What now?
So far I have not found one university close to Brisbane that has some kind of system to accept someone as a mature age student so I can start my bachelor right away. Of course, they might claim they do not have it so they think they can make me pay a ridiculous amount of money for their pathway course, but I have been very clear that I can not pay for my degree; I need Lanekassen to help me, but they will not pay for my pathway course.
I will apply and see what they offer me. Who knows, maybe they will magically accept me as a mature age student? If not, it is back to the old drawing board; in other words, twiddling my thumbs while I hope to be offered a job. Of course, it is probably more likely that pigs will fly.
Bollocks!
Advertisement
You have on many a occasion, said that you will be moving to Sweden after your stay in Australia, and even apply for a Swedish citizenship. Why should “Laanekassen” help you? The point of the relative good terms of the loans you get from “Laanekassen” is to help Norway get an educated work force, not help Sweden get one.
I am just finding it strange that a man of principles do not think this qualify as good old fashion mooching. Alot of your critic og Norway is in fact based on principles.
First I think we need to establish what mooching is.
It is when you take advantage of someone without really giving anything back at all. That is absolutely impossible with Lanekassen. I see Lanekassen more of a loan shark; because you have a ridiculous interest rate, you have to pay every cent back and you have to pay it back no matter what. Lanekassen is all about red tape and not willing to see you as a human being and treat you like that. You are an asset to them, a fool who takes a loan and pays it back with high interest.
CSN, the Swedish student loan are much more friendly. You pay them, more or less, a symbolic fee a few times a year; and it I can not pay everything back during your life time, it is not that important. Same with the student loan in Australia; here they take it from your own taxes when you work, but if you move abroad you automatically stop paying.
These so called good terms you speak of from Lanekassen seems pretty lousy compared to other countries.
Can you please show me where in the law or the contract I have with Lanekassen it states that when I have a Norwegian student loan I am only allowed to work and live in Norway so I can give back to the country?
This is a perfect example of how Norway is not as good as everyone think it is. If Norway is so rich from the oil, how come they have a much more rigid and unfair student loan than Sweden? And just take a search online, if Lanekassen was so perfect, why do most people hate it then?
Also, Sweden allows their citizens to have dual-citizenship; Norway doesn’t.
It is true what the Swedish politician said when the Telenor and Telia merger failed: “Norway is the last Soviet state.”
I sense a hint of jingoism in your comment.
Why do they make it so difficult to study? I don’t understand the system in your country regarding college education, and I always had the naive idea that western countries other than amerika make it much easier to study. Guess there’s another naive idea out the window.
In Norway they reformed the education system in ’94; and it is not until one or two years ago, and a few years before, that the politicians admitted they really messed up our school system. You just have to go across the border to Sweden and they have a much better school system.
On top of that the Norwegian student loan agency are very rigid. If you needed $1 to save your life they would not give it to you if it was not according to protocol; they would rather see you die than having to bend the rules to show they are humans too.
Lets take your first argument and rewrite to a more general form:
1.) “Since there is nothing written that explicit states that I cannot take advantage of A, there is nothing wrong in doing it”
This cannot be accepted universally.
How about specific to our case, where A is “Lånekassen” and this is known:
The loan can only be given to students.
The loan can only be give to students of specific courses that are approved by the institution that provide the loan.
The loan can only be given to foreigners that have worked 2 years in Norway, and where the course they are taking is related to their work. Where
foreigners must be from a country that is a member of EU.
Your reasoning should provide the conclusion that terms present are there for a reason. If “Lånekassen” gave out free money the service would not survive. The system provide good terms but also provide a way to be self-sufficient so other people than me can get the same service as me. It is a balanced system. You should look up the “fractional-reserve system”. However can it be better? Maybe, but then start providing constructive arguments, not a superficial comparison that says nothing.
Then the second argument in general form:
2.) Where A,B,C all provide the same service, but A, and B has better terms than C, it give me the right to take advantage of C.
This cannot be accepted universally in any way. You can in this case use A, or B, accept the terms of C or use none of them. If C is the only choise and you see it as unfair then provide arguments on how it should be that can be tested objectively. If I get caught smoking pot in Norway and my defence is “hey it is legal in the Netherlands and in Portugal” I really say nothing. I have to provide arguments for how this would work in Norway and why it is better than the current and so on.
PS: Jingoism? Hardly.
What are you talking about? Where you drunk when you wrote this? Seriously!
1)
I am a Norwegian citizen and as a Norwegian citizen which is also considered an EU citizen (Where did you think I came from, Australia?), I have a right to apply for a student loan as long as I am taking a degree approved by Lanekassen; or else they will not pay me, which is logical.
Also, when you get a loan from Lanekassen, you have to pay all that back with interest. What do you think that interest is used for, parties at their offices? Lanekassen has never given out free money, they give you money, but your sure have to pay it back with your own blood; no matter where you live, how much you earn and how old you are.
I am sorry if I sound a bit rude, but I have a cold and your reasoning seems to be based on assumptions and not facts. I am confident if Lanekassen read what you wrote, even they would be scratching their head and be wondering what you are talking about.
Fair enough, you might not like me arguments, but at least they are based on facts.
2)
Seriously?! How did you come to this conclusion that I am taking advantage of Lanekassen?! Yes, they will pay for my degree, as I am a Norwegian citizen, but when I finish I have to pay all that money back when I start working. How the bloody hell is that taking advantage of something? Especially when I am the one paying interest on the money I loaned?!
If I get a loan from a bank to buy a house, will that be taking advantage of the bank? Of course not! If you take loand it is implied in the name you have to give that money back eventually.
And yes, jingoism. You seem offended, maybe even envious, that I might have Lanekassen lend me money for a degree abroad, as a Norwegian citizen, while you are still living in Norway; and that hatred seems so strong that you need to protect your dear country from people like me who live abroad. How dare I use Norwegian money abroad.
And seriously, what is so bloody wrong comparing how countries are dealing with student loans differently? Is that so wrong? Is it so wrong that I personally feel that other countries are doing it better than Norway?
Some of our discussions have been very good and interesting, but the two recent one’s have been completely ridicules.
Fair enough that you might feel that you have to protect Norway from people who abuse the system, but before you go all apeshit on someone’s blog, please, I am begging you, please, get your facts straight about the writer and the topic you are writing about; and please avoid being so defensive as you tend to get borderline ad hominem.
Again, I have no difficulty banning you again from this blog as you contribute nothing to the debate.
I will gladly debate you, but FFS keep it civil and accept that sometimes people have different opinions that yourself; also, it is not wrong to agree to disagree, if you are able to swallow your own pride. Sadly, at this point I think if you tried you might risk choking on it.
1.)
I know you qualify. I was refering to your point in an objective manner.
2.)
You take advantage if you are never going to use that education of the bennefit of the country
that payed for it, and the terms of “Lånekassen” is so good that they indeed pay for a large part of it.
Nothing in what I state is close to ad hominem, and I am civil. It is you that is not, I do not use curse words, get emotinal, make any indication that Norway is better and so on.
I agree, lets us end this now and let people see your reply and see the difference between what you often talk about and your own actions.
Which had no relevance at all; at least you did not state why it was relevant to the discussion. I am eligible to get a loan from Lanekassen, so your example regarding a foreigner made no sense what so ever.
And this is why I called you a jingoist. Seriously, you really think everyone that has a degree sponsored by Lanekassen is working in Norway?
I think you should call the police and see if they can arrest them for treason or conspiracy to commit treason. Damn communists!
Just because you are not using curse words does not mean you are civil. You are clearly trolling.
I have consulted a third-party regarding your recent posts and that person says you clearly have some kind of grudge against me.
And don’t act so surprised. It’s not the first time you troll this blog. As I said, it adds nothing to the debate.
I will also leave your comments here, so people can make up their own mind. So far, people are siding with me.
I see from your twitter on the right hand side here that you are wondering if I know that you can
geotag me based on my IP. I do, and it is not a problem. If you ask I can tell you my name to.
Actually, I prefer that you do not tell me your real name as I have an inkling about who you really are; and I honestly do not want to be proven right.
Because if you are who I think you are, you have changed; WTF has happened to you?
That IP information is really not about who you are, but for other administrative uses.
Okay, I will let that last stuff be between you and your past.
I have been thinking about what I earlier today, and I can’t see how you can react how you do. Sure I start a bit hard to get your blood flowing, but not nothing that should make it boil as in your case. The second post was really not intended to provoke, but to get a discussion going. My point is that I do not think you are all logic. You also state a lot of opinions that are not based on fact but who does not?
Anyhow, I do not figure myself as a troll, but you will view me as one none the less. So you are correct, I should delete you blog from my blog-stumble, and let stuff like this be. Life is to short.
Ulrikk
I think that is where you fail miserably. You have demonstrated again and again that you have no clue if you have gone too far or why someone misunderstood your intention. Sometimes referred to by most people as empathy.
I am not unfamiliar with provoking people, but I still try to be humble if I mistakenly go a bit too far and admit it to cool the situation down.
Even if you write subjective, like I do most of the time, you have to be able to look at what you have written in a objective way; just because you are not provoked by what you say or write does not mean someone else will be.
Well, that failed, didn’t it.
I do not claim to be only logical. I rely on logic, yes, and most people who know me will say I am a very logical person, but they would most likely also say that I am not a 100% logical thinking being without opinions and feelings; as I am not a robot.
Exactly, I have also opinions and I know that and have no intention to dispute that. I guess it is conflicting with you a bit when I mix opinions and facts.
I calls’em as I sees’em. So have other people too I have consulted with.
That is up to you to decide, not me.
Depends on how you look at it.
Not sure if I should recognise that name, but if I should, I am sorry that I do not remember you.
Maybe it was just coincidence you live in the same city and have the similar reasoning as someone I know.