that it is a good idea for some people to go to university for personal development. I would even go further and say that som epeople absolutely need it for both medicinal purposes and self defense. I grew up in a paper town and realized after while that the really bright people in many instances would end up at the bar with a couple of bottles of stupid to fit in. Do it for 25 years and you have a pretty hard habit there and some really self destructive behaviour. University would have given these people some tools.

I also remember my philosophy of geography prof Joe May. I remember sitting with him at the Commodore and he talked about his past. His comment was to the effect that he had read all of Freud on his own with no guidance and that it was a lonely and mind messing experience. He was quite thankful that some one had taken him under wing and put him into the system where there was both mentorship and instruction. He never did get into the details.

Really dumb people can be both confident and arrogant in their stupidity leading to hell on earth for a few really smart but isolated people around them. University cures that. You get to see a spectrum.

I finished my undergrad in 1987 with about $30k in debt. I payed most of that back by working (in computing - my degree was in genetics) for three years before returning to graduate school.

While grad school didn't drive into as much debt, a few years of postdoctoral work in the U.S. at the height of the dot-com boom certainly did, and by the time I was able to get myself and my family back to Canada, we'd racked up a very sizeable debt; I'm still paying it off.



Yes, it used to be that even an undergraduate degree was essentially a guaranteed good job. But that's part of what ruined it; everyone went to university and got baccalaureate degrees, so now they're worth almost nothing. A masters degree is the new baccalaureate, and even that certainly does not guarantee you a job. However doctoral degrees are still (correctly) viewed as indicative of highly specialized and esoteric academic training, and are appropriate for only similarly specialized and esoteric jobs. So the net effect is that, even though the statistics still say that university education correlates with better long term earning potential, this is largely due to the weight of history, and it isn't really true any more.

I still think it's a good idea for many (probably most) people to go to university, simply as a personal development opportunity, but it's not about job-training and it shouldn't be viewed as a means to securing better employment opportunities.

You would be in the minority in viewing it this way. Most "professionals" require a university degree to be employable. Engineers, Doctors (of all varieties), Lawyers, Scientists (of all varieties, you would think you would know this one), Public Administrators, etc. etc.

The arts are less so but it still proves to be beneficial from an "employability" stand point. I don't know anyone who went to university in their youth "just out of interest" with no regard to the thought that the experience and the degree might make them more employable.

We have had a similar discussion before and I still don't think it is up to you to judge what "should" be ones motivation for going to university. It is up to the individual and there is no right or wrong in this regard.

The arts are less so but it still proves to be beneficial from an "employability" stand point. I don't know anyone who went to university in their youth "just out of interest" with no regard to the thought that the experience and the degree might make them more employable.

I did 2 concurrent degrees in my youth. One was for employability/due to parental pressure, one was out of interest.

I was constantly being asked--by family and other students in my employable degree--why the heck I was bothering with the second one and that I should drop it because it was a useless waste of time.

If I had believed then it were entirely up to me, I'd have had a more enjoyable university career--along with the crushing debts and at best at least a few years of low-paying jobs. :) But even as it was, the interest-degree is what ultimately helped me survive university in that it gave me relief from my other, soul-sucking degree.

The vast majority of people in my employable degree were in it for the piece of paper that would lead to a very high-paying job. (This was Computer Science, and when I started the bubble was still rapidly inflating.) They had zero interest in being there otherwise.

The only reason people weren't dropping out to take on the big money jobs as high school grads (lots of companies were trying to convince us all to quit school) was that we knew that when it came time for promotions, not having the piece of paper would bite us.... happened to a few students, who then ultimately came back to school. If not for that, most of them probably would not have bothered.... it was widely believed that what we were taught in university would have little if any real world (read: money making/resume building) application anyway.

Even back then, I found this attitude very off-putting.

You are absolutely right that the motivations for going to university are up to the individual. But similarly, I can have opinions on someone else's motivations.... much like many people had a lot of opinions on my motivations for taking a concurrent degree purely out of interest.

On a sidenote, Charest was already voted in. Why he is letting these spoiled brats vote on his changes is beyond me. Now every time they don't like something they will protest.

Many of these students were too young to vote at the time.

Not that I condone the violence. I was in grade 12, still too young to vote in BC, when the Liberals were voted in and mandated jacking up tuition fees in Canada. It went from $1,000 my first semester in January 2002 to $2,300 my final semester in 2005. There were some protests but nothing turned violent and I never took part in any of them.

Raise tuition fees so you go from having the lowest tuition fees in Canada to second lowest, riot.
Montreal Canadiens get knocked out of the playoff, riot.
Heck, Montreal Canadiens make it to the next round, riot.

.

I did 2 concurrent degrees in my youth. One was for employability/due to parental pressure, one was out of interest.

I was constantly being asked--by family and other students in my employable degree--why the heck I was bothering with the second one and that I should drop it because it was a useless waste of time.

If I had believed then it were entirely up to me, I'd have had a more enjoyable university career--along with the crushing debts and at best at least a few years of low-paying jobs. :) But even as it was, the interest-degree is what ultimately helped me survive university in that it gave me relief from my other, soul-sucking degree.

The vast majority of people in my employable degree were in it for the piece of paper that would lead to a very high-paying job. (This was Computer Science, and when I started the bubble was still rapidly inflating.) They had zero interest in being there otherwise.

The only reason people weren't dropping out to take on the big money jobs as high school grads (lots of companies were trying to convince us all to quit school) was that we knew that when it came time for promotions, not having the piece of paper would bite us.... happened to a few students, who then ultimately came back to school. If not for that, most of them probably would not have bothered.... it was widely believed that what we were taught in university would have little if any real world (read: money making/resume building) application anyway.

Even back then, I found this attitude very off-putting.

You are absolutely right that the motivations for going to university are up to the individual. But similarly, I can have opinions on someone else's motivations.... much like many people had a lot of opinions on my motivations for taking a concurrent degree purely out of interest.


No doubt, it is the should aspect of bryanc's post that I find judgmental and a bit elitist. One "should" go to university for what ever reason they choose. There is no right or wrong reason.

Many of these students were too young to vote at the time.

Not that I condone the violence. I was in grade 12, still too young to vote in BC, when the Liberals were voted in and mandated jacking up tuition fees in Canada. It went from $1,000 my first semester in January 2002 to $2,300 my final semester in 2005. There were some protests but nothing turned violent and I never took part in any of them.

Correct, then they express their displeasure with their parents. Then they can tell their parents that taxes are going up because they don't wanna pay higher tuition. The parents can then tell them that in a few years, they too will pay the increased tax and would have been better off had they kept their mouths shut and went back to school.

No doubt, it is the should aspect of bryanc's post that I find judgmental and a bit elitist. One "should" go to university for what ever reason they choose. There is no right or wrong reason.

"should" is one of the funny words that has a tendency to get loaded down with a lot of negative baggage.

But ultimately I do think that the university experience is cheapened by a heavy focus on future career potential. (Granted, that doesn't entirely apply to certain professional programs like an MBA.) Not every young person is best served by a university-style education, and yet, many are in for the piece of paper that will supposedly get them a job--some of the same people might be better off with a more practical education.

That said, $20,000+ is similarly a lot of money for personal development and general interest....

I worked 23 hours + per week during university and was able to pay the $5000+books per year and come out debt free. I took 1 credit over each summer which helped me take one less during the year. I took a 4-year honours degree.

However my grades definetly suffered. I couldn't keep up with the workload. Best I managed was B- average throughout.

On the otherside I had friends with student loans and didn't have the burden of working so much (employment, not schoolwork). They had more focus on school but not necessarily better grades.

There needs to be a middleground with loans tied to grades or effort. Not judging anyone here but so many University students take the loans and don't do the work.

Someone on CBC said University should be free but you pay a portion of your earnings post University forever. Depending on what your salary is the percentage changes. I like that idea, I probably would have continued on to Masters or PHD if that option was available.

Most "professionals" require a university degree to be employable. Engineers, Doctors (of all varieties), Lawyers, Scientists (of all varieties, you would think you would know this one), Public Administrators, etc. etc.
:rolleyes: yes I know this. My point is that most people in our society don't pursue these careers, so most people don't *need* a university education.

On a more fundamental level, I really don't think universities should be offering undergraduate degrees in engineering, law, medicine, public admin, nursing, etc. These are professional degrees that teach a defined curriculum (determined by accreditation standards governed by professional bodies), rather than open-ended 'inquiry based' curricula (such as would be the case for a degree in arts, science, history, etc.). It's not that I think any less of these professional degrees, it's just that it's a fundamentally different type of education, and it confuses the issue of what universities are for, who should go there and why. Professional schools and trade schools are focused on training students to do specific jobs. Universities [should] be focused on teaching people to learn, to question, to think and to be intellectually well-rounded. These are obviously not mutually exclusive, which is what I meant when I said that, ideally, most people *should* go to university.

I don't know anyone who went to university in their youth "just out of interest" with no regard to the thought that the experience and the degree might make them more employable.

I would argue that the people you know missed the most valuable aspect of their university education.

We have had a similar discussion before and I still don't think it is up to you to judge what "should" be ones motivation for going to university. It is up to the individual and there is no right or wrong in this regard.

I disagree entirely. I have as much right to judge and decide what I think is right or wrong as anyone else. If what you're saying is that just because I disagree with someone's motivation it doesn't give me the right to prevent them from going or not going to university, then we have no argument. But I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with me expressing my opinion on what I think universities accomplish best, and what I think is wrong with the current university system. And to reiterate, I think a big part of what's wrong with the university system is that, over the past few decades the academic ideals of a university education have been compromised and the role of universities in society have been confused precisely because people have been going to university with the intent of becoming employable.

If society would stop treating universities like trade schools or even professional schools, perhaps they could get back to their primary tasks of generating new knowledge, and providing those with the interest and aptitude with opportunities to explore and learn about the unknown.

Unfortunately going into huge debt to learn something out of general interest is a very unwise financial decision.

Agreed. This is why I agree with the students in Quebec (and most of Europe) that university tuition should be very low, if not free. But with the caveat that people understand that university is not about getting a job. If you want to learn to weld, or do heart surgery, go to the appropriate school and pay the tuition for training in the relevant job skills. But if you want to learn about middle english poetry or the mating habits of the African white ant, because you're passionate or curious about it, by all means go to university, and that should be free (or at least cheap).

In my ideal world, everyone would have the option of pursuing university education in whatever interested them, and most would take advantage of that opportunity at some point in their lives. But our doctors and lawyers, not to mention our construction workers, accountants, machinists, nurses, etc. wouldn't need to spend 4 years learning calculus and Shakespeare if it weren't relevant to the work they were learning to do.

:rolleyes: yes I know this. My point is that most people in our society don't pursue these careers, so most people don't *need* a university education.

On a more fundamental level, I really don't think universities should be offering undergraduate degrees in engineering, law, medicine, public admin, nursing, etc. These are professional degrees that teach a defined curriculum (determined by accreditation standards governed by professional bodies), rather than open-ended 'inquiry based' curricula (such as would be the case for a degree in arts, science, history, etc.). It's not that I think any less of these professional accretions, it's just that it's a fundamentally different type of education, and it confuses the issue of what universities are for, who should go there and why. Professional schools and trade schools are focused on training students to do specific jobs. Universities [should] be focused on teaching people to learn, to question, to think and to be intellectually well-rounded. These are obviously not mutually exclusive, which is what I meant when I said that, ideally, most people *should* go to university.


Well that is certainly an opinion, not one held by very many universities that I know of and I doubt very many that you know of either... in terms of being their sole mandate.

Different universities have different focuses and raison d'etre, I don't know why you think they should all be the same in terms of their mandates.

I disagree entirely. I have as much right to judge and decide what I think is right or wrong as anyone else...


Well I guess that is why I take exception to your view point, that you would take it onto yourself to judge someone's motivations.

To my way of looking at it, you say you have the right to judge (in your opinion) but the fact that you choose to judge someone else's motivations for their education is the problem. For me I personally think it is presumptuous and arrogant to judge another person in such a manner and I don't think there is any right or wrong reason to go to university.

I guess I was lucky.

Lived at my grandparents when I went to McGill in Montreal.
Their house was less than a ten minute walk from Campus and I qualified for a full scholarship from McGill.
So I don't even know what the tuition was at the time.
Worked in the summer months to have spending money during the year.

Pardon me for even wading in here, but this 'university is for everyone' theme is wearing a bit thin with me.

For the record, I have nothing but respect for those who do graduate from a university and in particular for the opinions of many here, among them Dr. G., bryanc and screature.

I did not have the 'university option' and chose a trade first, which developed into a career. That career had me in attendance at a few universities in outreach programs to supplement my then only, high school diploma.

Through 42 years in the newspaper industry, I rose from a printer's apprentice to a Chief Operating Officer responsible for 162 Canadian publications and printing plants. I knew and consulted with many of the top newspaper people in the country, many of them still active today.

But all through that career, I knew as friends and needed as tradesmen, hundreds of neighbours. They were the plumbers who fixed my toilet. The mechanic who tuned my cars. The guy at the hardware store who eased my gardening chores. The guys at the grocery stores who laboured long and hard to fill shelves to feed my family. The barbers who cut my hair, the gal who reads my gas meter, the crew who unplugged my sewer and the guys who pick up my garbage.

Without them, university educated people would not enjoy the quality of life they do. There is a place for us all here, and to hold some process of higher learning or thought up as some type of holy grail is to ignore reality.

There is a need for all who walk with us in this life, and some academics who should reflect on that before they make sweeping statements about teaching people to learn, to question, to think and to be intellectually well-rounded. Some of the intellectually well rounded simply cannot function without them.

That's an observation lacking here unless I missed it. One can learn to think and be well-rounded outside of a university. It's called the school of hard knocks.

Pardon me for even wading in here, but this 'university is for everyone' theme is wearing a bit thin with me.

For the record, I have nothing but respect for those who do graduate from a university and in particular for the opinions of many here, among them Dr. G., bryanc and screature.

I did not have the 'university option' and chose a trade first, which developed into a career. That career had me in attendance at a few universities in outreach programs to supplement my then only, high school diploma.

Through 42 years in the newspaper industry, I rose from a printer's apprentice to a Chief Operating Officer responsible for 162 Canadian publications and printing plants. I knew and consulted with many of the top newspaper people in the country, many of them still active today.

But all through that career, I knew as friends and needed as tradesmen, hundreds of neighbours. They were the plumbers who fixed my toilet. The mechanic who tuned my cars. The guy at the hardware store who eased my gardening chores. The guys at the grocery stores who laboured long and hard to fill shelves to feed my family. The barbers who cut my hair, the gal who reads my gas meter, the crew who unplugged my sewer and the guys who pick up my garbage.

Without them, university educated people would not enjoy the quality of life they do. There is a place for us all here, and to hold some process of higher learning or thought up as some type of holy grail is to ignore reality.

There is a need for all who walk with us in this life, and some academics who should reflect on that before they make sweeping statements about teaching people to learn, to question, to think and to be intellectually well-rounded. Some of the intellectually well rounded simply cannot function without them.

That's an observation lacking here unless I missed it. One can learn to think and be well-rounded outside of a university. It's called the school of hard knocks.

Excellent points, Sinc. I recall a conversation I had with a contractor who was envious of my education. I told him he had no need to be envious, in that he could do with his hands what I certainly could not do, and I dare say, many in university could not do. I told him I am able to teach, which enables me to earn money, that is used to hire him to do his magic with the renos.

I told him that a university degree means little if it is just a "certificate of endurance" of 4+ years at a university. True, it might open some doors .............. but if that door breaks, then we need those who know how to fix/build real things in our world.

I told him to read as much as he could, and be grateful that he could read and not have to pass tests to get a grade. Thus, his learning would come free of charge.

I was bit concerned when this thread got off the rails re tuition in other provinces. Still, various views were expressed, which is the essence of education, be it formal or informal.

Paix, mon ami.

.

To my way of looking at it, you say you have the right to judge (in your opinion) but the fact that you choose to judge someone else's motivations for their education is the problem. For me I personally think it is presumptuous and arrogant to judge another person in such a manner and I don't think there is any right or wrong reason to go to university.

Just like there are good and bad reasons for getting married (and we all have opinions on what those reasons are) there are good and bad reasons to go to university. And when I say I think people "should" or "shouldn't" go to university for some specific reason, I'm not suggesting that we should have rules that try to prevent people from going for the wrong reasons, or that I think people who go for the wrong reasons are doing something immoral; I'm arguing that going to university for the wrong reasons is likely to reduce the value of their investment. So when I say people shouldn't go to university "to get a job" I'm saying that this motivation is likely to limit their learning experience, and that's a shame.

Pardon me for even wading in here, but this 'university is for everyone' theme is wearing a bit thin with me.
...
That's an observation lacking here unless I missed it.
I think you missed it.
most people don't *need* a university education.