• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should College Be Free?

makkam said:
You are right that not everyone has the ability to get into an Ivy League school, but still, some of those people find themselves inside with enough money shoved in someones face. Even more so, there are people who are very motivated and intelligent, but poor. So poor, they can't even apply for a loan. A few of these motivated individuals make it, but it sounds like a common myth that the intelligent and motivated will always find themselves at the top. The odds are improved, though.
Click to expand...

That they could get a loan is why in part housing crashed.
 
GoVote2012 said:
I just want to add that higher education in this country is way to expensive and I don't think loans are the answer. That doesn't change the price paid for education. I believe that costs can be driven down and quality can increase but it's not an easy fix. One fix will have to be moving more towards open-source of all kinds in education and more virtual schools.
Click to expand...

Yes, another good example of how the cost of education can be brought down. Getting your degree online. That would decrease the extra's a ton also. You could still live at home.
 
1Perry said:
Yes, another good example of how the cost of education can be brought down. Getting your degree online. That would decrease the extra's a ton also. You could still live at home.
Click to expand...

If you have one.
 
1Perry said:
This would be true if not for the fact that many with great educations have been failures and many without have been huge successes. Many can't seem to understand why not everyone is successful in life and want someone other than themselves to blame it on.
Click to expand...

Acknowledging that some have it easier than others isn't blaming anyone; it's just stating a fact. If someone's parents are successful, it naturally follows that they have a greater chance at success because it is easier to obtain. There is a degree of elitism concerning success, not that there aren't exceptions even in this economy.
 
evanescence said:
Acknowledging that some have it easier than others isn't blaming anyone;
Click to expand...

Some have it easier than others, so what, that's life.

If someone's parents are successful, it naturally follows that they have a greater chance at success because it is easier to obtain. There is a degree of elitism concerning success, not that there aren't exceptions even in this economy.
Click to expand...

Again, so what?
 
Helvidius said:
I disagree. There are many people who have been successful (whatever success is defined as) that did not come from much money. Most Americans don't have a lucrative job or trust fund waiting for them. I would take an intelligent, driven, ambitious person who happens to come from a poor upbringing over an idiot who comes from money. America provides the opportunity to succeed because it allows everyone the opportunity to attend a college, start a business, etc. Chances are, a college is going to take you if you meet their requirements. It might require you to take out some loans, but that is the price you pay for success. The real inequality comes at birth. Most people just don't have what it takes to go to an Ivy League school or excel in a given field. There is no shame in that, but if you are really looking for the key to success, it comes down to individual characteristics, not a bank account.
Click to expand...

No one's disagreeing with that. What we're saying is that it's a whole lot easier to be successful if you've got rich parents. Do you think George Bush would have been president if he wasn't a Bush? Do you think Paris Hilton would be famous if she wasn't a Hilton? If there were actually equal opportunity, they would both be working a McJob somewhere. On the flip side, I'm sure there are a lot of talented, capable people out there who were never able to escape their poor origins because of a lack of money.
 
atrasicarius said:
No one's disagreeing with that. What we're saying is that it's a whole lot easier to be successful if you've got rich parents. Do you think George Bush would have been president if he wasn't a Bush?
Click to expand...

This proves nothing. Clinton, Obama, Reagan nor Carter was a Bush either. None of them started out with an advantage over anyone else.

Do you think Paris Hilton would be famous if she wasn't a Hilton? If there were actually equal opportunity, they would both be working a McJob somewhere. On the flip side, I'm sure there are a lot of talented, capable people out there who were never able to escape their poor origins because of a lack of money.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever said........yes you are talented but poor so I'm going to dismiss you.

Would Ted Williams get the coverage he did if he was not some homeless guy?

YouTube - ‪'Golden Voice' homeless man finds job, home after viral video success‬‏
 
1Perry said:
Some have it easier than others, so what, that's life.
Click to expand...

And it used to be a fact of life that the median lifespan of a human was 40 years. It was a fact of life that half of all children died prior to the age of six. Or that nobles could pretty much do whatever the hell they wanted, and everyone else was expected to accept that. But we are a clever species (sometimes) and we form societies and concoct theories in order to change the state of life as we know it. So saying "that's life" doesn't really mean very much. Obviously, the question is, are our present circumstances good for us, and if not, can we change them to our benefit?

I honestly don't understand why a libertarian wouldn't want to see greater equality in education. More education, and more merit based education (as opposed to education strongly tied to socio-economic factors) means more vibrant competition in the workplace. This is, is it not, your central political interest? In a similar vein, American companies will continue to be less successful in the global market without a well-educated workforce to be hired by them. This is a bad thing. I am, of course, setting aside other points in the enlightened self-interest vein (e.g. reduced crime, etc).
 
1Perry said:
Opportunity is what you make it.
Click to expand...

True enough, but obviously that also means that those with greater access to opportunity have more chances to make something of it.
 
Aderleth said:
I honestly don't understand why a libertarian wouldn't want to see greater equality in education.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you why. For one, there is no such thing. Everyone is not equal. If we provided a free college education for everyone we would still have the poor/middle class/rich. Nothing would change other than our taxes.

China is not surpassing our economy because they have a well educated work force.
 
Aderleth said:
True enough, but obviously that also means that those with greater access to opportunity have more chances to make something of it.
Click to expand...

And a bigger oppertunity to blow it.
 
1Perry said:
This proves nothing. Clinton, Obama, Reagan nor Carter was a Bush either. None of them started out with an advantage over anyone else.
Click to expand...

Completely missed the point. As I said, "No one's disagreeing with that. What we're saying is that it's a whole lot easier to be successful if you've got rich parents." As in, yes, you can succeed even if you don't have rich parents, but it's easier if you do, which is proved by people who obviously never would have succeeded without rich parents.



1Perry said:
Nobody ever said........yes you are talented but poor so I'm going to dismiss you.

Would Ted Williams get the coverage he did if he was not some homeless guy?

YouTube - ‪'Golden Voice' homeless man finds job, home after viral video success‬‏
Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of people say that. Colleges say that when they reject people from a poor background who couldn't get a good education. Jobs say that when they reject people without a college degree. And yes, occasionally someone will beat the odds and succeed anyway. As I said before, no one's disagreeing with that. On average, poor people are less likely to succeed than rich people.
 
1Perry said:
I'll tell you why. For one, there is no such thing. Everyone is not equal. If we provided a free college education for everyone we would still have the poor/middle class/rich. Nothing would change other than our taxes.

China is not surpassing our economy because they have a well educated work force.
Click to expand...

Do you want to live in China, then? Is that the kind of system you advocate?
 
1Perry said:
I'll tell you why. For one, there is no such thing. Everyone is not equal. If we provided a free college education for everyone we would still have the poor/middle class/rich. Nothing would change other than our taxes.
Click to expand...

Of course we'd still have classes, and that's fine. But making education less tied to the class you come from makes it more possible for promising individuals of any class to rise to their greatest potential, while also weeding out (to some extent) those people lucky enough to be born privileged from exerting undue influence in the workforce/society in general.

1Perry said:
China is not surpassing our economy because they have a well educated work force.
Click to expand...

That's a longer conversation than I'm interested in having at the moment. It's also something of a red herring in this context.
 
atrasicarius said:
Completely missed the point. As I said, "No one's disagreeing with that. What we're saying is that it's a whole lot easier to be successful if you've got rich parents." As in, yes, you can succeed even if you don't have rich parents, but it's easier if you do, which is proved by people who obviously never would have succeeded without rich parents.
Click to expand...

I missed nothing. I showed where pointing out one person proves nothing. There have been far more presidents to come from humble beginnings than that came from a Kennedy or Bush lineage. Are you disagreeing with that?

You've shown no obvious examples.

Actually, a lot of people say that. Colleges say that when they reject people from a poor background who couldn't get a good education.
Click to expand...

There are tons of people who are from a poor background that get a good education. I'll cede the point that there are a lot of poor parents that do not care whether their kids get a good education or not.

Jobs say that when they reject people without a college degree. And yes, occasionally someone will beat the odds and succeed anyway. As I said before, no one's disagreeing with that. On average, poor people are less likely to succeed than rich people.
Click to expand...

Because you say so? I say poor choices are a far higher up the list as opposed to actually being poor.
 
atrasicarius said:
Do you want to live in China, then? Is that the kind of system you advocate?
Click to expand...

The question is irrelevant. It was stated that the reason we are falling behind economically is because of our lack of free college educations. I point out where that is not true as China is passing us up all without this free college education.

Your reply is "Do you want to live in China"? No, I want the point backed up with something valid.
 
Aderleth said:
Of course we'd still have classes, and that's fine. But making education less tied to the class you come from makes it more possible for promising individuals of any class to rise to their greatest potential, while also weeding out (to some extent) those people lucky enough to be born privileged from exerting undue influence in the workforce/society in general.
Click to expand...

The majority of people who wanted to make something of themselves would have made an effort by this point IMO. If they have kicked ass in school there are many avenues for them to take to get their further education.

If we make a college education free, the rich will also qualify. Who do you think is going to excell?

That's a longer conversation than I'm interested in having at the moment. It's also something of a red herring in this context.
Click to expand...

Sure, pointing out the fallacy of an arguement is a red herring. (rolling eyes)
 
1Perry said:
I missed nothing. I showed where pointing out one person proves nothing. There have been far more presidents to come from humble beginnings than that came from a Kennedy or Bush lineage. Are you disagreeing with that?

You've shown no obvious examples.



There are tons of people who are from a poor background that get a good education. I'll cede the point that there are a lot of poor parents that do not care whether their kids get a good education or not.



Because you say so? I say poor choices are a far higher up the list as opposed to actually being poor.
Click to expand...

From here: Fact Sheet
Harvard has a program where those with family incomes of below 60k don't have to pay anything. About a fifth of Harvard students qualify for that program. The thing is, more than 60 percent of the population at large has an income of 60k or below. About 60 percent of students received financial aid at Harvard, but some students with a family income of 200k were still receiving financial aid, which means that at least 40 percent of Harvard students have a family income of greater than 200k. That puts them in the top 3 percent of families at large. Now, I still think that reducing prices like that is a great thing, but do you notice how the demographics at Harvard differ slightly from the national demographics? What reasons can you think of for that?
 
1Perry said:
The majority of people who wanted to make something of themselves would have made an effort by this point IMO. If they have kicked ass in school there are many avenues for them to take to get their further education.

If we make a college education free, the rich will also qualify. Who do you think is going to excell?
Click to expand...

Several things about this:

1) Primary and secondary education are already unequal, and that's a much bigger problem in my opinion than inequalities in post-high school education. Of course it would be good to level the playing field there as well. Probably more so.
2) Whether or not someone will necessarily succeed simply by "making an effort" is exactly the question on the table, and the answer is, emphatically, no. Growing up poor in Oakland, and going to an Oakland public school, is a wildly different thing than growing up affluent in Los Altos (a suburb near Stanford) and attending a public school there. The degree to which effort is rewarded, and the degree to which opportunity to expend effort effectively is provided, varies considerably.
3) Education at the college level is far too expensive for simply anyone to get to that level on their own. Yes, there are loans, but that places a massive debt burden on young people just starting out, which in turn drives their ability to compete for (e.g.) top internships, which lead to top jobs. Yes, there are scholarships, but not very many of them. The fact is, quite a lot of people who deserve to go to college, who would benefit from it, and, in turn, be of use to our society, simply do not have the opportunity to do so. Even public universities are increasingly expensive.
4) Of course the rich will qualify, but if college is free, people who would otherwise never consider going to college would have the opportunity to do so, which is exactly the point. Similarly, rich people who would have ended up in college anyway will be forced to compete with a broader cross-section of humanity which is good for the overall strength of any given academic institution. Can we entirely remove the degree to which wealth provides a competitive advantage to rich kids in the admissions process? Probably not. We can, however, mitigate it by making our primary and secondary schools better, and by providing more comprehensive assistance in (e.g.) SAT prep for academic achievers from poor backgrounds.


1Perry said:
Sure, pointing out the fallacy of an arguement is a red herring. (rolling eyes)
Click to expand...

Is that what you think you did? (smiling in a patronizing manner)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom