Hellow Armor Gamers I bring to you a question: Is it worthwhile to pursue post secondary education? As a 19 year old Canadian male one would expect me to be off and about on a University or College campus, however, this is not the case. How can I, or anyone, attend post secondary institutes without money? It seems to me that the only way to attend university is to bring myself into debt. A debt that even with some of my own financial backing will take me roughly 15-20 years to pay off. I also ask you this: Should it be easier to attain scholarships? And should the government supply prospecting students with SOME financial backing that does not have to be repaid. Let us deal with scholarships first. I qualify for none. There is an Ontario scholarship that grants me 1000 dollars should I be in need of money. I do not qualify because I only completed my minimum community service hours. I do not qualify for any accademic schollarships despite achieving high marks in my areas of interest. My low math grades drop my average to about 78. And even my high English and History grades 86 and 85 (my areas of interest) are simply not not high enough. And lastly while I play sports I do not possess enough skill to merit a schollarship for soccer. Now, should the government lend students aid without having the students worry about repaying the government? I meet the government expectations in terms of graduating average. In fact I slightly surpass this average. Yet, depsite all this I must saccrifice an entire year to save up for my education, and even then I will have to ask for loans. And this is merely for ONE year. I plan on attaining a Masters degree in History. That takes SEVERAL years. So, should the goverment supply students with money? Not anything elaborate, but let us say...1500-5000 dollars depending on their average. I believe that such a program would encourage students to continue education and reduce drop out rates. It would also further increase the the education of the population.
So I ask you to discuss the following:
1. Is it worthwhile to pursure post secondary education at the cost of extreme debt and knowing that attending may not even result in what you wish to achieve?
2. Should scholarships be easier to attain. Furthermore should academic scholarships give higher yields? (Sport scholarships pay for almost everything)
3. Should the government provide students with money based on their geaduation average in order to assist them?
Where is it? If your government seriously does not have this, then the U.S. may be better off than I thought.
We have them however 10,000 dollars hardly covers a single year and despite working throughout the year I would have to apply to banks for further loans which can lead into even greater debt. Which would take longer to pay off. I am no adverse to loans it is just that I do not wish to spend the rest of my life paying off these loans.
you have to work for scholorships they dont want to just hand them out to any body
There are cases, like my own, where people have worked hard and yet remain out of reach of a decent scholarship, or almost any financial aid for that matter.
Please note I am Canadian and am speaking from a Canadian perspective. The American education system is somewhat different than my own.
No. But I don't think that you are accurately describing the cost of college. I'm sure it works out they way for many people (I know quite a few people with college degrees who are working retail), but it doesn't have to be that way. I mean, if you're going to be a lit major, what can you expect? Most colleges allow you to double major, so you can get a degree in something fun + risky (like lit or anthropology) AND something profitable (like math or econ). Additionally, if you take the right classes before college, you should find yourself with a lot more room to take classes that you like right off the bat.
I am being fairly accurate in my claims in terms of cost, believe me. And I intend to have a teaching career, you see not everyone is good at mathematics, I am terrible and will never understand complex math. As a potential history major, or any liberal arts major why should my future be deemed unprofitable?
Also you are suggestion that a grade 9 knows exactly what they want to do with your life. What you imply is simply unrealistic in the majority of cases.
As a potential history major, or any liberal arts major why should my future be deemed unprofitable?
Because your future IS unprofitable. Like I said, I know many lit (or journalism) majors who work in book stores. It isn't a good career move unless you are a really good writer.
Same goes with being a history major: not very many of them strike it rich. This isn't the colleges' decision, it isn't the government's decision, it's just the way the world works.
The average history major earns considerably less than the average math major. And colleges are going to respond accordingly. They are not altruistic organizations. They want to have filthy rich alumni who will give back to the college and look good on a newsletter.
It is your responsibility to prove your worth to colleges. If you can show how you'll make money as a history major, more power to you. But it's a lot easier when you're good at math.
By "right classes" in high school, I mean classes that will earn you college credit or fill college requirements. Like, I'm not interested at all in psychology, so I took the class in high school so I wouldn't have to take it in college (when I would be paying more for it). You should take a wide variety of classes to earn a wide variety of credits. This way, when you DO know what you want to do (presumably in college), you'll be more likely to be able to skip the relatively boring introduction courses.
And maybe graduate early, as well (and thus save more money).
Because your future IS unprofitable. Like I said, I know many lit (or journalism) majors who work in book stores. It isn't a good career move unless you are a really good writer.
Perhaps we're getting the wrong idea here. I'm not in this for vast amounts of money I'm going to university to gain a teaching career. I would rather be middle of the road money wise and comfortable and enjoy my job than say work a job I hate because it makes more money.
But it's a lot easier when you're good at math.
So it's my fault my brain leans more toward social sciences? Not everyone is can be good at math.
I still hold firm to the belief that money should be easier to attain for a student who is qualified, willing to work extremely hard, and determined to achieve a post secondary education. Is this view so wrong?
So it's my fault my brain leans more toward social sciences? Not everyone is can be good at math.
Way to ignore the two sentences before that. Obviously it is better to be good at both social sciences and math than just social sciences. Is it the college's fault that they want better students?
I still hold firm to the belief that money should be easier to attain for a student who is qualified, willing to work extremely hard, and determined to achieve a post secondary education. Is this view so wrong?
Yes. It is easy to get a scholarship if you actually are all those things. If you can't get a scholarship, you probably aren't at least one of those things.
