Since the release of the O'Neill Report on post-secondary education in Nova Scotia a number of the report's recommendations and potential ramifications have been on my mind. Of course, none of these ideas have been fully formed, nor have I really been able to articulate exactly where the problem is or what I think might be a better solution.
Recommendations relating to tuition deregulation have, it would seem, been foremost on my mind. For your information, the general thrust of the recommendation was for a deregulation of tuition fees with the expectation that they will increase over time. Almost immediately this recommendation seemed counter intuitive to me, at least if Nova Scotia is still interested in having universities. If they they want their universities to whither and die this recommendation makes prefect sense.
I guess I should start with a little background. Of the 77 000 (or so) university students in Atlantic Canada, 35 000 are studying at Nova Scotia's 11 universities (6 of which are located in Halifax). Many of these students come from place other than Nova Scotia. Dal suggests that 44% of its students come from provinces other than Nova Scotia and 10% are international students.
On the demographics side of things, Nova Scotia has one of the oldest populations in Canada and is only getting older. Population projections don't paint a rosy picture of the Nova Scotia of the future. I would say that it will be nothing but old folks homes but I am not sure that they will even have the people to work in those positions throughout the province. Consequently, a fair bit of money and effort has been put into encouraging young people to migrate to Nova Scotia, or stay here if that is where they are from.
On the competing universities side of things, MUN's lowered tuition fees and a corresponding increase in the number students from Nova Scotia seems to suggest that some portion of the Nova Scotia population is responsive to relative differences in tuition prices. As things stood in 2005/06 (the last year for which I could find full data) the difference in price between Dalhousie and Memorial for 4 years of tuition, room and board, and fees was about $27 000. Dalhousie was almost twice as expensive as Memorial for exactly the same degree. Unfortunately, I don't have a full picture of exactly how having the country's highest undergraduate tuition fees are driving local students out of the province (but I suspect that it is not a pretty picture).
I should also mention that Nova Scotia has a graduate tax rebate that can be valued at several thousand dollars, if you pay taxes/have a job. While the utility of this program, at least to me, seems questionable at best (particularly when other provinces have comparable programs that are more lucrative), it does suggest that the province is willing to put up funds to encourage youth residency in the province.
So, to sum up, we have a context where a young, educated population is needed and there is some evidence that these people seem at least somewhat sensitive to price. Consequently it seems strange to increase tuition when efforts are also being made to attract young residents to the region. This seems particularly strange given the relatively small sums of money we are talking about on the tuition front. $35 000 000 ($1000 a student) in a budget of several billion is relatively insignificant. Instead of driving students out and then trying to bring them back with a tax rebate (that may not even apply to most people) they could maybe consider trying to encourage them to stay with lower tuition fees, or something of that nature.
Anyway, I know I am rambling and a little disorganized, but it just seems that by allowing tuition increases the provincial government has the potential to exacerbate an already serious problem. As far as I can tell, the best case scenario associated with these recommendations is that only a few thousand students stop coming to Nova Scotia to be educated - which won't be good considering the number of universities that the province has chosen to maintain.
Again, I apologize for the sloppy organization of these ideas. I just needed to get this off my chest. Maybe if I talk it through a few more times I might have something approaching a coherent argument or position.
[And I should be clear, everything discussed here is in the context of a place that has chosen to publicly fund education and population retention schemes. The issue isn't whether or not public funds are appropriate, but how they will be used.]
Score
Cameron 58
Neil 0
Showing posts with label reports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reports. Show all posts
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Another former MLA is implicated?
As many of you may recall, several months ago Nova Scotia's Auditor General uncovered a series of "inappropriate" expenditures made by the province's MLAs. At the time of this first announcement it was suggested that while some of the expenses did break some of the rules the abuses were not of a criminal nature. A February 3, 2010 CBC web story points out the that the Auditor General "said he found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing." For the next couple of weeks this was the line on the story: excessive, but legal expenditures.
Shortly after the story broke it was announced that the Auditor General would be conducting a 'forensic audit' on MLA expenditures. On February 12, 2010 CBC reported that the Auditor General was "doing this because he has received new information from the public, the media and from his own fact finding over the past number of days." This means that within less than two weeks of the publication of his initial report the Auditor General began to question the quality of his own findings. Strangely (or not surprisingly), even in light of this acknowledgement of the insufficiency of the findings, Dexter continued to insist that a more in-depth investigation was not required.
In March, after the sudden resignations of Richard Hurlburt and Dave Wilson, the NDP suspended Trevor Zinck from its caucus. Interestingly, at the time CBC quoted Zinck as saying "This has got nothing to do - and I want to be clear on this - with the auditor general's report. I did fall behind in paying some bills … but everything has been put back in check. I've reassured the Speaker's Office as of this week I have a full-time assistant in place as of Jan. 25 and it's business as usual for this community." If Zinck is correct, and this has nothing to do with the Auditor General's report does it not suggest that there may be significant problems that have not even been investigated by the Auditor General? Does this development not also further call into question the utility and comprehensiveness of the original report?
In mid-May the Auditor General referred the cases of 1 current and 4 former MLAs to the RCMP for further investigation, suggesting that he things that there may have been criminal wrong-doing in these cases. These developments lead me to a number of questions about the original report. Firstly, how comprehensive was the original report if within a few months the findings of the original report are called into question by subsequent investigations? Secondly, to what extent have these developments undermined public trust in the Office of the Auditor General? If in February we are told that there do not appear to be signs of criminal wrong-doing only to find out in May that 5 cases have been referred to the police how do we know that we can trust any of the other findings that come from this office.
Of course, any confidence the public still has in the office might be further shaken by the fact that yet another former MLA has been referred to the RCMP for investigation, though this time because the Speaker's office uncovered problems with expense claims. Because they are a former MLA it seems likely that the problems were found with old rather than new expense claims, claims that I would have assumed had been examined by the Auditor General. How is it possible that after two audits new problems are being uncovered? How can the government maintain, with a straight face, that the investigations that have taken place thus far are sufficient even when further problems have been uncovered after each investigation?
Shortly after the story broke it was announced that the Auditor General would be conducting a 'forensic audit' on MLA expenditures. On February 12, 2010 CBC reported that the Auditor General was "doing this because he has received new information from the public, the media and from his own fact finding over the past number of days." This means that within less than two weeks of the publication of his initial report the Auditor General began to question the quality of his own findings. Strangely (or not surprisingly), even in light of this acknowledgement of the insufficiency of the findings, Dexter continued to insist that a more in-depth investigation was not required.
In March, after the sudden resignations of Richard Hurlburt and Dave Wilson, the NDP suspended Trevor Zinck from its caucus. Interestingly, at the time CBC quoted Zinck as saying "This has got nothing to do - and I want to be clear on this - with the auditor general's report. I did fall behind in paying some bills … but everything has been put back in check. I've reassured the Speaker's Office as of this week I have a full-time assistant in place as of Jan. 25 and it's business as usual for this community." If Zinck is correct, and this has nothing to do with the Auditor General's report does it not suggest that there may be significant problems that have not even been investigated by the Auditor General? Does this development not also further call into question the utility and comprehensiveness of the original report?
In mid-May the Auditor General referred the cases of 1 current and 4 former MLAs to the RCMP for further investigation, suggesting that he things that there may have been criminal wrong-doing in these cases. These developments lead me to a number of questions about the original report. Firstly, how comprehensive was the original report if within a few months the findings of the original report are called into question by subsequent investigations? Secondly, to what extent have these developments undermined public trust in the Office of the Auditor General? If in February we are told that there do not appear to be signs of criminal wrong-doing only to find out in May that 5 cases have been referred to the police how do we know that we can trust any of the other findings that come from this office.
Of course, any confidence the public still has in the office might be further shaken by the fact that yet another former MLA has been referred to the RCMP for investigation, though this time because the Speaker's office uncovered problems with expense claims. Because they are a former MLA it seems likely that the problems were found with old rather than new expense claims, claims that I would have assumed had been examined by the Auditor General. How is it possible that after two audits new problems are being uncovered? How can the government maintain, with a straight face, that the investigations that have taken place thus far are sufficient even when further problems have been uncovered after each investigation?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A Few Quick Notes 108
[Written on Monday July 23, 2007]
-From yesterday’s rain and wind we have returned to the realm of beautiful weather. Fortunately, today managed to be beautiful without being oppressively hot and humid. High levels of humidity have been particularly problematic these past few days.
-As I was eating breakfast this morning I started to think about what I might want for lunch. Aside from the normal, and somewhat mundane, options, I thought that I might like a piece of the coffee cake that I baked on Sunday. As I was the only one in the kitchen I didn’t have a chance to make these sentiments known to anyone else. I continued along my way and tried my best to keep up with my typical morning routine.
After showering and dressing, I descended to the kitchen to finish my lunch preparations. Almost as soon as I walked in I noticed that my mother, father, and sister were sitting at the dining room table, each with a plate of scrambled eggs and cake in front of them. To add insult to injury, they left half a corner piece in the pan.
- While cataloguing a 1971 report on the population characteristics of unincorporated communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, I was struck by the first sentence of the report. The report opens by stating that it "provides basic detailed information…." While one can read it differently, it seemed a little odd to me that information could be considered basic and detailed at the same time. As I flipped through the report, this veracity of the statement became obvious. None of the information was complex, but certainly was detailed with age and gender breakdowns provided for very particular geographic locations.
-From yesterday’s rain and wind we have returned to the realm of beautiful weather. Fortunately, today managed to be beautiful without being oppressively hot and humid. High levels of humidity have been particularly problematic these past few days.
-As I was eating breakfast this morning I started to think about what I might want for lunch. Aside from the normal, and somewhat mundane, options, I thought that I might like a piece of the coffee cake that I baked on Sunday. As I was the only one in the kitchen I didn’t have a chance to make these sentiments known to anyone else. I continued along my way and tried my best to keep up with my typical morning routine.
After showering and dressing, I descended to the kitchen to finish my lunch preparations. Almost as soon as I walked in I noticed that my mother, father, and sister were sitting at the dining room table, each with a plate of scrambled eggs and cake in front of them. To add insult to injury, they left half a corner piece in the pan.
- While cataloguing a 1971 report on the population characteristics of unincorporated communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, I was struck by the first sentence of the report. The report opens by stating that it "provides basic detailed information…." While one can read it differently, it seemed a little odd to me that information could be considered basic and detailed at the same time. As I flipped through the report, this veracity of the statement became obvious. None of the information was complex, but certainly was detailed with age and gender breakdowns provided for very particular geographic locations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)