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: Higher Education Accessibility and Improvement Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Populist Social Democrats
Status[?]: passed
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 2334
Description[?]:
| Wheareas, We are strongly in favor of having the most educated populace that is feasible, and Whereas, We do not want the cost of tuition to prevent higher education for any qualified student who is a citizen of Likatonia, We hereby propose to expand the number of higher education instutitions supported in Likatonia, allow but regulate those that are private to make sure that they meet acceptable standards, and provide free public college tuition-- NOT including living expenses or even books-- for all college students of Likatonia. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Higher education institutions.
Old value:: The government maintains a system of universities nationwide.
Current: The government maintains a system of universities nationwide.
Proposed: The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide.
Article 2
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 private higher education but regulates it to meet nationally set standards.
Proposed: The government allows private higher education but regulates it to meet nationally set standards.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Higher education tuition policy.
Old value:: The government introduces means tested loans for higher education tuition, to be paid back by students after earnings reach a certain amount.
Current: The government fully subsidizes tuition.
Proposed: The government fully subsidizes tuition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:02:48, December 23, 2006 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Higher Education Accessibility and Improvement Act |
| Message | We fully support Articles 1 and 2, but cannot support the Bill, as Article 3 is antithesis to our policy on valuing education. Free education makes it a viable alternavtive to working, and thus prolongs the 'student' life. By not subsidisng living costs, those who are in lower income brackets will not benefit, and the winners are the middle classes. We would consider supporting the Bill if the subsidy was widened to include minimal cost of living, but then restricted the support to, say, one subsidised course every 10 years...? |
| Date | 17:13:04, December 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Higher Education Accessibility and Improvement Act |
| Message | Do you mean one course of study every ten years? One cannot achieve a degree with one course, obviously; so we assume that is what you mean. We could support limiting the fully subsidized tuition to even a total of eight years during one lifetime, if the concern is over-subsidizing "professional students." Eight years means one could go back one additional time for a second course of study. The eight years would have to include books and minimal support; or it could be ten years in one lifetime with just tuition, going through in five years at a time while working part time to achieve such support. |
| Date | 17:25:29, December 23, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Higher Education Accessibility and Improvement Act |
| Message | Eight years is unfortunately a poor choice of definition. Certain degrees take substantially longer, some vocational courses much less that four years. Additionally some courses can be used as credit against further courses, so reduce the itme further. Perhaps it is better to divide higher education into 'voctional' and 'non-vocational' with vocational receiving 1 course-worth of funding, with future courses covered by loans repayable through taxes, and non-vocational being funded for x years in a lifetime? |
| Date | 17:58:56, December 23, 2006 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Higher Education Accessibility and Improvement Act |
| Message | Or it could be two courses of study per lifetime, perhaps, whether vocational or non-vocational? And in all other cases, the government covers 25% of the cost of the classes (less than American public colleges cover) with the rest falling on the student? The government could additionally allow low-interest loans to cover another 50% of the cost of the classes. If we agree on something, I'll introduce it as a resolution that modifies the bill. And then...does post-graduate education count as part of one course of study? I'm willing to say that post-graduate education would be paid 25% by the government, with 50% available in low-interest loans (as with others beyond the two course-of-study limit), as masters/doctoral students normally receive assistantships, and in medical or law school they will make enough money to pay back the loans if they graduate (although covering the other 25% might be hard; in those cases maybe the other 75% can all be allowed to come from low-interest loans). |
| Date | 21:06:50, December 23, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Higher Education Accessibility and Improvement Act |
| Message | We will support the Bill, but look forward to your placing for debate a resolution to amend it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 114 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 85 |
| Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity. |
| Random quote: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe |