Who bears responsibility for funding institutions of higher education?
Welcome to the first Coursera Sociology 101 online debate! This week's topic is "Who bears the primary responsibility for funding institutions of higher education?". The two positions we will be arguing are:
The state (i.e. government) bears primary responsibility for funding institutions of higher education and ensuring access to it regardless of personal financial situation.
versus:
The primary responsibility for financing the costs of a higher education falls on the individual student and his or her family.
As these positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive (i.e. much of the western world uses a hybrid system where universities receive public funding but the individual student is also responsible for paying a portion of the cost out of pocket), we will define "primary responsibility" in this case to mean paying a super-majority of the costs, say 80% and above.
The rules are simple: the debate is open to all, and anyone may argue any position, or even contribute arguments to both sides. The CreateDebate format uses point / counterpoint posts, and users should attempt to follow this format. Your posts should be in a semi-formal style, citing as much information with links as is practical. The debate will be moderated and inappropriate or off-topic comments will be deleted.
This is an experiment, so let's have fun, practice our debating skills, and learn from each other!
PLEASE NOTE: I have created some "mock" arguments in order to show people how the site works. It allows you to write and argument for or against the original point, and then allows others to comment on your argument, either in support of it, against it, or asking for clarification. Once we get the debate going with some good posts, I'll delete the test posts. They are all marked (TEST).
The state (i.e. government).
Side Score: 12
|
 |
The individual student.
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
(TEST) I support this view. In addition to the original view, a study by Jones et al found that college increases an individual's earning power by 175% over their lifetime [link to study]. This means that they are paying more taxes and contributing more to society. 341 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
1
point
The state should bear the responsibility for educating its people as the poor/underprivileged is the majority - not just in U.S., but in the world at large, and the corporations and other so called elites get richer and richer, at present we have 95% populace of "Have Nots, then haves". 340 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
1
point
Everybody deserves the same rights. Rich people should not have more rights than less rich people simply because they were born into the right family at the right time. Right now in the UK, the conservatives have allowed tuition fees to soar, with no opposition to those two empty-promising two faced lib dems. It's so sad to see people who are incredibly smart and capable be denied education because of some arbitrary reason, i.e., not enough cash. 340 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
1
point
Education should be a right of all humans, we all deserve the ability to realise our full potential. If one student is incredibly smart, and has the ability to do really well in higher education, but doesn't have the money, they can't go.Wheras another student might be average when it comes to academia, but because they were lucky enough to have rich parents, they get to have a better education. How is that fair? You Americans have the right to bear arms, we don't. I'm not sure that the right to bear offensive weaponry should be a right. Also, owning a gun is different to having an education. While I would discourage ownership of guns, I want everybody who has the potential for education to have an education. 340 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
As inescapable as it is to be born with assistance, by the mother or mid-wife or beyond, as it is to speak, by the instillation of a tutor of some sort, is it not just as inescapable that we are born into society. A society is unavoidably communal to some degrees, in that we share the roads, air, water, and even places of commerce. And some societies, such as our own, does not require you to give back, unless you want to work and progress. Nevertheless we are born and here. And nevertheless we bring more into our world. So, whom raises the anychild? Without a doubt, every action has an effect, and every interaction with such a child an effect within. Therein is a burden. If your actions are malicious, (humans being a very trial-and-error imitating creature), these mannerisms rub off onto the child. You've plotted something within this child, and I see no differentiation between this due credit and a responsibility to counteract it. 340 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
1
point
I believe that everyone has a right to an education. Therefore, the government should fund it. But how high and education? There aren't enough jobs for people with a college degree. Possibly, the people who get to college should be limited. Also, administrators are paid too much. 339 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
The best counter argument I've seen is the ideal of "rights" subimitted I saw by Pyg of course, though others may have joined that bandwagon. I'd submit that having a "right" to something is not the only measure of what should be pursued collectively. Does a starving child have a "right" to food? In the most philisophical sense do "rights" even exist beyond what we deem a "right" collectively? I say no. A thing, in this case education, does not need to be a "right" in order that a whole can deem it mutually beneficial. I believe there is more than ample evidence when the forward progress of civilization is looked at historically, that both feeding starving children and providing an education have mutual benefit far outweighing any cost. Whether it's a right or not, it is smart for any society to provide the highest level of education to the most people possible. 339 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
|
Many modern universities have become a way for venture capitalists and large corporations to perform basic research and development using taxpayer funds. The new discoveries and technologies that result from this research are then licensed at very nominal cost to the corporation, so that the vast majority of commercial benefit and financial gain from the publicly-funded research ends up in private hands. 340 days ago | Side: The individual student.
Universities with large endowments receive significant tax subsidies as the income and capital gains from these endowments are exempt from being taxed. Frequently, the amount of the endowment that is used to finance the operations of the university is no more than the minimum required by law in order to maintain its tax-exempt status. The managers of these endowments often receive lavish pay packages, with Mohamed El-Erian raking in $6.5m during his last year as head of the Harvard endowment fund [1]. In that same year, only $1B of the $35B fund was distributed for university operations, an amount that is less than 3%. 340 days ago | Side: The individual student.
... and if it were publicly run $34 or so billion of the $35 would have gone to education and not a few individual's new yachts and mansions. This is the nature of private. Fine when it's coca cola or a new car. When it's how many kids get into Harvard and become future job makers, philanthropists, and other contributors to society, there is an obvious social justification for public funding of and public access to higher education. 339 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
It would be nearly impossible for the vast majority of individuals to afford higher education without the subsidies governments give these "private entities." They infact act as privately owned publically funded institutes in large part. However, it's inconsequential. The real questions are: Do societies benefit from more people being more educated regardless of how much money their parents happen to have? Can private industries be trusted to truly educate for the overall good for society who may be reeping these benefits? Or would it be used as private farms for low-pay future workers mostly should the power of education be taken from the public and given to the private? I think it is fair to sat the answers are yes, no, and yes respectively. Education is for the public good I believe regardless of a child's means. Private industry cannot be trusted to not take advantage of any situation where they are given power over a society's shared necessity, here education. So education should be publically funded and publically available. 339 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
0
points
Seeing as how this is a typical debate where the debate creator is probably 12, seeing as how he posted arguments to both sides of the arguments not knowing that he should probably only post one to one side, I'm going to disregard who's actually winning, points-wise. Anyways, it's up to the individual to pay for college. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm against loans, donations, etc. 340 days ago | Side: The individual student.
I'm against banning unless its obvious trolling not related to the debate. Better to explain to wolverinnetre his obvious mistake here. I'd have loved ot have disputed his argument and had a legitimate debate, but that's been taken away. 339 days ago | Side: The state (i.e. government).
|
