Jump to content

conscientious

Members
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Application Season
    2015 Fall
  • Program
    HR

conscientious's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

0

Reputation

  1. @DDNewsLive thanks for sharing Doordarshan News, have a great Monday :) (insight by http://t.co/rOE0iFrChy)
  2. @UofM4life2014 thanks for sharing mdulaney, have a great Saturday :) (insight by http://t.co/rOE0iFrChy)
  3. The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview. "It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It is true that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. In addition, the symphony has just announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. For these reasons, we recommend that the city eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget. We predict that the symphony will flourish in the years to come even without funding from the city." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. It is possible the budget planner is correct in the argument to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. However, the presentation of the argument is missing a lot of information required before such a drastic decision should be made. First of all, the use of percentages can be very misleading. It is possible last year saw only $100 in private contributes, so an increase by 200% only means the orchestra saw $300, which could hardly be enough to fund an entire orchestra on its own. The same goes for the attendance statistic: if last year’s attendance was in fact only 10% of the available seats, doubling to 20% of ticket sales doesn’t seem to compensate for the loss of city funding. The argument is not only unspecific with percentages, but it is also vague with the statement regarding a price increase. Again, we are missing the key information: What is the new price for next year? How much will prices increased? It is impossible to guess how much this change will impact the amount of funding the orchestra can generate by itself. This point also ignores the basic economic principle that as prices rise, demand decreases. It is even possible last year only saw an increase in attendance due to decreased prices, perhaps through a marketing campaign of discounts, which would account for the increased attendance the argument depends upon to continue. Finally, this argument employs the common assumption that what is true for last year will be true for next year. In fact, we know the orchestra struggled financially before last year. There are many reasons one year could be an anomaly. For instance, an event like a traveling national archery competition could have drawn in tourists who attended the orchestra during their visit. The competition wasn’t in town before last year and it won’t be in town next year, so the outlier of last year should be exempt from decisions based on historical performance. Deciding to eliminate funding could have detrimental effects on the orchestra, so it warrants careful consideration. More clear and complete information is required before such a conclusion can be drawn.
  4. Governments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Governments have a responsibility to invest in the education of the population for the benefit of the population. However, it is not necessary nor even a good identity to cover the entire cost of post-secondary education. As in Canada, governments do well to subsidize college and university education to a reasonable portion of the cost. To begin with, relying entirely on government funding is likely to reduce the finances of the schools. Without raising taxes, government budgets everywhere are already very tight without room for a huge additional expense. This means less money to compete with other countries for quantity and quality of professors, courses, and facilities. What good is a free education if the education is sub-par at best? When subsidized by the government, schools have obligation both toward supporting government interests of societal benefit, as well as the capitalistic drive to compete and profit, which drives performance and innovation. Furthermore, the huge additional expense to the government will surely take away from other more universally rewarding beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the investment does not benefit all citizens directly. Many people are not interested nor suited for post-secondary education. Taking away from infrastructure and military, for instance, doesn’t help people without children at post-secondary age who have to put up with the potholes and reduced security. If anything, the free aspect will attract many more students who are not committed or just not a good fit for university or college. This will detract from the serious students. Instead, subsidy tempers the obstacle of cost to make it more reasonable, while still maintaining a cost that acts, in a way, as a test of a student’s dedication. That said, some countries have implemented free post-secondary schooling. Education, after all, is a clear contributor to a country’s economy and GDP. Taking away the barrier of cost allows equal access to all. It is a matter of tradeoff. The United States has some of the most expensive schools, but they are also some of the world’s best schools. When a resource is made accessible to more people through government funding, something has to give, whether it be other services we rely on like infrastructure or the quality of the resource itself, or both. Government certainly has a strong relationship with the country’s schools. That is why most government’s fund elementary and secondary school. But should that extend to post-secondary? It would come at significant cost to the quality of the school as well as the other government services losing funding to compensate. As such, it is a more appropriate approach to subsidize post-secondary education rather than funding it completely. We need higher level thinkers and doers developed by higher level education. Beyond our physical health, our personal and societal quality of life depends on mental aptitude.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use