Yared
That Guy
Should college be free of charge?
Say whyyyyyy or why not!
Say whyyyyyy or why not!
Tertiary Education - Should it be free?
- Thread starter Yared
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Yes, but there should be financial incentives to motivate students to... well, study better.
Personally, I think the best 20% of the students of a particular study programme should pay no tuition fees, whereas the others should pay according to their results with the worst 20% paying full tuition.
First six years of college education are free in this country (which I do appreciate
) but from my experience, a lot of students just waste whole years trying out different things. It's not fair to the taxpayers.
On the other hand, standard tuition fees discriminate against people from less well off families, especially those who're not living in big cities.
Personally, I think the best 20% of the students of a particular study programme should pay no tuition fees, whereas the others should pay according to their results with the worst 20% paying full tuition.
First six years of college education are free in this country (which I do appreciate
) but from my experience, a lot of students just waste whole years trying out different things. It's not fair to the taxpayers.On the other hand, standard tuition fees discriminate against people from less well off families, especially those who're not living in big cities.
Nope.
It should be affordable. Ideally, you'd be able to attend the best institution your abilities allow. But students should be expected to make some sort of contribution, so they'll appreciate the opportunity, and take the most advantage of it.The situation that Winner describes (students aimlessly burning through free tuition) really isn't fair.
It should be affordable. Ideally, you'd be able to attend the best institution your abilities allow. But students should be expected to make some sort of contribution, so they'll appreciate the opportunity, and take the most advantage of it.The situation that Winner describes (students aimlessly burning through free tuition) really isn't fair.
amadeus
Serenity now
Why should it be subsidized? These people are adults making their own decisions and higher education is just another commodity like buying a house or a car. If you want to pay for something that you don't immediately have the money for, you take out a loan and pay it back. Why should those that choose not to go to college be forced to subsidize those that do? It punishes people that are already receiving incomes lower relative to their higher level degree-holding peers.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
Some of it should be. for example, basic community college. or perhaps more support for those who go to those. Im not sure about university.
Emperor_Jackal
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2008
- Messages
- 43
Because God forbids that any intelligent people are born into poor families that can't afford such unsubsidised higher education.
Don't you go to a subsidized school?
amadeus
Serenity now
This is what loans are for. The student takes out the loans under the premise that after they find gainful employment that they pay the loans back.
Yes. However, if there were no subsidies then the cost of tuition would be lower (universities would be forced to charge less or else face the consequence of having only 1,000 students enrolled) and my budget would be adjusted accordingly. Right now, I receive money from the government that pays the school because the school knows that if they raise tuition, the government will pay me more money in turn which means I will then pay the school. My tuition went up this last year and so did my aid awards, but I'm in the same overall financial position I was last year and the year before.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
It's for the greater good.
The only way today's developed countries can compete in the future is to maintain technological superiority over the developing nations. For that you need a highly educated populace, which means the government has to 1) ensure the quality of education is high and 2) quality education remains available to anyone having the necessary mental faculties to take part in it.
I don't think it would work out that way. Removing state support for public universities deprives Land Grant schools like ours of a critical funding source for day to day operations. They'll have no choice but to make up the gap by charging students more, or start cutting departments. I don't think education (be it primary or post-secondary) should be run with just a profit in mind.
The fact is, even though folks are going to be priced out of a quality education if we remove subsidy, it would take a long time for the private sector to catch up with new accreditation demands. Wealthier families have been sending more students to places like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio State over the past decade, as private schools have become more expensive. These schools would continue to exist if they suddenly cost 34,000 for everybody...they wouldn't shrink to 1,000 people. Maybe 15,000.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
There is a big if. If unemployment rates are up it may be hard to find a employment even if they are got a qualified. and then it's real hard to get a student loan, I know as I am trying to get one.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
I like the idea of free Tertiary Education as it would increase social mobility and you can't exactly play Tertiary Education unless they provided free housing and food.
However it should be for degrees that will lead to better jobs. Classes like "Klingon History" shouldn't be covered unless it's SOMEHOW part of the school curriculum
However it should be for degrees that will lead to better jobs. Classes like "Klingon History" shouldn't be covered unless it's SOMEHOW part of the school curriculum
It's good for tertiary education in the corrupt West to be as expensive as possible, because in the West, they teach anti-Russian liberastic valuesNow, tertiary education glorifying the Russian Motherland should be free
I for one would really like free Russian language courses.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Perhaps not free, but very, very cheap. $100-$200 a semester or something perhaps, both to install a sense of value in your education, and discourage people from riding it out for no reason (though the opportunity cost of not working should provide the same incentive).
Alternatively, I'm a big fan of Australia's (I think) system, where you can defer your tuition costs into the tax system so that you pay it back in later years, but aren't required to go through the paperwork and interest payments involved with student loans. I myself was denied a student loan when I went to school, apparently my parents had too much money . . .
Alternatively, I'm a big fan of Australia's (I think) system, where you can defer your tuition costs into the tax system so that you pay it back in later years, but aren't required to go through the paperwork and interest payments involved with student loans. I myself was denied a student loan when I went to school, apparently my parents had too much money . . .
classical_hero
In whom I trust
It should not be free, but it should be cheap for when you are studying and once you have finished your studies and have got a higher paying job, the you should be paying back the government for the invest they made in you. That way the government get the money back they put into you and that way you get an education and thus a higher paying job.
Yared
That Guy
Yes, but there should be financial incentives to motivate students to... well, study better.
Personally, I think the best 20% of the students of a particular study programme should pay no tuition fees, whereas the others should pay according to their results with the worst 20% paying full tuition.
First six years of college education are free in this country (which I do appreciate
On the other hand, standard tuition fees discriminate against people from less well off families, especially those who're not living in big cities.
The thought of having financial incentives sounds good, but I do not agree with your percentage rule.
Let's say you have one class of particularly hard-working people. If we were to place the lowest person on a grade scale of 1-10, the "lowest person" would be placed at 5, and the highest at 10.
Let's say you have another class. The highest person is placed at 7, and the lowest at 2. It would be kind of uneven, since the 5-people in class #2 isn't paying full tuition fees, while the 5-people in class #1 would.
And yeah. You get my point.
It's better to just have a system where it's determined by grade (10 = 0%, 9 = 10%, 8 = 20%, etc), and not by what is relative.
Similar threads
- Poll
