This may be one of the worst posts I have read yet. Throughout your globe campus column you fail to ever provide more than a surface deep analysis of the issues at hand. More specifically, you fail to understand that government policy (especially those policies concerning economics, i.e. student loans) involves an intersection of issues of politics, economics, class, gender and race. What your column seems to do is only give a surface deep analysis of current issues that affect students, with little to no critical analysis. This wouldn't be upsetting if you were just a journalist at the G&M;, but your profile indicates that you are a student of political science, which should mean that you are able to discern issues using a critical approach, and that you would understand the inner workings of the government.

This lack of critical insight may be due to the fact that you are still attempting to complete your undergraduate degree, it may point to the fact that your education is suffering through your online studies, or unfortunately, it may indicate that you do not have ability to write critically. Sadly, reading over your blog, it would seem that the latter is the case.

Maybe you should dedicate more time to your studies, rather than going to Ottawa to cover events. This would ensure that your future blog posts don't read like a high schooler venting their opinion.

This last poster is just a nasty attacker. Why is he wasting time lobbing ad hominem attacks at Mr. Coleman? If Joey's arguments are so superficial, why not attack them instead of attack his person. It looks like Woah is the superficial one here.

@Gigi:

What exactly would you consider to be ad hominem about my post? The fact that I labeled this post the worst of the bunch? Or, that I questioned his qualifications? Not once did personally attack Mr. Coleman.

The point of my post was to bring to light the fact that Mr. Coleman fails to ever present a clear argument throughout his entire column. Joey accuses Harper of speaking in generalities, but Joey's entire column is spoken in generalities. Hence, my comment about him needing to approach politics and policy as areas with immense intersection of varying interests and objectives.

Again, Gigi, I will reiterate that Mr. Coleman, as a blogger for the G&M;, needs to do more than provide surface deep opinions. If I wanted to read an uniformed opinion I would simply go on blogspot. As a reader of G&M; I expect their bloggers and columnists to at least provide some critical insight into issues; if they don't then what is the point of this entire column?

Again, a post dedicated to the topic of student loans should touch on some of the underlying issues at play. Maybe speak to the interests involved (i.e. who benefits from the current system). Or, maybe, Mr. Coleman could speak to assumed role of the state in the context of instrumentalism vs. structuralism?

However, as I said in my first post, I feel as though Joey may not have matured as a student to the point where he is able to discuss issues with this type of depth. Therefore, when I suggested that Joey should concentrate on his studies, I was saying it with a great deal of sincerity. That way, Joey would be able to write a meaningful column.

Maybe Gigi, instead of just racing blindly to the defense of Joey, you should take a moment and read through what he has written and try and add something meaningful to his development as a writer.

Joey,

Please explain how the '08 budget measures "didn't provide any substantive relief to student loan payees." (While you're at it, please explain what a "student loan payee is" - meanwhile I'll assume you mean borrower.)

The Canada Student Grant Program represents a significant investment for low- and middle-income students (actually augmenting the amount provided by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which has completed its mandate and run out of money). Further, the Repayment Assistance Plan specifically offers interest relief and debt reduction measures to borrowers who can't afford their payments. While this may not be what you - or Julian Benedict - wanted, it amounts to meaningful assistance to those in repayment who are in distress. The alternative, a blanket interest rate cut you would consider to be "substantive," amounts to a subsidy for borrowers not having trouble paying off their loans.

Maybe Harper didn't express this well on Youtube; as a journalist with the education beat, shouldn't you have looked at these policy changes in depth in the two-plus years since they were announced?

This is one of the worst posts you've ever read on the internet, could you believe provide more than a surface depth analysis of why?

In terms of the accusation that I never provide "more than a surface deep analysis of the issues at hand," you should read the recent columns which look into what 20,000 addition students in Ontario's post-secondary institutions this September will mean.

There is also the recent discussion regarding university credit ratings - a topic not being explored elsewhere.

Here are a few of the other issues discussed since September:

The effects of low inflation on student service fees at universities.

An analysis of application trends at Ontario universities.

The use of furlough days by universities to balance their budgets.

Should universities teach "life skills" (The Lincoln University mandatory fitness program)

A discussion of why municipal politicians often use anti-student rhetoric in election years.

The consequences of increase debt caps to respond to recession demand without changing the formula to decrease the cap once the recession ends.

Recruitment marketing in relation to the University of Regina's URGuarantee

The lack of flexibility in student loan policies which is resulting in hardship for students unable to find summer employment.

It is easy to attack someone anonymously. It takes intellectual and personal courage to enter into a discussion while revealing your identity.

Hopefully you'll take time to read the past columns and contribute to future discussions in this space.

@beeg

The new grant program provides less money to the most needy students than the Millennium Scholarship program. The CMSF provided $3000 to the neediest students, the new grant only provides $2000. The money that previously went to the neediest students is used to spread $800 grants to middle-class students.

It is politically beneficial to have the same amount of money spread among more students - children of, and something themselves, voters - than having the same amount of money targetted in larger amounts to a smaller number of students with greater financial need.

The changes to the administration of debt relief are positive and overdue. The changes do not prevent more graduates from needing debt relief. The six month period to find a job - let alone one that pays enough to cover student payments - was too short before the recession.

The government mandated student loan interest rate should not be higher than the interest rate which the government pays to borrow money itself. The government should not be in the business of profiting from offering student loans.

We may disagree on these points. Thank you for your comment.

Joey,

Don't know if you realize this, but by writing, "It is easy to attack someone anonymously. It takes intellectual and personal courage to enter into a discussion while revealing your identity," you have just sunk to the level of woah.

As Gigi said earlier, ad hominem attacks are a waste of time, and they only reflect poorly on the attacker. As a globe columnist you need to stay away from being baited into these types of situations. Ad hominem attacks reek of poor professionalism. As you become more experienced as a writer you will be able to avoid responding to these types.

As it stands now, you have just as much egg on your face as this 'woah' character. Next time, show restraint and maturity and leave the ad hominem attacks to internet trolls.

So either the Repayment Assistance Plan was "positive and overdue" or it doesn't "provide any substantive relief" - which is it?

I think normative statements - "the student loan interest rate should not be higher than the interest rate which the government pays to borrow money itself" - aren't all that helpful here. Clearly, CSLP revenue in part comes from interest paid by individuals in repayment. If interest revenue declines, that shortfall has to be made up by general revenue, i.e., taxes. It just so happens that there's basically no money available for programs like CSLP, what with the massive deficit and all.

One could actually infer a second normative statement from your blog post: the taxpayer should be on the hook for a larger share of CSLP operating funds (or, perhaps, a third: the CSLP should have less operating income, which I presume you wouldn't posit, given your appeal for a more generous repayment scheme). Here's where it's important to be an intrepid Globe & Mail reporte: If CSLP is turning a profit, which you suggest it is, what happens to those funds? If they are rolled over to future years, that's presumably a good thing given the current economy; we can imagine a larger share of future graduates having trouble paying off their loans (or needing loans in the first place). If they are handed back to general revenue, the second normative statement still fits, i.e., lowering interest revenue would cause a revenue shortfall somwhere else in the federal government. More importantly, it looks as if the program runs a deficit of about half a billion dollars a year: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/learning/canada_student_loan/Publications/annual_report/2006-2007/part_4.shtml#part4_8_1. Expenses appear to exceed revenues by a factor of about two-to-one. So forget CSLP being "in the business of profiting from offering student loans."

So let's move away from the normative declarations and the evidence to try and figure something out: what interest rate should the CSLP charge students in repayment? Ideally, the rate would allow for maximum revenue without imposing an unbearable burden on students. So, intrepid Globe reporter, how many students have difficulty repaying their loans? How many would have difficulty if the interest rate were somewhat lower? In other words, are they behind on their payments by a little - because rates are too high - or a lot - because they can't find work and have no money? What would a 1.5% rate cut do to the average borrower's monthly payment?

Let's assume that most students have no serious trouble paying off their loans, even though they may not particularly like the amount of interest. After all, default rates, while not optimal, aren't terribly high and most students who default (i.e., miss a few consecutive payments) wind up repaying their loans entirely. What do we do for those studenst who do have trouble making payments? Well, a blanket interest rate cut would benefit all borrowers regardless of need (like those middle-class kids getting $800 CSGs). Moreover, it would overwhlemingly benefit the individuals who made it beyond the crucial first couple of years, when something like 90% of defaults occur. A reasonable interest rate, like prime plus 1-2.5%, on the other hand, could generate revenue to fund substantive repayment assistance (deferred payments, interest relief and even debt reduction) and grants.

Now, Joey, you have been a pretty open-minded education blogger who usually considers the value of examining whether targeted student aid is more beneficial than blanket assistance. In fact your assessment of the CSGP, which I basically agree with, suggests that you think subsidies to middle-class students often come at the expense of more badly needed assistance for those with more urgent financial concerns. Wouldn't the same critical lens that led you to that conclusion apply here? To put it another way: assuming revenue is constant, what is the ideal policy course for the CSLP?