CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:8
Arguments:7
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Should University Education Be Free? (7)

Debate Creator

Kuanysh(7) pic



Should University Education Be Free?

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education. Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world. In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.

Add New Argument
1 point

There are often sections of society, in many countries, that on average attend university with less frequency than even other groups with comparable economic means. For example, poorer white Americans are still more likely to attend university than similar poor African-Americans. The reason for this is that the cultural impetus to attend university has an impact on whether people attend, not simply financial means. In the case of the United States there is a perception within inner cities that university is principally for privileged white people[1]

This sentiment is pernicious, as it causes people in such areas to not seek university education, even when they might find access to scholarships or loans. The state can ameliorate this problem by eliminating fees. In doing so, it can act to inculcate the notion of university education as a right for everyone, not just the privileged, which serves to break down cultural biases against higher education. The impetus to attend university will benefit these disadvantaged areas by creating an educated populace who can find work in careers other than unskilled labor and tradecraft that currently predominate. It will also aid in rebuilding social connections between these often-isolated groups and the rest of society. Clearly, free university education benefits societal harmony.

[1] Allen, Walter and Edgar Epps and Nesha Haniff. 1991. College in Black and White. Albany: State University of New York Press.(Allen et al., 1991).

Kuanysh(7) Disputed
1 point

Making university free will do little to foster social engagement from disenfranchised groups like inner city African-Americans. Rather, free university education does little other than benefit those who would already have attended; only without fees they can do so for free. Groups with an anti-education bias will not simply be convinced of its merits by its being made free. Spending taxpayers’ money on social outreach programs and other civic activities are the way to contact these groups and encourage them to enter university. Making university free is a pointless gesture.

1 point

Wow, such an original argument that I've never seen or heard before! Bravo! You have persuaded me to change sides!

1 point

What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?

Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.

As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"

It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.

Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.

Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.

In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.

The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)

The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)

A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."

It would be great if university education was free, but unfortunately there is no such thing as free. It would have to be funded by tax-payer money which we already don't have enough of. Schools have been closing down all over the place because they lack funding. If there isn't enough money to keep elementary schools and high schools open there is no way there will be enough money to fund universities.