Should higher education should be offered to all for free?
Higher education should be offered to all for free, because good schooling makes a huge difference in a person's life.
yes
Side Score: 17
|
 |
no
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
1
point
I also believe that higher education should be free by either govermental or privatized if possible. The reason I believe this is that like previously stated education is a human right and I believe it should be provided to all. Although some might claim that it issued be a incredible economic burden upon either the government or private entity which would be partially true. The original startup cost of paying for higher education would start off high but would quickly even out and then profit afterwards because of the massive increase in higher educated individuals providing better jobs and which then allows for us to finally start competing in the global market again. Side: yes
1
point
Free higher education is a useful way for government to subsidize corporations in a market. Those corporations will benefit from the educated work force in the same way as they would from direct tax reductions or payments. The result is a more competitive and better developing society. Market societies that have not set up these subsidies have historically not developed at all. Free higher education is the best form of this necessary subsidy because it is easily defendable as a human right. Side: yes
1
point
This is true, but the only section that I have a hard time accepting is the word "free". For free is not entirely accurate for someone has to pay for it. I do like the idea that a private institution (with good regulations) to provide this educational benefit. The reason is that governments are known for their ineptness and I find that a hopeful non-profit institute would be the best possible impartial choice. Any other thoughts on this would be great. Societies are only as strong as their base, and we are the base or foundation. Side: yes
1
point
governments are known for their ineptness The government has given me a goud edocatiun (sorry, couldn't resist a bad joke) so far. Your statement might be true on a larger scale. Countries like Finland though are known for good public education. The prime minister picks up his kids from the public school on the way home (there are very few private schools). From personal experience I think a certain welfare state model is acceptable. Side: yes
Why not? I'm not saying that charging for education services should be banned or anything and if you create a service people are willing to pay for then more power to you. However, open source educational programs and tools like Wikipedia can be created that allow for self guided, self paced learning without attending a class or striving for an officially recognized degree. If after checking out OCW and Kahn Academy you still think platforms for free higher education are a bad idea, explain why. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
Why not? The world would be much better with more educated people, there would be more useful inventions, and what more, why should a person not have a better education just because he/she is poor? Would the government rather not have more useful people in the country? I would think not. Side: yes
Useful inventions have a history of both coming from both educated and non-traditionally (self) educated people. The drive to innovate is a human trait, enhanced yes, but not sparked merely by education. Usefulness of a person is not necessarily determined by education. Side: no
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
Who said it needs to be government funded? There are institutions of higher learning who are opening up their course material to public viewing at no charge. Why is this not a good thing? I think doing this will eventually drastically change the way we look at education, and for the better. The norm needs to be life long learning, and the free sharing of educational resources better supports that ideal than intellectual property think does. Learning as you do what interests you, is a better method than trying to cram an indigestible glut of information into your mind then hoping you still recall what you've "learned" when the time comes to apply it. Side: yes
Higher education should be available only for people who reach a certain level in education and pass the required A levels - which used to be around 25% of us - this education then could be free by having student grants and also Universities should be encouraged to educate and grant places only to as many people as will get jobs after they graduate with a few in hand for drop outs!! Before you say not possible Universities are able to do it with surgeons QED Side: yes
1
point
NO! Higher education should definitely cost money. My argument is not that only the rich and smart should go to school, but that higher education institutes would fail without that money. Think of how many advancements towards the quality of human life comes from Universities. Medical, technological, the preservation and respect for knowledge. Without students paying tuition governments would be unable to take the entire burden of supporting a school. Side: no
|
