We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Private University Re-Regulation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Populist Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2098
Description[?]:
| Whereas since the passage of a deregulation act any place can call itself a private university, regardless of credentials, and Whereas this legislation passed only because an opposed party was unable to vote on it, We hereby propose that private higher education institutions shall be allowed to exist, but if and only if they meet minimum standards to prevent wasted money on universities that are not of acceptable quality. One such standard shall require all private universities to be non-profit, whereas others shall be determined by well-credentialed scholars appointed by the Minister of Education. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The regulation of higher education.
Old value:: The government allows public and private higher education institutions to coexist with self-regulation for those that are private.
Current: The government allows public and private higher education institutions to coexist with self-regulation for those that are private.
Proposed: The government allows private higher education but regulates it to meet nationally set standards.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:16:40, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | The FFP would urge the PLP to adopt a more civil tone in the language of its proposals. We are also disturbed by the distrust which this proposal shows for the ability of our own citizens to make judgments regarding their own upper-level education. Our citizens are not stupid. They have the ability to distinguish between reputable institutions and those which are less deserving. |
| Date | 00:33:05, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | If the FFP is speaking of the statement of the NDP's representatives' being out to lunch, those were the words of the NDP themselves in describing how they did not end up opposing the deregulation, instead ending up abstaining. Nevertheless, we will change the language. As to the merits of the bill, the PLP believes in consumer protection. It is the reason that many occupations must be licensed. We hope the FFP would not allow just anyone to call himself a doctor and practice medicine. We believe that education is in the same area of importance. We do not believe all citizens can make reasoned decisions about the credentials of universities. We believe that scholars, hired by the government, can much better make such decisions. We fully support the right to a private university education if one is willing to pay for it (OOC: I'm assuming the government pays all *public* college tuition; it would be foolish to have private colleges at all if the government paid their tuition as well), but we also believe that it is important to ensure a reasonable level of quality is provided by any entity that calls itself a college or university. |
| Date | 07:00:37, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | We were referring to the repeated use of the word "foolish," but your concern is noted and appreciated. You are correct in saying that the government has a role in ensuring that competent individuals are allowed to practice law, medicine, and other such skilled professions. However, we fail to see why the government should be given complete control over education itself. Private accreditation firms, run by educators themselves without the unnecessary encumberance of the government, would do a much better, much more independent job of ensuring that member private universities are of a high quality. If a citizen fails to research a school and its accreditation firm sufficiently, it is that citizen's fault. We continue to object to the idea of so thoroughly centralizing the management of our nation's private universities. We are unsettled by the potential for the misuse of the power that this bill would give to the government. The FFP has no illusions regarding the limited wisdom of the members of this legislature--ourselves included. We should leave the governance of our institutions of higher learning to those who understand it best: the educators. The government has no reason to get involved in this matter, since private accreditation firms could do the same job. |
| Date | 11:55:02, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | We supported the previous legislation, so we will oppose this one. However, we do appreciate the circumstances under which the last bill came to passage, so while we will stand firm on our position, we appreciate the efforts to ensure that democracy is served, even if the NDP's party whip foolishly locks themselves in the closet. |
| Date | 13:07:52, August 17, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | I couldn't log in for two days and wanted to keep you all entertained. Anyway the reason we favour full public as opposed to full regulation with private, is that private universities are generally for-profit. And since the government is the one paying the tuition, they're essentially charging the government money to do something the government can do itself just as well and profiting off the people's tax money. |
| Date | 19:45:44, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | We too condemn the PLP's tone. As we supported the previous reform, we not support the reintroduction of stifling regulations. Despite the fact we were the reason they were there in the first place. |
| Date | 23:03:14, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | The word "foolish" has been removed from the proposal. |
| Date | 23:06:52, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | On the objections stated by the NDP, it should be made clear that the vast majority of private colleges are non-profit, and we can regulate if this passes to ensure that they *must* be non-profit. |
| Date | 20:12:46, August 18, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | Now that the act that would have outlawed private universities has been defeated, we will bring this up for a vote in the hope that all those who opposed the deregulation will support its repeal, and that the NDP's whip will not this time get locked in the bathroom. |
| Date | 09:29:41, August 19, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | Better than nothing. |
| Date | 21:36:30, August 19, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Private University Re-Regulation Act |
| Message | We must comment on the strange flip flopping by some others, who voted against the original legislation but do not support this legislation to repeal it, particularly when it was a quirk that led the legislation this repeals to pass. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 79 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 275 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 75 |
| Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
| Random quote: "I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all, you live in the heart of the beast." - Che Guevara |