NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- It is also important that students and parents still pay a part of the higher education,

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the “Higher Education Act” whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 35% of higher education costs for all students,
- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level such as colleges and universities.
- REQUIRED to give students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families to 0,50% for students in richer families,
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does not have to pay the interest for those “study-years” afterwards,
- CALLS ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

Comments, suggestions, etc. are appreciated!

Disagree... Strain on state budget that could be used by those that don't really need it.
The state should only subsidize good students that come from poor or middle-class families. The better and poorer the student, the more money the government will allocate for him/her. Students who can easily afford all expenses and/or who don't achieve certain academic results will not be financed in any way.

I only have one small problem with this.

The bit about students and parents still being responsible for paying part of the cost. In my opinion the parents shouldn't be responsible to pay for their adult children. Can help if they want but once someone reaches adulthood he/she should be looking after themselves and paying their own bills.

I haven't decided if I'd support this if it came to the floor for voting or not. While I am a great believer in giving a person all the education they want and need, again I think an adult should be supporting themselves and paying their own way.

National Sovereignty is what i say to this resolution, will not receive my support.

Three things: the parents may not be able to afford the responsibility, 35% is extremely steep, and student loans should require review of the record of the student-in-question, just in case the student's past activities might suggest that they would consider squandering the money. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty good resolution - I definately think that these things must first be resolved, however.

When are UN nations going to realize that nothing is free? Your nation doesn't pluck money from trees; it comes from taxpayers. All you're doing is redirecting my money to pay for your kids' slackness. No thanks.

I think this could be a good idea but could use some alterations. As said before those whom do not need funding should not receive funding. Also I believe that, as said before, those who make the grades to receive funding should and those who don't shouldn't; as it would be a waste of funds to use them on kids who don't care. However, I think a good alternative would be that there be a 2 year mandatory military service contract for all that choose not to take an education-prone career.
--Just my thoughts,
Pilot 13

Thank you everyone for your thoughs. I'll make the neccesarry adjustments soon, and I'll repost the draft. :)

When are UN nations going to realize that nothing is free? "Never"?

Disagree... Strain on state budget that could be used by those that don't really need it.
The state should only subsidize good students that come from poor or middle-class families. The better and poorer the student, the more money the government will allocate for him/her. Students who can easily afford all expenses and/or who don't achieve certain academic results will not be financed in any way.

How can the state decide who the good students are? I like the idea of this resolution, because by funding students you take away some of the necessity to have a job. I'm not saying it is wrong for students to work, however, they shouldn't have to do it too much so they can concentrate on studying.

I do agree that the money should go to those who need it. So perhaps a clause can be added that rich students (or students with rich parents) won't get any financing.

All you're doing is redirecting my money to pay for your kids' slackness. No thanks.

Why are you immediately assuming slackness? Money doesn't grow on trees indeed, so how do you expect students to work for their money and at the same time follow full-time education? They can't.

And parents do have a responsibility in this. Students tend to still rely on their parents, no matter whether they're officially adults. So I see no problem in pointing out that responsibility.

OOC: The system proposed here is very much like the dutch system, and though it could perhaps be better in some ways, it's not a bad system compared to many other countries. The financing may be barely enough to pay the rent, it does take away the need to work so much that you can't study properly.

Several NS Nations already have Federal Grant and Loan systems set in place. Having the UN force small nations with little to no money to raise their taxes to pay for people's schooling is just not moral.

I'm sorry but as a Deligate for my region, i will not support this at etiher the proposal-vote level or the resolution-vote level.

Sphinx the Great does not require it's citizens to pay for higher education, but they must serve time for their country if they do not. There are no free rides. We do, however, believe that not everyone learns the same way. If identified early in life as a visual learner, students of StG are placed into a visually intensive educational program (such as Montessori or similar program). When they reach the level of higher education, studies have shown that these students do not learn effectively in a traditional college setting. The study results remain the same for these same children who's parents choose for them to receive "traditional" childhood education. In these situations, these students are often labeled "Disorderly, Lazy, Stupid, Underachievers, too Shy, or even Unruly". The studies also show that most of these students are extremely intelligent. They just do not process information the same way you or I do. Visually intensive education has been shown to significantly reduce the number of children who are negatively labeled in this manner.

Because these children are often labeled as "stupid", they are not available to the same funding that other children are. We at StG recognise that there are many different educational methods and that people who are exposed to the proper education become better functioning members of society.

We at StG propose that all students have access to discounted or free education, depending on their current financial situation. For those students who have poorer grades, StG proposes state funded testing to determine the cause, and an offer of the proper alternative form of education to fit the diagnosis. The student may still attend traditional education if they desire, but the state is not required to offer any funding except to the educational method stated by the test results. We also propose that these degrees offered by the alternative educational programs hold the same amount of weight as their sister degrees of a typical education. (If this is appropriate to add to the main proposal)

Okay, I added some of the suggestions that people posted. More suggestions are welcome!

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the costs,

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the “Higher Education Act” whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs,
- Those students will have to come from middle-class or lower class families
- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level such as colleges and universities.
- REQUIRED to give ALL students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families to 0,50% for students in richer families,
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does afterwards not have to pay for the “missed-interests.”
- CALLS ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

You left out the possibility of crack whores, potheads and mentally challenged kids applying for student loans to squander the money, knowing that they cannot be rejected.

OOC You can't have varying percentages by nation, as the costs of this resolution are applied to every nation regardless of related factors. I think the mods would say "game mechanics," but since I'm not sure what it's really classified as and I'm not a mod, I'm just telling you that it's illegal and must be changed.

This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries and is therefore unworthy of UN consideration.
Plus, I fear it may lead to the creation of "Mickey Mouse" degrees, such as Surfing Studies or Golf Course Management

You left out the possibility of crack whores, potheads and mentally challenged kids applying for student loans to squander the money, knowing that they cannot be rejected.

Very little point in that, as it still costs. Because you need to study, which means you have to pay tuition fees. Very expensive loans. Besides, there's no need to go into such detail in a UN resolution.

This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries and is therefore unworthy of UN consideration.
Plus, I fear it may lead to the creation of "Mickey Mouse" degrees, such as Surfing Studies or Golf Course Management

Higher education very much transcends national borders, with international students for example. And why do you fear "Mickey Mouse" degrees? What does that have to do with student financing? If anything, this resolution will stimulate more difficult studies, because the financial loss is less if not succeeding, and because you don't have to work a lot as a student you can spend more time on those exams.

Higher education very much transcends national borders, with international students for example.

Then perhaps the UN should concern itself with stipulations of international students.

I hardly see how ensuring higher education for citizens (especially in the somewhat beaurocratic manner proposed) is within the scope of the UN, that it's a universal right, and that it's at risk anywhere near as universally as much as is needed for the UN to address it. It is true, I feel, that children should be gauranteed a free education up until adulthood (or 18, as perscribed by law already), and I do think that that education must cover certain things (the tools adults will need to properly function in a nation's society). But this idea of making all UN nations adopt systems for allowing adults to further their educations--beyond that needed to operate an un-impovershed life--especially so specifically is just not acceptable to me. Making nations create a social net to catch those who need it caught is one thing. This is another thing entirely.

And, I firmly believe that, if my nation has a dynamic problem, it is my nation which is best suited to deal with this problem. Much better suited than a one-time, far-removed UN resolution ever will be.

If I were to accept the premise of higher education as a God-given right, the resolution still need a lot of clean up.

- REQUIRED to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs,
- Those students will have to come from middle-class or lower class families

What is a "middle-class" or "lower-class" family? Such a description will vary between nations, and needs some sort of real standard by which to adjudicate who receives loan. Also, this stipulation should be a part of the previous line, not a new line.

- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level such as colleges and universities.

The definition of "higher education" needs clarification. "such as colleges and universities" can be interpreted in two different ways: it could apply to the term "secondary education" or the term "higher education". If "higher education" is anything beyond secondary school--which is a college or university--the resolution doesn't make much sense.

And why do you define "higher education" and never use the term (except for the last clause, and even then, why such a distance between subject and modifier)?

In general, there needs to be white-space (extra lines) here or it'll look ugly (just my personal experience). At least, between "families" and "DEFINES", "universities" and "REQUIRED", and "missed interests" and "CALLS ON".

Arg. Since my nation already funds higher education (completely), then this resolution would just be taxing us to pay for the other UN nations (who have crappy economies or just don't want to) to fund their students in higher education. No thanks.

Very little point in that, as it still costs. Because you need to study, which means you have to pay tuition fees. Very expensive loans. Besides, there's no need to go into such detail in a UN resolution.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you were being sarcastic just now... "there's no need to go into such detail in a UN resolution?" I can't think of a situation where detail is required more than in an internationally effective resolution. I can't believe you even said that. And my point was that such people could take the loans for school, by a bunch of drugs, go get high with their buddies, and then not go to school.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you were being sarcastic just now... "there's no need to go into such detail in a UN resolution?" I can't think of a situation where detail is required more than in an internationally effective resolution. I can't believe you even said that. One-size-fits-all is not a good philosophy when making international law. Setting specific loan percentages, interest rates, and market timing, without being able to take into consideration mitigating factors of economic and social requirements, all adds up to a Bad Idea.

There are two major schools of thought here in the UN: "Too Vague", and "Too Specific". Most proposal writers end up with some compromise between the two that's moderately dissatisfactory to everyone. That's the nature of lawmaking."If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either being made."

One-size-fits-all is not a good philosophy when making international law. Setting specific loan percentages, interest rates, and market timing, without being able to take into consideration mitigating factors of economic and social requirements, all adds up to a Bad Idea.

You're misinterpreting the subject of my point - I do not think one size will fit all nations in any respect, which is a large reason that I do not support many of the resolutions that come through here. I do, however, think that, if a resolution is going to expressly state something (like "all UN nations are... REQUIRED to give ALL students a loan when asked") that an individual nation will not be able to override with its own laws due to the nature of UN resolutions, said resolution must account for certain situations or disastrous scenarios where the law should not be logically applied.

Also, no one has addressed the illegality of the varying percentage by nation part.

Why set specific percentages of how much should be payed? Shouldnt the amount the nation covers for the student be subject to the students need and ability?

Also, the nation shouldnt pay for every student. If a student doesnt need the help or is academically inferior they shouldnt get help. Rogue Nation was touching on this when he said that crack whores and such shouldnt get funding.

REQUIRED to finance at least 35% of higher education costs for all students
Any reason for this seemingly arbitrary figure?

1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families to 0,50% for students in richer families,
1) You don't define 'poorer' or 'richer'.
2) 0.1% and 0.5% seem arbitrarily chosen
3) Surely a linearly graduated system would be fairer (rather than families passing some cut-off point and finding that rate increase from 0.1% to 0.5%)?
4) What happens if inflation is above 0.5% (which is usually is in most countries)?

[edit: apologies for not realising that Jolt supports signatures in a different way from the old NS forums...]

It's about giving students a cheap loan - once they've finished the education they'll pay back their loan AND they contribute to the government by giving taxes!

Okay: I've mad an update version and I'd like you all to take another look at it. Like the last time: I added arguments from people here in it. Thank you all for your input and arguments! :)

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the costs,

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the “Higher Education Act” whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs,

- Those students will have to come from middle-class or lower class families (under US$ 35.000 income/year)

- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level (example of secondary level: American High School) such as colleges and universities.

- REQUIRED to give ALL students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families (under US$ 35,000/year) to 0,50% for students in richer families (US$ 35,001/year and above),
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does afterwards not have to pay for the “missed-interests.”
3. POINTS OUT that students who achieve academic successes will attain a good job whereby they will contribute to the government by paying taxes. Thus there is little need to take into account the losses the government makes on the loans (rising inflation).

- REMINDS nations that this resolution DOES NOT apply to students who spend their money in an inappropriate way or do not achieve academic successes.

- ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

- ALLOWS nations to, if they wish, go further then the above resolution.

Slight change:

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the costs,

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the “Higher Education Act” whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs,

- Those students will have to come from middle-class or lower class families (under US$ 35.000 income/year)

- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level (example of secondary level: American High School) such as colleges and universities.

- REQUIRED to give ALL students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families (under US$ 35,000/year) to 0,50% for students in richer families (US$ 35,001/year and above),
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does afterwards not have to pay for the “missed-interests.”
3. POINTS OUT that students who achieve academic successes will attain a good job whereby they will contribute to the government by paying taxes. Thus there is little need to take into account the losses the government makes on the loans (rising inflation).

- REMINDS nations that this resolution DOES NOT apply to
1. students who spend their money in an inappropriate way or do not achieve academic successes or
2. does not apply to students who do not gain appropriate academic successes.

- ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

- ALLOWS nations to, if they wish, go further then the above resolution.

I feel there is no need for the UN to legislate in this area

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the costs,

And aware that higher education can have a positive influence on the economy

- REQUIRED to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs,

Though I agree with the sentiment, this must either be defined a bit more, or simply left out.

- Those students will have to come from middle-class or lower class families (under US$ 35.000 income/year)

That's a real life reference, we don't have US$ here. Besides, on 40.000 nations, you can't set one value on that. I would either use something relative to the modal income, or say that governments are allowed to refuse financing to students of families with a high enough income.


- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level (example of secondary level: American High School) such as colleges and universities.

There Is No American High School. I think it's possible to define secondary level as the school level that is covered by Resolution #28.

- REQUIRED to give ALL students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families (under US$ 35,000/year) to 0,50% for students in richer families (US$ 35,001/year and above),

Again, no US$. Let's say that the maximum interest rate may be no higher than inflation, and a government is allowed to vary it based on the income of the student's family.

- ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

Erm?

I'd strongly advise to remove the "real-life" references, and use a more general approach to suite all UN nations. Leave a bit of wiggle-room so each nation can use this resolution to the maximum positive effect.

It is true, I feel, that children should be gauranteed a free education up until adulthood (or 18, as perscribed by law already), and I do think that that education must cover certain things (the tools adults will need to properly function in a nation's society). But this idea of making all UN nations adopt systems for allowing adults to further their educations--beyond that needed to operate an un-impovershed life--especially so specifically is just not acceptable to me.

I disagree (but you might have noticed that already ;)). I think a government should go further than making sure people have an un-impoverished life. I also think we should look to the future, and create a society where people not only get the bare minimum to survice, but also get opportunities to go further than that. Because otherwise, you will still have that near-impoverished group, and their children are likely to have the same problems. By giving them the chance to break out of the system, you might end up with having less people you have to help. Besides, for something as basic as education, I consider it unfair if only the richest can afford it, while there might be so many academical talents in the poorer families who'll never get the opportunity to go to university.

New version:

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the costs,
- Higher education can have a positive influence on the economy,

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the “Higher Education Act” whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs,
- Points out that study-costs in poorer countries are lower than in richer countires,

- Those students will have to come from families who have a modal income, or below modal income,

- DEFINES higher education as al levels of education which students can follow once they are above the age of 18,

- REQUIRED to give ALL students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There maximum interest rate will be the inflation-percentage of the year the loan was granted,
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does afterwards not have to pay for the “missed-interests.”
3. POINTS OUT that students who achieve academic successes will attain a good job whereby they will contribute to the government by paying taxes. Thus there is little need to take into account the losses the government makes on the loans (rising inflation),
4. The government will set up a special Student-Loan-Bureau where all loan-requests will be handled.
5. Student loans may not take-up more than 2,5% of the total government budget. If this is the case: all student loans will be evenly spread-out between the students until the 2,5% mark is reached.

- REMINDS nations that this resolution DOES NOT apply to
1. students who spend their money in an inappropriate way or do not achieve academic successes or
2. does not apply to students who do not gain appropriate academic successes.
3. does not apply to students whose parents earn more than 150% of the minimum wage which applies for that country.

- ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

- ALLOWS nations to, if they wish, go further then the above resolution.

- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level such as colleges and universities.

- DEFINES higher education as al levels of education which students can follow once they are above the age of 18,

The only problem I see is what makes higher education better? Just because it is past secondary level does not make it better education. I would fully support a resolution that called for financing better education as opposed to your definition of higher education.

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,That could be true in many nations - Hirota however has a hybrid conscription/higher education system which is voluntary. Most poorer Hirotans opt to join the armed forces for 5-10 years, in return for free higher education.NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,I suppose the reason behind that is a rich nation should mean rich populace, but that might not always be the case.AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,That is difficult to generalize - in same nations where higher education is considered desirable or essential for future employment, that is certainly the case. But is this the case in other nations? Hirotan employers tend to promote/employ by merit. If a prospective employee has relevant higher education, that's great, but sometimes working experience is considered more desirable.ALSO aware that:- Students need to focus more on their study,Agreed- It is also important that students and parents still pay a part of the higher education,I think that depends on their ability to pay rather than an obligation.RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and Which is true up to higher education, and even higher education can be free in Hirota if they also join the armed services....WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28 I wonder if we have to repeal #28 first? Probably not, but it's worth considering.Calls for the implementation of the “Higher Education Act” whereby all UN nations are:- REQUIRED to finance at least 35% of higher education costs for all students,I think this if such a measure is to be implemented, it must be a sliding scale dependent on their ability to pay, based upon parents income, assets and other considerations of this type. After all, a wealthy family can easily afford higher education costs, whilst a poor, destitute family cannot.- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level such as colleges and universities.I think this or any similar definitions should be in the initial part of the proposal rather than halfway through- REQUIRED to give students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families to 0,50% for students in richer families,
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does not have to pay the interest for those “study-years” afterwards,Ahh, so that's were you have implemented a sliding scale. Not sure I agree that the really poor have to pay anything, and I think the wealthier should pay more.-CALLS ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.Agreed.

I hope you have found my suggestions and observations useful, and I look forward to seeing your future drafts. In it's present form, I would vote against this proposal, but only in the hopes of ensuring a better one took it's place.

Just out of curiosity....if they fail the course what happens to them and their ability to pay back this loan that we would be forced to give?

No we will not give our support to this. We feel that our current method of handling education is fine.

Henry Peabody
Minister to the UN