BF2S Forums Admiring the ambition (Obama)

The age at which you can drop out in most states is either 16 or 18. By that age you should be responsible enough to make a decision like that. Believe me, I considered dropping out a few months ago. But I realized that it would really, really fuck me over for the rest of my life. Since I'd rather not be working minimum wage the rest of my life or leeching off of welfare, I decided to stay on track and at the very least finish high school. Now I've been accepted into university.

LividBovine wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

The states got anything like Selective high schools?

Not exactly.  We are able to enrole our kids in other schools of our choosing, but it is not very practicle most of the time.  Some areas have pretty decent private or charter schools, but the private ones are more money and not neccesarily better.  Best bet here is to raise our kids well and teach them the extra stuff ourselves.

That's no even close to the same.

There are 3 main schools here.
1. Public school, Anyone can go to any of these no matter where you live. Most people go to the local one because a) its easier and b) There's really not much difference between them.
2. Public selective school. As explained in the link, at the end of year 6 (note: high school is 6-12, we have no 'middle school') you do a test and the 'smartest' get into the school of their choosing. It basically selects the brightest people from the state and puts them all in the same school so everyone there learns at a similar pace.
3. Private school. Only rich fags who like to be molested and wear straw hats go here.

At the end of year 12 everyone does another test to see who gets into university. I did this test and by my own standards and the schools, I did pretty poorly (finishing in the bottom 20%) but because I went to a selective school that still put me in the top 10% of the state.

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Well, I've drawn a lot of criticism, so let me explain how University for all in Australia works.

You go to uni, after getting accepted to whatever degree you have applied for, based on achieving good grades in high school. Without them you won't get accepted.

If you don't have the average $800 per course, and remember you do 4 courses per semester, 2 semesters a year and usually 3 years of study, you are looking around the $30,000 mark typically.

To pay for this, you go on whats known as HECS. Simply means the govt. will loan you the money, interest free, which goes towards your courses and your courses only. Once you leave uni, finished your degree or pull out, whatever income you make is then taxed a higher amount which goes straight into your HECs debt. When it's payed off that extra tax is dropped. That tax is based on your income rates. The individual who made the loan pays it back.

How is that not reasonable? University degrees based on merit rather than bank balance? Which the individual pays back when they land a job. And you have the option to pay it off sooner if you have a job, and if you choose to you can pay it all up front.

And just how is that any different than the US, other than we just pay back the loan in installments instead of in higher taxes (essentially the same thing)?

Oh, and here the govt makes money on the interest.

Of course, if your family has a high income, you don't qualify for the loans...but you may qualify for academic or sports scholarships. And if you're really low-income, you get grants...free money from the govt to attend college.

So...our system is better and more fair than yours.

You suck. We win.

Next topic.

I don't know where Reaper learnt to add but the average cost a degree (assuming no fails) is $15-16k not 30 as stated, mostly due to them being subsidised.

As for paying back the loan:
Technically it's not interest free as it increases with CPI, but the fact that in real terms the cost never increases means you can keep the debt with you for most of your life and the interest wont burden you, so there is no pressure for you to pay it back asap.
The way they tax you is also based on your income. You wont pay a thing until you are earning over 36k (a reasonable livable income) and then its only an extra 1% on what you earn above 36k (the rate increases as you earn more). So not matter your income you will never struggle to pay back the loan.

Why should someone of high income be exempt from government loans? As explained its a fair system where you qualify for academic achievement not how much you or your parents earn.

As for scholarships, the government doesn't give any out. Though universities do give sports ones and business may give them to some people which includes a guaranteed job at the satisfactory completion of the course. The government though will give grants to people doing PHDs.

The fact you give 'free' money to the poor to attend college means that your 'loans' system obviously doesn't work the same way.

So I don't know how you 'win' exactly.

DrunkFace wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Well, I've drawn a lot of criticism, so let me explain how University for all in Australia works.

You go to uni, after getting accepted to whatever degree you have applied for, based on achieving good grades in high school. Without them you won't get accepted.

If you don't have the average $800 per course, and remember you do 4 courses per semester, 2 semesters a year and usually 3 years of study, you are looking around the $30,000 mark typically.

To pay for this, you go on whats known as HECS. Simply means the govt. will loan you the money, interest free, which goes towards your courses and your courses only. Once you leave uni, finished your degree or pull out, whatever income you make is then taxed a higher amount which goes straight into your HECs debt. When it's payed off that extra tax is dropped. That tax is based on your income rates. The individual who made the loan pays it back.

How is that not reasonable? University degrees based on merit rather than bank balance? Which the individual pays back when they land a job. And you have the option to pay it off sooner if you have a job, and if you choose to you can pay it all up front.

And just how is that any different than the US, other than we just pay back the loan in installments instead of in higher taxes (essentially the same thing)?

Oh, and here the govt makes money on the interest.

Of course, if your family has a high income, you don't qualify for the loans...but you may qualify for academic or sports scholarships. And if you're really low-income, you get grants...free money from the govt to attend college.

So...our system is better and more fair than yours.

You suck. We win.

Next topic.

I don't know where Reaper learnt to add but the average cost a degree (assuming no fails) is $15-16k not 30 as stated, mostly due to them being subsidised.

As for paying back the loan:
Technically it's not interest free as it increases with CPI, but the fact that in real terms the cost never increases means you can keep the debt with you for most of your life and the interest wont burden you, so there is no pressure for you to pay it back asap.
The way they tax you is also based on your income. You wont pay a thing until you are earning over 36k (a reasonable livable income) and then its only an extra 1% on what you earn above 36k (the rate increases as you earn more). So not matter your income you will never struggle to pay back the loan.

Why should someone of high income be exempt from government loans? As explained its a fair system where you qualify for academic achievement not how much you or your parents earn.

As for scholarships, the government doesn't give any out. Though universities do give sports ones and business may give them to some people which includes a guaranteed job at the satisfactory completion of the course. The government though will give grants to people doing PHDs.

The fact you give 'free' money to the poor to attend college means that your 'loans' system obviously doesn't work the same way.

So I don't know how you 'win' exactly.

Grants are available to those lowest-income individuals.

Loans are available to those with the lowest income up to fairly well-off families. Those who can afford to pay for college outright don't qualify, but then they don't need those loans, either. Those who make too much to qualify for the loans are truly the high-end income bracket.

The government doesn't give out scholarships (outside of military academies and ROTC programs). The schools and philanthropic organizations give out the scholarships.

So...our govt provides means for those with need to attend college. It also earns interest on the money it gives out in loans (unlike was described for Australia).

Look at Obama himself. I'm sure he had loads of scholarships and loans to pay for his undergrad and law school. And it's not like he went somewhere cheap. Harvard is one of the priciest universities in the States.

But the US doesn't do anything to help those who want to attend college. Nope. Not a thing.

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But the US doesn't do anything to help those who want to attend college. Nope. Not a thing.

It does, the point is it doesn't do enough.

The point is, it does a damn sight more than Australia, which was used as an example of the way it should be done.

How much is enough?

I hope our next president is asian.  Obviously the whites and blacks aren't up to the task.