I'm convinced that the Harper government is randomly puncturing the sidewalls of our tires as part of their economic recovery plan.
It's kind of like the home renovation tax credit they recently implemented. If you're fortunate enough to already own a home and you have a spare $10,000 kicking around, you can get a tax break this year for doing upgrades to your home that probably weren't needed in the first place. The general idea is to get people spending money hiring licensed tradespeople, which pumps cash back into the economy and keeps those tradespeople working, reducing EI payments and such. It's a well-intentioned idea that kind of misses the mark a bit, since the only people who really stand to benefit from the tax break are the ones who don't actually need a tax break in the first place. And in that sense, it's kind of like the Universal Child Care Benefit, which redirected money that had been earmarked for the creation of subsidized childcare spots for low income earners. Instead of providing those spots, the UCCB provides a monthly taxable sum of $100 per child per month to the lower income partner in every household with young children, regardless of income threshold. So now, a single parent working a minimum wage job and the stay-at-home spouse of a millionaire are treated equally and given the exact same amount of assistance per head, and everything is "fair". You know; kind of like Communism.
This is what comes of having a government that caters to the wealthy. It's like living in a country run by Robin Hood. Only in reverse. And without archery or fancy outfits. Try Conservative - The Un-Robin Hood!
Awesome.
Not that there's anything wrong with being wealthy. I myself aspire to it someday. And I am certainly a fan of plans that focus on encouraging selective spending to aid economic recovery, if the plans are implemented correctly. I am also a fan of all things pretty and clean, as well as of efficiency in general. But I think there are limits as to how far one should go. Not so for the Honourable (and I use that word loosely) Nancy Ruth, an Ontario Conservative whose "kill two birds with one stone" philosophy extends to cover off the death of any two inferior beings. One bird and one poor person, for example.
The following editorial is taken from page A14 of the March 29, 2009 Edmonton Journal. Enjoy.
"Another blow to the poor, beleaguered Canadian Senate was struck last week by the Honourable Nancy Ruth, an Ontario Conservative appointed by the Martin Liberals. Ruth was holding forth on her important priorities at the Senate finance committee on Tuesday, as the body deliberated the budget for Canada's Food Inspection Agency, which hasn't had great outings of late.
Ruth's laser-like gaze fixed on the vexing national problem of dirty Canada geese. They are a "health hazard," she said, since they foul the waters around her summer cottage. That produces the malady known as swimmer's itch, and Ruth was itching for a war against our iconic fowl. They're also soiling her home in downtown Toronto, she continued.
When enlightened by colleagues that waterfowl hunting rules are a provincial matter and only aboriginals are allowed to shoot Canada geese, Ruth pronounced that as "excellent. Why don't we kill them and feed them to the poor in Toronto?"
While we're at it, senator, why waste all that summer roadkill when food banks are looking for supplies? Surely, the hands-down winner of the 2009 Marie Antoinette on the Rideau Award is Senator Nancy Ruth, doing the people's work, one (dead) honker at a time."
They're dirty. A health hazard. They cause swimmer's itch. They foul up our waters and soil our homes. So let's kill them. And feed them to the poor. Who presumably will voluntarily ingest dirty, diseased waterfowl? Excellent!
As ridiculous as that is, it is clear that the Conservative government is looking for solutions to the crises in our nation. And we know that one such solution is to encourage spending to aid economic recovery. And for that, I applaud them. But random acts of vandalism? Seriously?
The thing is that so far this year, we have experienced six (yes, six) irreparably flat tires. Each time, the puncture has occurred in the sidewall, where it cannot be patched. Some of these tires were new. Only one was under warranty at the time. And so, we have had to pay for five new tires so far this year. Sidewall punctures are relatively rare, so it's a bit odd to see six of them in the space of three months. And this leads me to conclude that the Harper government, wanting to encourage spending in the tire and rubber market, is puncturing our sidewalls in order to force us to buy new tires. Really, it's the only logical explanation.
Dear Harper government: You've gotten us six times. Please move on to someone else's vehicles now. We should not single-handedly be responsible for the revitalization of the entire rubber industry. Our contribution has been made.
To everyone else: Protect your sidewalls. For Big Brother is here, and he wants your tires. There is no telling where he may strike next. Be warned.
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, September 12, 2008
Teach your children well, lest all their wealth slowly go bye-bye
H and I are capitalists. We freely admit it. We could try to deny it, but being that we are an accountant and an insurance underwriter, we fear you would see through our feeble attempts. We are also spendaholics. And we strive to have an income that will support the lifestyle to which we aspire. Obviously, that last sentence tells you we have a long way to go.
At 3-1/2 months of age, N is far too little to know anything about money. And the 3-year old J does not yet have an appreciation of what money is about. He knows that he likes money. He enjoys holding the shiny coins and putting them in his piggy bank. But he doesn't quite realize that you can spend those coins to get stuff. While he understands the concept of paying for things, he thinks it involves simply swiping a piece of plastic through a slot and then leaving the store with whatever you want. I don't think he understands concepts like currency and conversion. And I certainly don't think he realizes that swiping the little piece of plastic is just the first in a series of transactions that result in Mommy and Daddy crying at the end of the month when the bills come in.
J understands the value of other things much more readily. Toys, for example. Time, for another.
When we first tried to potty train J, we had problems overcoming his very pronounced stubborn streak. In desperation, we resorted to bribery. But the bribes had to be of the toys and time varieties. Fine. Go with what works, I say.
Toys: We had a big bowl with individually wrapped "presents" - balls, cars, markers, stencils, etc. - and every time J went potty and was dry, he got to pick one. There was also a big wrapped present, sitting up high and clearly visible, which he got to open once the bowl was empty. (It was a Hot Wheels Shark Park, if you were wondering.)
Time: We put a calendar up in J's room with four weeks on it. And every day accident-free got a day crossed off on the calendar. At the end of each week, we had written a fun activity that he would get to do with us. Playground; McDonald's Playland; Swimming; Chuck E Cheese. We told him that "these are things you can't do if you're not potty trained". He got pretty excited about it, really.
Well, J got right into the groove and was essentially potty trained in a week, thus proving that bribery works. If you use the right sort of bribes. See, the parents of one of J's classmates are using cash bribes with far less success. We conclude that this is because your average 3-year old does not understand that cash can be converted into toys. A 3-year old is much more responsive to instant gratification (aren't we all). And that's okay.
Baby steps. Walk before you run. Learn the basics before you throw in complex concepts. Start with simple if/then strings, and move up gradually. And that's how you teach your children about concepts like cash and consequence.
"If you let me change your diaper, then you won't be wet anymore."
"If you pee in the potty, then you'll get a toy."
"If you pee in the potty, then you'll be dry and comfortable."
...
"If you study hard and get good grades, then you'll be able to go to university."
"If you finish university, then you'll get a job that pays more per hour."
...
"If you invest more money early on, then you won't have to invest as much money later on in order to have the same amount set aside for your retirement, because of compound interest and the time-value of money, and ..."
See, that's pretty complex for a kid. How 'bout we not start with that one, mm-kay?
H and I work hard, but it's always a matter of balance for us. We work, we study, we spend time with the kids, and we care for our home and our family to the best of our ability. We do these things so that we can teach our children one of life's great lessons - a little more work equals more cash equals more toys for less time spending. Or to get right down to basics: hard work pays off, but keep a balance.
But our kids are just a little young yet to fully understand that concept. For now, we lead by example. And we hope our children will watch us, will learn from our successes and our mistakes, and will take the best of us with them as they grow. For now, our if/then strings are suitably simple, and currency is rarely mentioned. We'll start across that bridge when the time is right.
But bribery? Yeah. Bribery is mentioned often. Oh, yes it is. After the potty training experience, we wholeheartedly support bribery.
This post was inspired by The Parent Bloggers Network and Capital One, and is part of my attempt to win an iPhone. 'Cause they're cool, and I respond well to bribes too. I am a capitalist, after all. I like toys!
At 3-1/2 months of age, N is far too little to know anything about money. And the 3-year old J does not yet have an appreciation of what money is about. He knows that he likes money. He enjoys holding the shiny coins and putting them in his piggy bank. But he doesn't quite realize that you can spend those coins to get stuff. While he understands the concept of paying for things, he thinks it involves simply swiping a piece of plastic through a slot and then leaving the store with whatever you want. I don't think he understands concepts like currency and conversion. And I certainly don't think he realizes that swiping the little piece of plastic is just the first in a series of transactions that result in Mommy and Daddy crying at the end of the month when the bills come in.
J understands the value of other things much more readily. Toys, for example. Time, for another.
When we first tried to potty train J, we had problems overcoming his very pronounced stubborn streak. In desperation, we resorted to bribery. But the bribes had to be of the toys and time varieties. Fine. Go with what works, I say.
Toys: We had a big bowl with individually wrapped "presents" - balls, cars, markers, stencils, etc. - and every time J went potty and was dry, he got to pick one. There was also a big wrapped present, sitting up high and clearly visible, which he got to open once the bowl was empty. (It was a Hot Wheels Shark Park, if you were wondering.)
Time: We put a calendar up in J's room with four weeks on it. And every day accident-free got a day crossed off on the calendar. At the end of each week, we had written a fun activity that he would get to do with us. Playground; McDonald's Playland; Swimming; Chuck E Cheese. We told him that "these are things you can't do if you're not potty trained". He got pretty excited about it, really.
Well, J got right into the groove and was essentially potty trained in a week, thus proving that bribery works. If you use the right sort of bribes. See, the parents of one of J's classmates are using cash bribes with far less success. We conclude that this is because your average 3-year old does not understand that cash can be converted into toys. A 3-year old is much more responsive to instant gratification (aren't we all). And that's okay.
Baby steps. Walk before you run. Learn the basics before you throw in complex concepts. Start with simple if/then strings, and move up gradually. And that's how you teach your children about concepts like cash and consequence.
"If you let me change your diaper, then you won't be wet anymore."
"If you pee in the potty, then you'll get a toy."
"If you pee in the potty, then you'll be dry and comfortable."
...
"If you study hard and get good grades, then you'll be able to go to university."
"If you finish university, then you'll get a job that pays more per hour."
...
"If you invest more money early on, then you won't have to invest as much money later on in order to have the same amount set aside for your retirement, because of compound interest and the time-value of money, and ..."
See, that's pretty complex for a kid. How 'bout we not start with that one, mm-kay?
H and I work hard, but it's always a matter of balance for us. We work, we study, we spend time with the kids, and we care for our home and our family to the best of our ability. We do these things so that we can teach our children one of life's great lessons - a little more work equals more cash equals more toys for less time spending. Or to get right down to basics: hard work pays off, but keep a balance.
But our kids are just a little young yet to fully understand that concept. For now, we lead by example. And we hope our children will watch us, will learn from our successes and our mistakes, and will take the best of us with them as they grow. For now, our if/then strings are suitably simple, and currency is rarely mentioned. We'll start across that bridge when the time is right.
But bribery? Yeah. Bribery is mentioned often. Oh, yes it is. After the potty training experience, we wholeheartedly support bribery.
This post was inspired by The Parent Bloggers Network and Capital One, and is part of my attempt to win an iPhone. 'Cause they're cool, and I respond well to bribes too. I am a capitalist, after all. I like toys!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Money, money, money
The bills pour in. I hate bills. But they are usually the only thing in my mailbox. Bills and flyers.
The car broke down this week. It's an expensive repair job. And we've had a number of other expenses crop up lately. School registration and accommodation expenses spring readily to mind, but there are others. We're behind in payments. And while I'm on mat leave, our income is considerably reduced.
More pressing concerns exist. Family illnesses. The inevitable demise of the cat I have had for 17 years. Concerns surrounding J's poor eating. Time constraints. Weight issues. Not to mention ...
And yet, all other thoughts go on the backburner and my throat tightens every time I open my mailbox.
My mailbox is my nemesis.
"Wouldn't it be great to live in a world with no money", thinks the accountant. Illogically. Knowing that such a world is an impossibility and if one existed her skillset would be completely unnecessary. Knowing that without competitive greed, mankind's sole motivator would be survival. Such motivation results in desperation. Reversion to basic instincts. Desperate people do desperate things. I shudder at the thought.
I am wrong. Money is not the root of all evil. The root of all evil is quite clear. The root of all evil is my mailbox. It must be destroyed. And I must destroy it.
Or maybe I just need more sleep and some happy pills. Who can tell.
The car broke down this week. It's an expensive repair job. And we've had a number of other expenses crop up lately. School registration and accommodation expenses spring readily to mind, but there are others. We're behind in payments. And while I'm on mat leave, our income is considerably reduced.
More pressing concerns exist. Family illnesses. The inevitable demise of the cat I have had for 17 years. Concerns surrounding J's poor eating. Time constraints. Weight issues. Not to mention ...
And yet, all other thoughts go on the backburner and my throat tightens every time I open my mailbox.
My mailbox is my nemesis.
"Wouldn't it be great to live in a world with no money", thinks the accountant. Illogically. Knowing that such a world is an impossibility and if one existed her skillset would be completely unnecessary. Knowing that without competitive greed, mankind's sole motivator would be survival. Such motivation results in desperation. Reversion to basic instincts. Desperate people do desperate things. I shudder at the thought.
I am wrong. Money is not the root of all evil. The root of all evil is quite clear. The root of all evil is my mailbox. It must be destroyed. And I must destroy it.
Or maybe I just need more sleep and some happy pills. Who can tell.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Got my coin
It was a lovely awards luncheon. And my voice is almost entirely back to normal now, so I was able to converse with the folks at my table. I am happy about that. They were all very nice, and it was a pleasant afternoon. I was so glad to be able to attend. Many award winners were unable to attend the awards luncheon. What a shame!
Today, I was happy to learn that the 78% I got in my last course will not disqualify me from Top 10 New Member status when I graduate. Someday. In the very distant future. Apparently, it's the PACE level that really impacts whether I can get that particular honor. I have a long way to go to even reach the PACE level. I feel discouraged. I wish I could finish faster. Faster, and for less money. But I can't.
Those who work with me are happy that I received a scholarship. I am happy too, of course. But I am also tired of being a responsible adult. I want to revert back to childhood and be reckless and silly for a while.
The responsible thing to do with the scholarship money is to use it to pay off some of the debt I incurred in registering for this latest course. I am aware of this. And it is what the money is designed for. To do anything else would be pure foolishness. So that is what will happen to my cheque. But really, I just want to go shopping!
H and I have struck a deal. We need to keep a handle on our finances; it's too easy for us to overspend, and we do it far too frequently. And we really do need the money to pay for school. So I will use any scholarship money I receive to pay for my courses. But once I have my designation and my pay increases accordingly, I will be given back an amount equal to the scholarship money I have earned throughout school. (The accountant in me would like you to know that at that time I will be receiving the future value of the present amount invested at market rate.) And then, I will get to go shopping and just blow it all foolishly.
Doesn't that sound like fun?
Yes!
Do you think I'll do it?
No.
I am a responsible adult. I can be nothing else. So while I may take the money, go shopping, and spend it all, I am sure that I will buy extremely practical items that our entire household will get considerable use of. It's just who I am. And I will have many, many, many years to contemplate what those items will be, as I work towards my designation. And so all of the spontaneous joy that should come with a windfall is gone!
*sigh*
(Still, I can't be too broken up about it. Our debtload is $750 lighter now. Doesn't make much of a dent in the load, but it's still free money. And I worked hard to get it, and am really pleased that I got an award. So ... Woot!)
Cheques are always good. Unless you're the one writing them. Then, they suck.
Today, I was happy to learn that the 78% I got in my last course will not disqualify me from Top 10 New Member status when I graduate. Someday. In the very distant future. Apparently, it's the PACE level that really impacts whether I can get that particular honor. I have a long way to go to even reach the PACE level. I feel discouraged. I wish I could finish faster. Faster, and for less money. But I can't.
Those who work with me are happy that I received a scholarship. I am happy too, of course. But I am also tired of being a responsible adult. I want to revert back to childhood and be reckless and silly for a while.
The responsible thing to do with the scholarship money is to use it to pay off some of the debt I incurred in registering for this latest course. I am aware of this. And it is what the money is designed for. To do anything else would be pure foolishness. So that is what will happen to my cheque. But really, I just want to go shopping!
H and I have struck a deal. We need to keep a handle on our finances; it's too easy for us to overspend, and we do it far too frequently. And we really do need the money to pay for school. So I will use any scholarship money I receive to pay for my courses. But once I have my designation and my pay increases accordingly, I will be given back an amount equal to the scholarship money I have earned throughout school. (The accountant in me would like you to know that at that time I will be receiving the future value of the present amount invested at market rate.) And then, I will get to go shopping and just blow it all foolishly.
Doesn't that sound like fun?
Yes!
Do you think I'll do it?
No.
I am a responsible adult. I can be nothing else. So while I may take the money, go shopping, and spend it all, I am sure that I will buy extremely practical items that our entire household will get considerable use of. It's just who I am. And I will have many, many, many years to contemplate what those items will be, as I work towards my designation. And so all of the spontaneous joy that should come with a windfall is gone!
*sigh*
(Still, I can't be too broken up about it. Our debtload is $750 lighter now. Doesn't make much of a dent in the load, but it's still free money. And I worked hard to get it, and am really pleased that I got an award. So ... Woot!)
Cheques are always good. Unless you're the one writing them. Then, they suck.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
I am "above-average"
You may wonder why my user pic is of J, and not of me. Well, quite simply, I am "above-average" (read: I am a fat girl). I used to be thin. Once. Long ago. But those days are behind me, and I hate hate HATE the way I look now. This being the case, size labels, the mirror, and the camera have become my sworn enemies and I simply will not post a picture of myself until I lose some weight.
If that ever happens.
Which it won't. Because I can't seem to get up the motivation it would take to watch what I eat and exercise. And because I am really busy with my courses and the baby, and I just don't have much time to think of stuff like meal planning.
So here I am, carrying around an extra 45 or so pounds that I just can't seem to part with. And none of my old clothes fit since J's birth. (In fact, I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I still wear certain camouflaging pairs of maternity pants.) I can't bring myself to buy new clothes, because trying on clothes invariably means being confronted with size labels and mirrors (two of my sworn enemies) and because I generally hate spending money. Especially now, when I'm on mat leave and funds are tight.
But my brother-in-law is getting married on New Years Day, and we also have a swanky Christmas party to attend this Friday. And I can hardly go to these events dressed in maternity pants and an oversized Spiderman t-shirt now, can I?
So (during a study break today) off to the mall I trudged, begrudgingly, hacking up a lung and with J in tow, to try and take advantage of certain department store sales. My voice is shot; it's not gone completely, but I sound just like Marlon Brando in "The Godfather". And I have work to do, but I couldn't put this off any longer. I need a dressy outfit for Friday, and I just don't have a lot of time available for shopping.
Now, for some unknown reason, designers seem to feel that we "above-average" women all want to wear either really revealing clothing (no sleeves, short skirts, clingy, sheer fabric) or gunny sacks (straight lines, shape concealing, straight from Rue McClanahan's wardrobe in "The Golden Girls"). We have our very own section - right next to the Petites (because we don't feel self-conscious enough, thank you very much) - and our section is manned by an anorexic salesgirl (because she knows something about what we would want to wear; riiiiiggggghhhhht). They try not to call us "plus-sized" any longer, as it's not PC; now, our section is coined "above-average" (as in "your heart's in danger and your joints may give out at a moment's notice, but it's a good thing - really").
So there I was, hunting through department store racks, for anything with even a hint of a sleeve! Tough to come by, let me tell you. And I finally found two tasteful-looking (no gunny sack) dressy outfits in my size that had sleeves. I tried them on, and was dismayed to discover that they were actually not designed for women my size, but rather for what the skinny little boobless designers imagine skinny little boobless women might look like if you widened them, you know, with a carnival mirror. In fact, once I put it on, I realized that one top would only be suitable for attending a roller-disco. And who goes there? Not me, obviously; that would be too much like exercise!
The long and short of it seems to be that department store clothing just does not hang properly on women of my ... particular ... stature.
So off I trudged, with a heavy heart, to the fat-girl store. The store designed specifically for the "above-average" woman. And here, I managed to find an outfit, in my size, that is just concealing enough and still keeps my shape in tact. But the down side to this is that I had to buy an outfit from the fat-girl store, and my self-esteem has been adversely affected.
It is a nice outfit, though.
If that ever happens.
Which it won't. Because I can't seem to get up the motivation it would take to watch what I eat and exercise. And because I am really busy with my courses and the baby, and I just don't have much time to think of stuff like meal planning.
So here I am, carrying around an extra 45 or so pounds that I just can't seem to part with. And none of my old clothes fit since J's birth. (In fact, I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I still wear certain camouflaging pairs of maternity pants.) I can't bring myself to buy new clothes, because trying on clothes invariably means being confronted with size labels and mirrors (two of my sworn enemies) and because I generally hate spending money. Especially now, when I'm on mat leave and funds are tight.
But my brother-in-law is getting married on New Years Day, and we also have a swanky Christmas party to attend this Friday. And I can hardly go to these events dressed in maternity pants and an oversized Spiderman t-shirt now, can I?
So (during a study break today) off to the mall I trudged, begrudgingly, hacking up a lung and with J in tow, to try and take advantage of certain department store sales. My voice is shot; it's not gone completely, but I sound just like Marlon Brando in "The Godfather". And I have work to do, but I couldn't put this off any longer. I need a dressy outfit for Friday, and I just don't have a lot of time available for shopping.
Now, for some unknown reason, designers seem to feel that we "above-average" women all want to wear either really revealing clothing (no sleeves, short skirts, clingy, sheer fabric) or gunny sacks (straight lines, shape concealing, straight from Rue McClanahan's wardrobe in "The Golden Girls"). We have our very own section - right next to the Petites (because we don't feel self-conscious enough, thank you very much) - and our section is manned by an anorexic salesgirl (because she knows something about what we would want to wear; riiiiiggggghhhhht). They try not to call us "plus-sized" any longer, as it's not PC; now, our section is coined "above-average" (as in "your heart's in danger and your joints may give out at a moment's notice, but it's a good thing - really").
So there I was, hunting through department store racks, for anything with even a hint of a sleeve! Tough to come by, let me tell you. And I finally found two tasteful-looking (no gunny sack) dressy outfits in my size that had sleeves. I tried them on, and was dismayed to discover that they were actually not designed for women my size, but rather for what the skinny little boobless designers imagine skinny little boobless women might look like if you widened them, you know, with a carnival mirror. In fact, once I put it on, I realized that one top would only be suitable for attending a roller-disco. And who goes there? Not me, obviously; that would be too much like exercise!
The long and short of it seems to be that department store clothing just does not hang properly on women of my ... particular ... stature.
So off I trudged, with a heavy heart, to the fat-girl store. The store designed specifically for the "above-average" woman. And here, I managed to find an outfit, in my size, that is just concealing enough and still keeps my shape in tact. But the down side to this is that I had to buy an outfit from the fat-girl store, and my self-esteem has been adversely affected.
It is a nice outfit, though.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
My dilemma
H wants to get his FCIP designation. This means taking 10 courses at a University level. If he has to do that anyway, we figure he may as well make it good and take the courses at a University that will recognize them in a degree partnership. (The FCIP + degree combination would give H more credentials that would double his current salary or better.) I think we have settled on the 3-year Bachelor of Management program over at AU. So H and I will both be in distance learning. (Ugh!)
H will take two of his FCIP courses through AU, then apply for admission into the degree program. They will charge him a reduced fee to evaluate his college transcripts, and he may well get some transfer credits at that time (up to 15 of them, or 5 courses) from his CIP program. He will still have a lot of courses to take, but AU does not have the same "only one course per term" requirements that my program has, and so he may be able to do this without as much agony.
Now, on the subject of my program. At the end of this school year, I will be short one Level 1 course and one Level 2 course. If I could complete both of those courses in the following school year, I'd have my first two levels complete and be halfway through my third level by summer '07 (keeping in mind that there are five levels in my program all-told). BUT both of those courses are consistently (and, IMO, foolishly) offered only once a year in the same term! And my provincial chapter does not permit its students to take more than one course per term, so this puts me in a bit of a bind.
AU also offers certain courses that work in conjunction with my program. And a few of them are also courses that H needs for his program. Specifically, H will have to take Microeconomics (247) and Macroeconomics (248). These two courses combined would give me a transfer credit for that one Level 1 course I still need. (As an aside, the one Level 2 course I still need is also two courses at AU. H does not need those 2 courses.)
H is nervous about taking economics courses (not quite his strong area). So if we both enrolled in 247 and 248 through AU this coming summer, we could help each other through. We'd each have a built-in study partner and could work together on developing our understanding of the subject matter. It would make H feel more confident. AND it would give me a jump on a course that I need; I'd have more prerequisites and could take more stuff and get through my program a little bit quicker.
What is my dilemma, you ask? Well, it is simply this: the two courses through AU are more expensive than the single equivalent course through the association. H's workplace will pay for his two courses up front, pending his successful completion of them. But when it comes to my courses, we are on our own. And the cost for this credit taken through AU will be almost double what it would cost if I just bided my time and took it through the association eventually.
Is it worth the $600 or so to get me done sooner and give H the confidence boost? I am not sure. But I do know that if H fails a course, he has to pay back the $$, so the extra confidence boost may be valuable in the long run. And I also know that completing my program may well take me an extra couple of years if I wait it out and that I'll be worth more $$ once I'm done with school. But spending extra $$ is not easily justified.
Dilemmas, dilemmas.
Your opinions are respectfully requested. What do you think is the best path?
H will take two of his FCIP courses through AU, then apply for admission into the degree program. They will charge him a reduced fee to evaluate his college transcripts, and he may well get some transfer credits at that time (up to 15 of them, or 5 courses) from his CIP program. He will still have a lot of courses to take, but AU does not have the same "only one course per term" requirements that my program has, and so he may be able to do this without as much agony.
Now, on the subject of my program. At the end of this school year, I will be short one Level 1 course and one Level 2 course. If I could complete both of those courses in the following school year, I'd have my first two levels complete and be halfway through my third level by summer '07 (keeping in mind that there are five levels in my program all-told). BUT both of those courses are consistently (and, IMO, foolishly) offered only once a year in the same term! And my provincial chapter does not permit its students to take more than one course per term, so this puts me in a bit of a bind.
AU also offers certain courses that work in conjunction with my program. And a few of them are also courses that H needs for his program. Specifically, H will have to take Microeconomics (247) and Macroeconomics (248). These two courses combined would give me a transfer credit for that one Level 1 course I still need. (As an aside, the one Level 2 course I still need is also two courses at AU. H does not need those 2 courses.)
H is nervous about taking economics courses (not quite his strong area). So if we both enrolled in 247 and 248 through AU this coming summer, we could help each other through. We'd each have a built-in study partner and could work together on developing our understanding of the subject matter. It would make H feel more confident. AND it would give me a jump on a course that I need; I'd have more prerequisites and could take more stuff and get through my program a little bit quicker.
What is my dilemma, you ask? Well, it is simply this: the two courses through AU are more expensive than the single equivalent course through the association. H's workplace will pay for his two courses up front, pending his successful completion of them. But when it comes to my courses, we are on our own. And the cost for this credit taken through AU will be almost double what it would cost if I just bided my time and took it through the association eventually.
Is it worth the $600 or so to get me done sooner and give H the confidence boost? I am not sure. But I do know that if H fails a course, he has to pay back the $$, so the extra confidence boost may be valuable in the long run. And I also know that completing my program may well take me an extra couple of years if I wait it out and that I'll be worth more $$ once I'm done with school. But spending extra $$ is not easily justified.
Dilemmas, dilemmas.
Your opinions are respectfully requested. What do you think is the best path?
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Pics to Share
We picked up J's pics from Sears the other night. We think they are really cute; they will get distributed to family and friends in short order. In the meantime, we also bought a picture disk. So this means we can post his Sears shots for everyone to enjoy. Enjoy, dang it!
Of course, I feel rather taken in by the whole Sears group now. When we got there to pick up our photos, they had printed off three extra shots ("...usually $20 each, but today, we will give them to you for $20 for all three!") Anyway, like a total gomer, I took the bait and handed over my money - that I don't have. I'll be prepared next time, and JUST SAY NO!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)