CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Education is very important for every people.Why? Because without education it is difficult to find a job,to reach a goal for future life and to achieve a success. I think that education must be free for everyone. First of all, if everyone educated the number of unemployed people decreased. Secondly, the number of mortality decreased because everyone will be educated and maybe help to save the life of other people. Thirdly, new inventions,new technoligies,people's attitude for everything changed if they are educated. In conclusion,if everyone will be educated life become easier and interesting.
In societies where education is free and accessible to everyone, it can be seen that these societies benefit greatly. The Nordic countries come to mind in particular.
Overall, I do not think that graduation with 100 000 dollars worth of debt is beneficial to society.
Overall, I do not think that graduation with 100 000 dollars worth of debt is beneficial to society.
That depends, if you come out of college with $100,000 in debt and a degree in medical science you could easily pay off your debt and help "society."
If you come out of college with $100,000 in debt and a degree in feminism you're not going to be able to pay back that debt as easily because you just wasted a load of money on a degree with no value and you will likely go to occupy wall street and demand that the government confiscates money from the graduate with the degree in medical science and give it to you... Which of course would not benefit "society."
Cherry-picking your areas of study to represent your case is all well and good, but ultimately overlooks the larger issue at hand. The reality is that most students in most fields, useful or no, graduate with extraordinary debt. Not all fields which contribute significantly and meaningfully to society pay as well as the medical profession. Even with the medical profession, massive student debt becomes problematic because it prevents many recent graduates from pursuing practices that work with populations that most need medical care.
The reality is that most students in most fields, useful or no, graduate with extraordinary debt.
If they went to a community college for the first two years then applied for more scholarships they wouldn't. Also, a degree is an investment, a useful degree can cost a lot of time and money but it usually turns a positive.
Even with the medical profession, massive student debt becomes problematic because it prevents many recent graduates from pursuing practices that work with populations that most need medical care.
How so? Most medical professionals work at hospitals and clinics.
If they went to a community college for the first two years then applied for more scholarships they wouldn't.
Actually, I know individuals who did precisely that and are still buried in debt. That tract also places such students at distinct disadvantage to those who are able to complete their studies at a single institution, which implicates classism and inequity of opportunity once again.
Also, a degree is an investment, a useful degree can cost a lot of time and money but it usually turns a positive.
A degree is an investment, but not all investments make a return particularly if the economy is in recession and the market is glutted not only with new graduates but older graduates who also possess prior work experience. I say this from immediate personal experience as someone with a useful degree from a regarded institution.
How so? Most medical professionals work at hospitals and clinics.
Precisely my point actually. One of the most socially disadvantaged populations in many countries, and certainly in the US, are indigenous peoples. I know someone who studied medicine wanting to work on reservations but who could not afford to do so due to their debt. There are also numerous cases of individuals being turned away from care for financial reasons, and the placement of hospitals and clinics to frequently reflects class divisions (i.e. they are located in higher income areas).
Education is already free or nearly free to anyone that wants to learn. An education is what you get when you want to learn. College is where you go to party and be groomed to fit into what society deems as acceptable.
I agree that the first 12 years of education are creative crushing and brain washing, but college doesn't seem like a continuation of it.
What is the first that happens to you when go to college? Orientation.
Orientation: an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings, employment, activity, or the like: (New employees receive two days of orientation.) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orientation
Education should be free to everyone. Of course. If it isn't, then it ruins a piece of the american dream. That is, the dream that anyone can just walk into a school and learn. I mean, even if they can't afford it because they have to pay for health care, or their homeless. Is it fair that a homeless orphan can't get the same education that a regular middle class, or even an irregular upper class child can? No. Why, because what if that homeless child has potential? Well, now they can't reach that potential. You could be rich and have no potential and probably waste it and a homeless child with no education would have to deal with his/her wasted potential against their own will. Is that fair? No.
Look at that. A WHOLE MOVEMENT just about being nicer to the homeless. It's CLEAR that it SHOULDN'T JUST be free, but that people who have a disadvantage should actually have ALL the opportunities that upper middle class people have. End of story.
Now, I'm not saying people aren't better at some things than one another. I'm saying EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and PROVIDED SUPPORT.
I think all education should be free to everyone because everybody should have an opportunity to be educated so that they could be accepted in the society. It sucks when some kind of school website has the phrase' Give every child the opportunity to excel' and you must pay a fortune to attend that school and they even ask how much do your parents earn and some schools also want you to donate money to attend their school. C-R-A-Z-Y
1. Free education does not necessitate that it be operated by the government nor influenced by teachers' unions, although probably some public funding scheme would be needed.
2. There are other countries which do provide free education, often extending to higher education, which have successful educational systems. It would seem then that the problem is not the education being free, but rather the way in which the system is managed.
In a private school, the students become your costumers, and you want to satisfy your costumer - you want to keep your costumers there, and mostly, you want the costumers soon to be children use your school too.
You want to provide the best of everything, JUST to keep the costumer there.
When all education is free.. where's the point? You get money from the country if the costumer shows up or not. You get the same amount of money if the costumer switches school.. there is no reason for providing the best you can get, because you will not receive more from the costumer anyway.
However, when education is not free it almost always becomes inaccessible to the least advantaged in society. Social justice repercussions aside, this exacerbates wealth disparity which is a destabilizing force in any society.
Furthermore, most of the private schools with which I am familiar operate largely upon indirect government financing through voucher systems. There are very few pure private educational institutions, particularly with lower levels of education.
However, when education is not free it almost always becomes inaccessible to the least advantaged in society. Social justice repercussions aside, this exacerbates wealth disparity which is a destabilizing force in any society.
That can be said for anything. Anything that costs money is less accessible for less fortunate. Are we going to make iPhones free, just because they are less accessible for not so wealthy people?
Furthermore, most of the private schools with which I am familiar operate largely upon indirect government financing through voucher systems. There are very few pure private educational institutions, particularly with lower levels of education.
I don't know where you live, but where I am from studies show that students who go to private schools generally get better grades than students in public schools.
That's all probably true. But to deny equal OPPORTUNITY is very different from denying equality. There's no way to make everything free. But the true American dream is that people get what they earn and deserve OR AT LEAST get the OPPORTUNITY to TRY. That's very different from saying everyone has to be equal. But if you deny SCHOOL from people who can't have it, you deny a child the opportunity to reach their own potential and rise in the class system for the most part.
Yes, I admit, someone with cancer doesn't have the same opportunity to live as long as a normal person. They may not succeed in overcoming it. But they have a right to have a doctor and a fighting chance right? I mean that in a realistic sort if way. So why shouldn't the homeless have a fighting chance at being a little less poor?
But to deny equal OPPORTUNITY is very different from denying equality
I don't deny equality. Does the school cost more for poor people than for rich? No, it costs equally for everyone. But it's true about the opportunity, less fortunetes have less opportunity to things that cost money.
But if you deny SCHOOL from people who can't have it, you deny a child the opportunity to reach their own potential and rise in the class system for the most part.
I didn't deny anyone the opportunity to go to school, I'm just asking them politely to pay for their own stuff.
I'm not rich, I can't just easily go to an expensive school either, but if you work hard you can achieve anything.
So why shouldn't the homeless have a fighting chance at being a little less poor?
He does.
Most homeless people, at least where I live, are homeless because they've spent all their money on alcohol.
If you are homeless, go wash up, get a job. and BOOM, you're not homeless anymore.
Sure, there are many places where it is difficult to get a job. But I don't think you should just hand out money to people, who will spend them on alcohol anyways and still be homeless.
"But I don't think you should just hand out money to people, who will spend them on alcohol anyways and still be homeless."
That's a stereotype and every person is different. Not every homeless person is the same. Any two people in this world, even twins, are different people. I mean, isn't it obvious that each homeless person may have their own special case?
"That can be said for anything. Anything that costs money is less accessible for less fortunate. Are we going to make iPhones free, just because they are less accessible for not so wealthy people?"
Actually yes, people on welfare can get free iPhones from the U.S. government. So "we" are going to make iPhones free; at least to some not so wealthy people.
That can be said for anything. Anything that costs money is less accessible for less fortunate. Are we going to make iPhones free, just because they are less accessible for not so wealthy people?
Education is not comparable to an iPhone. The benefits to individuals and to society at large of ensuring basic education for all far exceed those that would be gained by ensuring every person has an iPhone. Education is a social good and a social investment as much as it is an opportunity (versus a handout). This is why literacy rates and related standards are used to assess national stability and progress globally.
I don't know where you live, but where I am from studies show that students who go to private schools generally get better grades than students in public schools.
You missed my point, which is that private schools are not more successful because parents are customers but because they benefit from both private and public funding. They tend to have smaller class sizes as they can be more restrictive than public schools in who they admit. Your notion of a competitive market for education doesn't hold.
Homelessness and free-riders
I agree that this can be a problem in society, and more should be done to ensure that social welfare programs are oriented at empowering individuals and families to become independent. This sidesteps the issue however, as homelessness is frequently a consequence of risk variables (i.e. the more risk factors you have the more likely you are to experience homelessness). Not surprisingly, lack of education is a significant variable. If you object to homelessness, ensuring quality education accessible to all is the more logical approach.
Education could probably not be compared with an iphone. But what about stuff like food? That is a necessity, unlike education, but that is not free. Shouldn't food be free if education is free? And if those are free, shouldn't clothes be free too? Oh yes, and houses, we need houses, don't we? Ever heard of a homeless man going to school? I bet not. So what have we gotten so far, school, clothes, food, roof .. what else? We all need heat, especially those who live in the north. No one would survive there without heat. So oil should be free too. I could go on, if you want me to.
Actually, I believe that basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing ought also to be guaranteed to all members of society. They are internationally recognized basic rights and given that the function of government is to provide for its members I see no problem in ensuring their provision. That said, I think we can both agree that it is likely unfeasible for any government to provide all needs free of charge indefinitely to its entire constituency. However, I think that ensuring equal access to basic needs is viable. Free education does not preclude private options, just as public housing, food programs, and clothing exchanges do not preclude private acquisition of such items. Such free or subsidized programing should never be an end solution, but rather empowerment towards sustainable independence. Education is a necessary component towards such empowerment, and is so vital that its absence leads almost without exception to cycles of poverty. The investment in free public education has clear magnified yields back to society, both in financial and human capital.
As a side note, many homeless individuals do go to school. I have met and personally know a number of such persons, both children and adults.
I think education is good, and of course I think free education is good. Who doesn't want free stuff?
Only the ''free stuff'' aren't really free. Someone actually needs to pay for those things. Who is that? The Government - and where do they get the money? From tax payers. And it is taxes I am against.
I am not against free education, if you can provide me education that is actually free (meaning I don't have to pay taxes) then that would be another thing.
I don't believe in taxes, especially not the system we have here in Denmark.
In Denmark, the richer you are, the more percentage you have to pay in taxes. The taxes go up to 80% That is SICK.
My dad pays 65% in taxes.
Also the average person, meaning the person who is not wealthy and not poor, almost becomes poor by paying these taxes.
Take me for example, I am only 18 years old. I earn about what might be 1000 U.S dollars, and I pay about 400-450 bucks in taxes. That is almost HALF. HALF of my silly little payment.
So taxes are the things that bug me. I don't mind free education, just don't make me pay for it.
Certainly, free is a somewhat misleading term. The difference between me and you is that I am not wholly against taxation. I think that a better system of taxation and more intentional, rational, and efficient allocation of tax money could be developed. Just because current models are inefficient and problematic does not make taxation inherently objectionable in my mind. Particularly when compared to the alternative, which is the absence of a tax base and subsequent loss of necessary social services and governmental functions.
That said, holy crap the taxes in your country and that you are paying are ridiculous so I can see why you take the stance you do.
All private schools have schemes for gifted kids. I don't have to pay tuition fees, accommodation and I have about £650 a month just for doing what I love :D
I do not see that this addresses my concerns. Certainly gifted youth have a decent likelihood of being accepted, but giftedness is at least partially based upon prior educational opportunity. Further, ensuring educational opportunities only for those already intellectually advantaged exacerbates class division to a greater extent which is problematic.
Out of curiosity, would you propose a sliding scale system based upon expected family contributions? How do you account for youth whose parents won't pay it forward? How do you make sure the scale actually works? I wonder if there is actually a way to implement "affordable" education that does not ultimately become exclusive and classist.
I just feel that teachers deserve to be paid for their contribution to society. There aint no such thing as a free lunch as they often say, but an affordable lunch, yes.
I do not usually construe "free education" as to mean that teachers are not being paid. Usually it means that students do not have to pay for their education, but rather that society foots the bill and treats it as a social good. That said, educators could be treated much better than they are in many countries.
