A report by the Desjardins groups cites Quebec’s gross public debt to GDP ratio to be at a whopping 94 per cent; this puts us in a similar range to countries such as Greece, Italy, and Japan. If the world has learned any lesson from the current European financial crisis, it is that such high levels of debt only lead to future economic losses. Financial Post’s Jonathan Kay recently used the term “souvlaki economics” to describe the current situation in Quebec. He argued that Quebec, similarily to Greece, is building an unsustainable and inefficient welfare state in which the populace simply takes government handouts for granted. The Quebec Auditor General’s office recently released a report criticizing the government for failing to reduce its debt burden, and stated that government debt is, in fact, rising faster than economic growth.

This brings us to the tuition problem. Students have grown used to Quebec’s subsidies and argue that they can easily continue if the government creates a corporate capital gains taxes and increases tax rates on the highest income bracket. They further argue that lowering tuition now will mean accessibility to future generations of Quebecois. These are both idealistic and short sighted claims Students need to stop pretending that fighting for lower tuition rates right now is in the interest of future generations. As with any interest group, short sightedness and personal debt concerns are overshadowing the larger, long runproblem of provincial debt. Henry Aubin from the Montreal Gazette argues that students need to worry more about provincial debt than personal debt since they have no control over the former. In his insightful piece, he argues that today’s students are no wiser than their over indulgent parents and must cut back on their expectations about what the government can provide for them.

When asked the question “where is the money coming from?” anti-tuition hike proponents give one magic answer: increase taxes for evil corporations and the rich folk who don’t deserve their money. Valid arguments for and against this issue can be made according to your ideology. However, the solutions seem unrealistic in the short run since they are difficult to implement. In a recovering Quebec economy, increasing taxes on corporations will only divert their investments to other provinces. Increasing taxes for the rich is an option, but it does not generate enough revenue for the government to solve our education problem and is difficult to do when they already face such high tax rates. Furthermore, increasing taxes for the middle class is out of the question since they already pay a relatively high percentage of income tax in Canada. The biggest concern I have with the tax argument, however, is that students automatically believe all that extra revenue must go into universities and higher education and don’t mention Quebec’s fledgling health care system or its Social Security program to help out an aging population? Why not put more money into poverty- reducing initiatives? The absurdity of this argument is worsened by the fact that many of the same activists who argue against tuition hikes are adamantly opposed to any corporate influences on campus. In the end, where would university funding come from?

As an Indian citizen who has spent significant amounts of time in the United States, the concept of a granny state with high taxes and predominant social benefits is one I am deeply skeptical about. Activist inisistence on relying on government benefits while decrying it for being inefficient and corrupt seems impractical and inefficient to me. I believe that many international students, like myself, come from a background that rewards the efficiencies of private enterprises and looks at increased governmental involvement with skepticism. An obvious reference point comes from south of the border, where many of McGill’s international students come from. I do not mean to put the American educational system on a pedestal, but I am appalled by the blatant generalizations many activists in Quebec make about it. The United States does seem to have the highest sticker price for post secondary education among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Developmentcountries due to greater privatization, but it also maintains higher accessibility than Quebec. In a report by the Education Policy Institute, the United States and Canada are ranked #13 and #11 respectively in education affordability, with Sweden coming in first. However, when countries are then ranked according to educational accessibility; the United States comes in Fourth, ahead of Canada and Sweden (coming in Fifth and Ninth respectively).

So, the fact remains that Quebec spends a disproportionate amount of money on its education system, and yet lags behind in accessibility and in university attendance rates. What would my modest proposal be then? Take education out of the hands of governments, and embrace deregulation. Stop feeding money into the Leviathan and allowing bureaucrats in Quebec’s Ministry of Education to shape the province’s education system. More deregulation would allow different universities to analyze their own needs and charge students what they deem necessary to offer a reputable education. A higher tuition rate, coupled with an efficient redistributive program of loans and financial aid, as found in many Ivy League colleges, would represent a truly more progressive tuition system. This would allow the upper and middle classes to pay a higher sticker price than the rest for their college degree, so that some of the money can be used to fund bursaries and loans for those in financial need. Not everything south of our border is broken, and viable solutions can be found if we combine the best of both worlds. Finally, students cannot expect that their government will continue supporting them. Post secondary education has a value, and in order to retain it, there must be an opportunity cost associated with it.

Murtaza Shambhoora is a U2 Political Science and Economics student. He can be reached at murtaza.shambhoora@mail.mcgill.ca

The post Tuition and our sense of entitlement appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The degree of close mindedness and irrationality that this author displays in this sub-par blog-like piece is frightening. Moreover, Mastracci somehow begins his piece with the above mentioned topics and (as is common in student left-wing discourse) concludes that McGill students are not radical enough. To him, the ideal university student must be one who partakes in ‘radical’ behavior such as sitting in on controversial meetings, or skipping classes to attend tuition hike protests. To him, being a true McGill student seems to mean joining the Mob Squad and disrupting Board of Governor meetings whilst dressed in pirate suits. Forget reforming capitalism, he states, lets just replace it completely (presumably after voting for Karl Marx’s portrait to be hung on campus and calling for a radical switch to communism). If we can’t fix the system, might as well run away and abandon it like children.

Finally, the author criticizes The Daily for not encouraging this rising up of radicalism on campus. He ridicules the paper for publishing stories that defend tuition hikes and the capitalist system we live in. In doing so, he seems to be blatantly disregarding the concept of free speech and is asking our campus publications to ignore a large number of students who would be uncomfortable sharing his opinion. He seems to have already forgotten the opening line of his piece, in which he prides the university setting as being a place for debate and honest discourse.

The true definition of the labels “progressive” and “student radical” are lost upon this columnist. Being progressive at McGill does not mean that you have to introduce radical ideas into our community or attend tuition hike protests. You do not need to buy into radical left wing rhetoric to change the system. As university students, we can be progressive by gaining an education and having unique opinions on tuition hikes and on any inefficiencies we perceive to be existent in society today. And, most importantly, we can be progressive while attending prestigious universities such as McGill – and not have to defend how or why we got here.

Murtaza Shambhoora is a U2 Political Science and Economics student. He can be reached at murtaza.shambhoora@mail.mcgill.ca

The post McGill is progressive appeared first on The McGill Daily.

In 2011, the world witnessed a revolution rallying against the excessive corruption and economic exploitation found within our society due to certain flaws in our capitalist system. Thus, sentiments such as the one expressed above have become commonplace. Browsing through other pictures of the Occupy Wall Street protests, I noticed signs and T-Shirts with similar messages printed on them. Some held placards stating that “capitalism is an organized crime” and “the whole system has got to go”. The image of individuals making such strong statement and rallying against an economic system in which I so vehemently believe was shocking to me. How did we come to a stage where individuals readily disregard an entire economic system that has given rise to innovation, democracy, and a wealthier way of living?

The answer to the question posed above is simple. The economic crisis of 2008, the current European crisis, and growing income inequality in the developed world make it easy to lose faith in our system. It is easy now to disregard capitalism as being the root cause of society’s malaise and to make bold statements calling for a return to socialist or communist economic systems. Arguments labeling free market capitalism as the devil itself are ubiquitous on our own campus too. In fact, our own politically progressive peers in the Arts faculty proposed hanging a portrait of Karl Marx in the Arts lounge. Given the way in which big corporations and businesses are destroying our environment and reaping profits at the expense of labourers, student sentiments have an important place in our discourse.

But, there is a difference between informed criticism of the capitalist system and a wholesale disregard of it. As university students, our objective is to study and eliminate the flaws of the current economic system instead of camping out in our banker’s or government official’s backyard and rejecting their authority. We must have healthy debates between proponents of a purer form of capitalism and ones who prefer government to play a larger role. We must not look at Wall Street and the banking system as evil, but as institutions that need a few changes and give in easily to excess and greed. We live in a society where inefficient government plays an ever-larger role, while a combination of greed & irresponsibility has tainted the reputation of politicians who are supposed to change the world.

So how do you save capitalism? Stop blaming greedy bankers, futile regulators, underpaid workers, or overpaid executives. Stop using apocalyptic words to prescribe the end of capitalism. The truth is that a viable alternative to our system is nonexistent; I believe the Occupy protesters definitely haven’t come up with one. Capitalism has remained a success due to its ability to never be static. Through booms and busts, the system goes through complete reforms where it comes out stronger. The Great Depression led to increased involvement by the government and a rejection of the gold standard. The Reagan and Thatcher revolutions introduced an era of deregulation that led to global booms.

And how will we reform capitalism after the current bust? By pushing models of innovative and sustainable capitalism, embodied in part by companies such as Apple. By appreciating the philanthropic power of big business tycoons such as Bill Gates, who established the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And most importantly, by reinforcing capitalism and making it freer.

Governments need to stop coddling big banks and offering them bailouts. By doing so, the self-regulating nature of capitalism is lost. Corporate boardrooms must be reformed to reflect capitalism’s ideals of meritocracy and long-term profits. Finally, taxes must not be increased, since they only make our inefficient governments larger and more bureaucratized. In short, we must return to a purer form of capitalism.

Murtaza Shambhoora is a U2 Political Science & Economics student. He can be reached at Murtaza.Shambhoora@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post Capitalism is alive appeared first on The McGill Daily.

As we all know, that is not the case. The vast majority of the McGill population is not picking sides on the MUNACA issue, and just wants them to return to work as soon as possible. Students either don’t care whether tuition is increased by a mere $325 a year or are in support of it to protect the reputation of the University we attend. A lot of us believe that the protestors involved in the “Occupy James Admin” movement were hooligans who were intent upon causing chaos without a concrete set of demands and that they clearly crossed a line that evening. I make these assumptions due to the fact that the majority of my peers still attended my Political Science and Economics classes despite the Arts Undergraduate Society strike on November 10 and the “We Are All McGill” demonstration on November 14. Furthermore, neither of the demonstrations managed to attract a majority of McGill students or disrupt regular schedules.

The problem is that the above-mentioned viewpoints are no longer discussed on campus, or they are dismissed as “ignorant” by student activists intent upon spreading their own anarchic agenda. If I don’t support the movement against tuition hikes, I am accused of not being in solidarity with my peers. If I speak out against MUNACA, I am accused of supporting an elitist and insensitive administration that refuses freedom of expression. Realism no longer has a place on this campus; student idealism has taken over. Realism is understanding that higher education is not a right but a sacrifice worth paying for. Realism is understanding that the administration cannot meet MUNACA’s wage demands if students want tuition to remain frozen. Moreover, realism is understanding that the philosophy of “occupy everything, demand nothing” will not work. To change the system, you must work with it, not against it.

However, we cannot blame the student activists who are dominating campus discourse right now, since they have a right to do so. The only way we can ensure a diversity of viewpoints is by increased participation. Those of us who do not want SSMU to fight against tuition hikes should speak up instead of just complaining about the issues. Those of us who are tired of MUNACA should speak up and ask our student bodies to no longer stand in solidarity with them.

Our apathy is the reason that a mere 250 students present at the AUS General Assembly mandated a strike for 7500 Arts students at McGill while simultaneously advocating for funding QPIRG. It is also the reason that SSMU is officially against tuition hikes – a move that can seriously underfund a University that is already lacking financial support. We should be angry that activists accuse the administration of engaging in one-sided propaganda when it comes to MUNACA issues while our own student society gives us no information about the flipside of the tuition issue.

Speak up so that we can ensure that healthy dialogue is present within the student body, and that our student representatives are not pushing an ideology we do not support. We have always been warned that political organizations must be saved from a majority implementing legislative agendas that ignore the marginalized. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a tyranny of the minority instead – with a few motivated and politically active students dictating policy for all of us.

For those of you who would like to read a different viewpoint on tuition hikes: Tarun Koshy, in his recent article “The Day Intelligence Died at the Roddick Gates” written for the Bull & Bear, manages to give an explanation of why they should be implemented. Professor Stephen Saideman of the Political Science department has also blogged about the issues of student idealism and tuition hikes on his website.

The post Tyranny of the minority? appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Unfortunately, Principal Munroe-Blum, the McGill community does not seem to be as cohesive as you hoped it would be when you wrote your email. Not only has there been a growing divide between students and the administration, but the MUNACA strike has the student body itself between those who care, those who don’t care, and those who are simply fed up. I understand that McGill is a large bureaucratic organization incapable of giving personal attention to each and every student. But can’t at least place more importance on the voice of the student body as a whole?

We cannot ignore the blatant injustices the McGill administration has committed against its students over the past few months. Consequently, the administration cannot ignore how badly this is tarnishing the University’s reputation. Are undergraduate students going to praise the University to prospective students and academic surveyors? Will current students feel any sense of community or want to give back to McGill once they graduate? The answer to both these questions is a resounding no. Undergraduate students will not care that McGill rises through the Times Higher Education or QS World University Rankings due to its excellence in research if they also no longer feel that they have a voice in this community.

The undergraduate student population should see this MUNACA experience as an example of how diminished our role has become in a university that is supposed to educate us. We should lament the fact that we are simply cogs in a giant machine whose simple task is to churn out academic degrees at the end of the day.

Especially if that machine is one that silences our voices and discourages critical thought. Actions will ultimately have to be taken by the administration to make real changes. The students can protest, write articles, and give their feedback. If McGill really wants to grow as a university, the administration needs to make sure their large undergraduate student population feels involved.

Murtaza Shambhoora is a U2 Political Science student. He can be reached at murtaza.shambhoora@mail.mcgill.ca

The post We are (not) all McGill appeared first on The McGill Daily.

Then comes the matter of reputation. As a future MBA hopeful, it is discouraging to see that McGill’s reputation as a top-tier university does not carry into its MBA program. The Financial Times’ 2010 rankings put McGill’s MBA program in 95th place, behind Toronto, York, and Alberta. Internationally, McGill’s program is not able to compete with other public universities such as Oxford, the Univeristy of California Berkeley, and the University of Michigan – whose tuition rates are $40,000, $41,680, and $45,189 respectively for local students. With an average starting salary of $103,000, McGill MBA graduates tend to earn enough money to pay back whatever college loans they accumulate pursuing their degree, and as such, the $30,000 sticker price does not worry me. Instead, I am glad that McGill’s administration is taking steps to make their MBA program competitive with elite schools such as Harvard.

An MBA education is an investment that individuals must be prepared to make financial sacrifices for. The benefits of graduating from a top-tier MBA program far outweigh the costs of paying a higher tuition and having to take out loans. McGill’s two-year MBA program moved up 38 spots to take 57th place in the Financial Times’ 2011 rankings after the tuition hikes were implemented; this cannot be a coincidence.

This brings me back to the bigger question of why I see so many undergraduate provincial students opposing fee hikes of a meagre $100 a year. You cannot expect McGill to maintain its academic prestige and compete with world class universities such as Berkeley, Michigan, and Oxford while the Quebec government maintains its tuition freeze. It would be one thing if the freeze was working, but Quebec trails behind other provinces when it comes to university enrolment figures and in the proportion of young people holding a university degree.

Charging provincial students a meager $3,000 a year in tuition fees for their undergrad and MBA programs is unrealistic. Out-of-province Canadians and international students are paying the price for this funding gap. Meanwhile, McGill’s teaching quality, infrastructure, and international prestige is getting worse.

Our classes are getting bigger, financial aid is being cut back, and the McGill administration is finding it harder to fund student clubs and services. A modest increase in tuition for provincial students will not deny education to anyone; it will only improve McGill’s international reputation and our student experience.

—

Murtaza Shambhoora is a U1 Political Science and Economics student. He can be reached at murtaza.shambhoora@mail.mcgill.ca.

The post In defense of tuition hikes appeared first on The McGill Daily.