MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
Protesting students clash with police in Santiago: 49 police injured and 75 arrests
Police in Santiago used water cannons and tear gas as thousands of students took to the streets, raging against the government's policy on education. Vandals set buses ablaze and attacked government property amid violence that left 49 Carabineros injured and 75 people arrested. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIts good to know that this is not just mindless violence ...
Aug 09th, 2012 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0... and that these future leaders of their country are taking the opportunity to show that arson, riot and destruction is the way to create a better life through education.
These kids are taking advantage of a democracy gone mad. Even though more than 150 male and female cops have been injured since the demos began and some seriously, countless buildings and other property vandalized, not a single kid has been convicted. It is a total failure of the judicial system, the cops arrest these delinquents and the justices release them. It is scandalous, but the government can do very little. They will never get free university education, someone has to pay and to ask a pensioner or a low income earner to do it through their VAT or income tax is unfair. The poor should not have to pay, yes....But the ones that can afford it SHOULD have to pay! Universal free university for a poor country like Chile is CRAZY, we just can't afford it.
Aug 09th, 2012 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 I agree, I love the idea of free university education but it is financially impossible to provide. There should be bursaries for financially disadvantaged but capable and promising students; it should not be only for the wealthy.
Aug 09th, 2012 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interestingly, the number of applicants to English universities has fallen since the student fees have increased (they are still nowhere near US levels). I do not see this as particularly negative for two reasons. University education is still free for students genuinely unable to pay or receive help from parents, and students loans are available. The loans do not have to be repaid until the borrower's income reaches a certain level.
Whilst ideally it would be great for all students to enjoy a free university level education, the reality is that a significant number regard it as a three/four year party or drop out after the first year because it was never right for them. By putting a price on further education for those that can afford it, you put a genuine value on it.
#2 “They will never get free university education, someone has to pay and to ask a pensioner or a low income earner to do it through their VAT or income tax is unfair”
Aug 09th, 2012 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't ask that, but as you say...
“But the ones that can afford it SHOULD have to pay!”
Yes, through general taxation. Hence free at the point of use, like the NHS and like our universities used to be
#3 When you say its “impossible” what you mean is that you personally are not willing to prioritise it. The money IS there, if we didn't prioritise things like paying bonuses in our state run banks to the people who made them fail when they owned them, or killing and being killed for no reason in Afghnaistan. Also when you say its no problem that university attendance has gone down due to fees, as theres always been a lot of dropouts and bad students, well how are we to know they're the ones who've been screened out. Its just a fact that its a lot easier to be a dumb or a lazy student if you're from a rich background, and all the evidence has shown that despite what you and the governmnet are saying its the poor who are being put off education, not those to whom 9 grand doesn't sound like a lot of money!
Free education at any level provides exactly what it costs the student... NOTHING.
Aug 09th, 2012 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you don't pay for it it has no value, real or intrinsic. Argentine free education is getting steadily worse, the kids in my province should get about 200 days of class in the school year, last year thay got less than 150 due to strikes etc.
@3 B-K Armchair socialists think they can demand everything as a right. The truth is that there is a finite amount of money and, yes, priorities have to be considered. When New Labour attempted to reach 50% of students attending university, the drop-out rate was at unprecedented levels. It was a complete waste of money and everyone's time. When tuition fees were introduced (something I opposed at the time) this started to stop the time wasters.
Aug 09th, 2012 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You undermine your own argument by trying to make it an attack on the 'poor'. As I clearly pointed out to you, the poor students do not have to pay anything for a university education as it is fully subsidised by those 'rich, dumb kids'. And students in Scotland don't pay anyway, rich or poor.
Repayment of loans is on a scale:
Your gross income each year Monthly
repayment
Up to £15,795 0
£16,000 £2
£17,000 £9
£18,000 £17
£19,000 £24
£20,000 £32
£25,000 £69
£30,000 £107
£35,000 £144
B-K you live in a fantasy world. Try living in reality.
#5 Pure ideology, in the real world people value free stuff all the time. Like air!
Aug 09th, 2012 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#6 So what are your priorities? War in Afghanistan? Bankers bonuses?
I think i'am going to agree with the “no” camp on this one. Free higher education is pointless as far as im concerned, unless students value what they are studying & are willing to pay for it. It's just a three year drinking holiday. (alot of my friends went & now don't have a use for what they studied).
Aug 09th, 2012 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I still think BK a student, because only lefty middle class students go on so much about socialist values. bloody jumper wearing hippie :p
B_K #7
Aug 09th, 2012 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clean air is a 'birthright', it must be a free good.
Well, yes,
and no,
and yes,
and no ...
A Clean Air Act is A Good Thing,
clean air reduces the demands on the health services.
Clean air costs money - added costs to production industries, passed on to the consumer; added taxes to individuals and companies, transformed into pollution control.
Clean air is valued - ask old people who experienced smogs and factory conditions of the early 50s. Ask non-smokers who enjoy a drink in smoke-free English pub.
But, if you want industry, the cost is HIGH. Ask the Chinese, to whom we exported our dirty air along with our industry, if they want clean air....
Yes,
and no,
and yes,
and no
..
@7 What is important is the student's priorities. If they are not prepared to invest in their own future, why should anyone else?
Aug 09th, 2012 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is plenty of help for financially disadvantaged students and/or from Scotland).
2 CP
Aug 09th, 2012 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I total agree.
Education is a privilege not a right.
Elaine
People like BK think that there is an infinite cake that you can always just demand another slice of and claim it as a right.
Furthermore they don’t understand that the cake there is has been baked at some point by enterprising individuals who take risks. In his world the reward for such individuals should be punishment with unfair taxation for heartlessly creating wealth and jobs.
BK
“Hence free at the point of use, like the NHS and like our universities used to be”...yes and now that they can charge and raise funding, they have stormed the international rankings. The UK is now the only country other than the US with top-10 ranked universities. These world-class establishments, besides providing education and Nobel prizes, suck in brains from around the world and spin off high-tech industries that create more jobs and tax revenue.
@11 B-K also fails to mention that all children in the UK are entitled to free education until the age of 18. And we are talking about an excellent free education system with very few exceptions. At 18 they are adults and can work, or continue to study for the pure enjoyment and enrichment of their lives, or motivated to improve their employment opportunities, or to party and avoid work. But they are adults making a choice.
Aug 09th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agree with BK, free education paid with taxation, do like the Scandies, works like a charm...
Aug 10th, 2012 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe, Guzz & B_K, we should stop calling it 'free education'.
Aug 10th, 2012 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Education paid for by taxes means that somebody else pays for your education.
Over a lifetime it usually balances out as you pay, yourself, a lifetime of taxes (unless you take the benefits but legally or illegally 'avoid' the taxation).
For honest people, it means that you have paid for your education as a slightly deferred 'lifetime' payment.
As Elaine says, the English and Welsh (etc) have circumscribed the repayment of higher education costs and taken much of it out of the general national taxation .... to make the beneficiary bear the costs more personally.
Is this tax-based education system the 'free' education that you are talking about ....
or are you advocating tax evasion and avoidance?
@14 Well put.
Aug 10th, 2012 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 4 British_Kirchnerist
Aug 10th, 2012 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the life of me I cannot understand why the supporters (foreign and domestic) of free universal education in Chile cannot admit that there is just not enough money to pay for it without sending the budget into deficit and the economy spiraling out of control. Look the Gov. budget is ONLY US$60 billion the education budget has gone up 7.2% to 11.65 billion or three times the defense budget, keep in mind that most Chileans go to private school. But when you compare this to a developed country with a similar population like the Netherlands it pales into insignificance. The dutch budget is 420 billion or 7 times larger than Chiles (same pop.) So NO, NO,NO,NO,NO,NO there is no money for this pipe dream ...YET.
In the distant future who knows. But for now the Piñera admin is acting prudently.
#14 I'm certainly not advocating tax avoidance by the rich,so the former!
Aug 10th, 2012 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0#16 So why's there always money for wars and bankers bonuses then?
Sorry pal, the Chilean government doesn't give out bankers bonuses or spend money on wars. You may be thinking of another country. We run a fiscal surplus and at the same time we spend our Pesos very wisely providing a credible social safety net that is sustainable and commensurate with future budget fiscal positions.
Aug 10th, 2012 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have such a simplistic view of the world, B-K. It is not a simple as wars vs.education. Have you considered enrolling in some further education for yourself? It is free in Scotland.
Aug 10th, 2012 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0@16 Totally agree that free university education in Chile is unaffordable by the tax-payers. I visited a foundation in Santiago that supports two hundred financially disadvantaged students through university. That costs around $50,000 dollars per student as they cover accommodation and living expenses in addition to tuition. The minimum course being five years.
Correct me if I am wrong but the Chilean government pays an amount per child towards their statutory education (rather like childcare vouchers for pre-schoolers in the UK) and parents chose the school but make up the difference in costs if they chose independent education. Is this correct?
19 Elaine,
Aug 10th, 2012 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is correct. There are 3 types of school: public, subsidised and private. The quality of education is generally worst in the public schools and best in the private, but there are notable exceptions.
The subsidised schools receive about US$100 / month per child (depending on age of child and location of school). The subsidy is equivalent to what the state spends per child in the state schools. The subsidised school is then free to sets its fee (within limits). Most subsidised schools are about a 3rd the cost of private.
The new public schools have decent infrastructure, as good as many private schools in fact. By choosing private or subsidised, what you are partly paying for, regrettably, is social segregation. I have 4 school aged children so I agonise about such issues.
18 Chilean P,
Absolutely correct.
@ 20 It may contribute to social segregation but it is not the only factor, right?
Aug 10th, 2012 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Elaine,
Aug 10th, 2012 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not the only factor, no, but certainly the one that most perpetuates social exclusion. Like everywhere, education is one of the best routes out of poverty. Public school children here have a minimal chance of getting to uni. On the bright side, the mining boom has pushed up (non-professional) salaries in mining and construction to the extent that many people who don’t have university education can give their children that chance.
@22 This is such a huge topic to discuss but a few points.
Aug 10th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Approximately 7% of students in the UK go to fee-paying schools and this does contribute to social segregation. However, I would qualify that by saying that many more would pay if the state system was lacking. By and large the state system of education is good to excellent.
There is also evidence of the state system creating social divides. In areas where a state school gains an excellent reputation, housing becomes disproportionately expensive in the catchment area, thus excluding the financially disadvantaged. So having just state schools would not solve the problem of social divides.
There is also no stigma to attending state schools in the UK. It is expected and usual, just as it is usual for everyone to use our National Health Service. Some choose to opt out but the majority, rich, middle-class or poor use the services. The majority pay taxes, contributing to the system, so they use the services.
I would not want a society that only had state schools and no choice. The reason is that the independent sector most definitely has an effect of improving the the overall standard of education across all sectors. (Geoff is very knowledgeable on this subject and would probable articulate is better).
What is the age of compulsory schooling in state schools in Chile?
#18 “Sorry pal, the Chilean government doesn't give out bankers bonuses or spend money on wars. You may be thinking of another country”
Aug 11th, 2012 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, my own! I'm no fan of Pinera but I'll concede that Cameron is worse...
#20&22 I'm with you on private education Condorito, it leads to social segregation and can even suck the best resources and teachers out of the public sector. And I imagine it would be agonising for any parent who can afford it while being socially conscious, the choice between principle and whats best for your own children. Personally I'd abolish it, though in Britain a first step would be to take away their ridiculous charitable status!
Fortunately the UK is a free society where choice is available; independent schools will never be abolished.
Aug 12th, 2012 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0You do know that there is a three tier system of education in Argentina? State level - very poor, lacking in facilities and equipment with teachers that can qualify on a one year course. Teacher's salaries are appallingly low is the state sector. (They hardly turn up for work anyway). Then there are church schools and independent -fee-paying schools.
Didn't CFKC pay for her daughter to have an expensive education in New York?
#25 As I said I'm not going to moralise against those with the resources to do so not making the ideologial statement of giving their child a worse education, it was the same with Diane Abbot in Britain. I would however, if I had any such influence, advise Cristina to nationalise the fee paying schools in Argentina to level up the state sector
Aug 12th, 2012 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In a free society we have choices to make. Where we chose to prioritise and spend our hard earned money is not a matter for the state. Do you think CFKC should ban designer clothing and expensive cars?
Aug 12th, 2012 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't comment on CFKC's decision to pay for her children to be educated.
Basic needs should be free for everybody, hence the water supply and electricity should be owned by the state. Such as schools and hospitals, people should not be allowed to speculate with other peoples needs. Nationalise all banks as well. As to designer clothes, feel free to work your wonders in the private sector. As long as you contribute with taxes to get the freebies, the state should not interfere with your art...
Aug 13th, 2012 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Education is provided by the state for all pupils in the UK. 93% of students use the state education because it is good. Whether you use it or opt out the tax-payer still contributes to the provision of state education.
Aug 13th, 2012 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0People still have the right to opt out of the state system if they wish; though they have to choose an alternative. It is freedom of choice in a democracy.
#28 Exactly
Aug 13th, 2012 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!