JonelleStorm (PRO)I'm here to affirm the statement that all forms of education should be free. I will affirm the topic by showing that in every form of education, anyone should be able to complete that education at no monetary cost.
This is sufficient burden to affirm the resolution. I'll clarify that this burden does not mean that I have to prove that every school or institution ought to be free. Only that these levels of education should be attainable for free.
Getting closer to the body of my argument, I'm going to focus on forms of education that are not typically free. Public k-12 schools do not cost money to attend. However, colleges and universities almost always cost money (in the US). I'll examine some examples of free colleges and universities and explain how they provide more benefits than harms.
Onto my next observation before my argument, this debate should be judged on a cost benefit analysis, as we're arguing what "should" happen.
1) Good example of free college:
A college called College of the Ozarks utilizes a work-study program, which means that students work on campus and don't pay tuition. The work load is 15 hours a week with one 40 hour work week per semester.
This program not only guarantees a student work experience during college, but it makes that work able to pay for their college expenses while they're at school.
Is this free? Yes. The money is imaginary. Students don't receive money for their work. They simply work knowing they don't have to pay for college. [1]
At the very least, this should be utilized more often at the undergraduate level.
Aside from thus, most often military schools do not charge money because they are publicly funded. And despite them being military schools, they offer a large selection of degrees [2].
1) Graduate degrees:
Having fully funded graduate degree programs can prove more beneficial than harmful. Graduate degrees are hard work, and mixed with expensive tuition, it becomes less attractive of an option. But getting a graduate degree is great, and it helps the labor force to have people with a graduate degree.
People with a graduate degree are often more equipped to fill upper level positions due to their training in the specific field. These upper level positions are crucial because they require a significant amount of responsibility and foreknowledge. Thus it becomes economically intelligent to subsidise graduate level education.
3) Summary:
Education advances a nation toward a greater work force. Uneducated people don't lead to a greater work force. Thus it's in a nation's best interest and a school's best interest to fund or offer free programs until every form of education is attainable at no monetary cost.
Sources:
[1] cofo.edu
[2] https://www.usna.edu/Academics/Majors-and-Courses/
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-20 14:41:11
| Speak Round
Povski (CON)Firstly, I'll take on your example of a good free college:
I argue that the course does, in fact, cost. All money is 'imaginary' to some extent in that it has very little intrinsic value. Its financial worth resides within our consensus over it; we decide how much it is worth. In fact, what truly costs in reality is time and resources. And the students from ”College of Ozarks”pay with their time and energy. The monetary system acts just as a medium to facilitate the transaction of resources by converting them into capital. In the case you picked, it is easier for the students to work directly for their university. For them, converting their work into currency would be redundant, yes. However, this system would not work for any sort of studies. A physics or law university course, for instance, requires intensive research which is only hindered by part time jobs.
Bottom line:
Education is not fundamentally free. In fact, education does cost money. The process of spreading knowledge and skills to other people takes time and money. Because these costs need to be covered, students cannot simply stop paying. If they did, taxes would have to increase or something. Considering this, I rephrase the topic to:
”Should the costs of education be covered by a different entity other than the students themselves?”
Keep in mind that many universities have foreign students, which means people would have to support students from other countries.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-23 03:26:53
| Speak RoundPovski: do you agree with the way I rephrased the topic?Povski: Also, I have searched online am haven t found any good answer as to what a FORM of education is. Is it like a grade? In the british system grades from 6 to 12 are called forms 1 to 6. Is this what the toPovski: the topic referes toReturn To Top | Speak Round
JonelleStorm (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-29 03:27:01
| Speak RoundPovski (CON)I am not clear on what ”all forms of education” means.
For the sake of simplicity, we should limit ourselves to the us ed system.
So then, ”levels” refers to grades 1-12 + undergraduate degrees + graduate degrees? or even postgraduate degrees?
Moreover, do they include any type of course from any field of study?
I am perplexed by how vague your burden is.
What does attainable mean? Do you envision anyone to be able to just go to a college and take a course free of charge? Just imagine the drop-out rates.
Now, addressing your 2nd argument, i don-t think that offering degrees free of charge is economically strategic for a simple reason. The job market is already undergoing a proces of ”overproduction” in terms of job applicants. Students with a degree cannot find jobs as it is. What good will financing countless more students do? (each costing at least a few thousand dollars a year)
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-06-01 02:31:49
| Speak Round
I didn't have time to finish the debate, so I just ended it and gave you the win.Posted 2017-06-12 00:17:46
Why concede?Posted 2017-06-05 01:47:56
Oh dear what have I gotten myself into XDPosted 2017-05-18 16:06:06