• 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 “equal opportunity” mean free college?

Should “equal opportunity” = free (gov funded) college to those who can complete it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 29.5%
  • No

    Votes: 31 70.5%

  • Total voters
    44

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?

Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?

What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?
 
The government should pay for college when it is statistically likely to lead to a greater increase in tax revenues than the expense of the program. Since we can't judge that on a case-by-case basis, we need a rules-based policy that ensure that it applies in the majority of cases; a "close enough" rule that allows us to eat the occasional loss while still benefiting overall.

Of course, we can't have programs like that because people would insist on "equal rights" for English and PE majors.
 
The government should pay for college when it is statistically likely to lead to a greater increase in tax revenues than the expense of the program. Since we can't judge that on a case-by-case basis, we need a rules-based policy that ensure that it applies in the majority of cases; a "close enough" rule that allows us to eat the occasional loss while still benefiting overall.

Of course, we can't have programs like that because people would insist on "equal rights" for English and PE majors.

Finally, someone who is on the same page as me, LOL! :mrgreen:
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The government should pay for college when it is statistically likely to lead to a greater increase in tax revenues than the expense of the program. Since we can't judge that on a case-by-case basis, we need a rules-based policy that ensure that it applies in the majority of cases; a "close enough" rule that allows us to eat the occasional loss while still benefiting overall.

Of course, we can't have programs like that because people would insist on "equal rights" for English and PE majors.

I think the thing you have to keep in mind with something like this is that literature and physical education have beneficial effects in society that probably do result in more productivity, which in turn should result in higher tax revenues. But those effects are both necessary and indirect. To give one example: Jung pointed out that people need myths and stories in order to live their lives in some coherent manner. If you understand what he was talking about, you realize that of course he was right. Literature is important because it is one main source of those stories, and arguably the most salutary source.

In general, and with a few exceptions, I think most things that human beings do in society contribute something beneficial and necessary to that society.

I'm more of the opinion that education ought to be free to all to a certain point (say, master's level certification). Ph.D. candidates in overstuffed professions (like, for instance, English Lit Education) ought to have to meet certain justificatory standards before they get to move forward, whereas Ph.D. candidates in badly needed professions (like, for instance, architects, doctors, geologists, etc) ought to get funding for education more easily and perhaps even incentives.

There also needs to be some protection against someone gaming the system. There are some problems that might justify some great genius getting four Ph.Ds. But for most folk, one is enough.
 
Last edited:
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?

Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?

What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?

When you say "free" you actually mean "tax-payer funded", because it costs something even if the student isn't the one paying the bill. In which case, I would base funding off of academic performance.
 
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?

Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?

What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?

First, this is a faulty premise. With few exceptions, anyone that is ABLE to attend college CAN attend college. You may not be able to attend the exact college you want (but then agian, no one has that garaunteed ability). You may have to take on debt or you may have to work extra hours in prepping for it. However, even without scholarships and without financial support from family, it is absolutely and unquestionable possible for nearly anyone that can get accepted to a college to be able to afford to go to that college. The question of course is the desire and/or need for college large enough that they're willing to take on debt, reduce their free time and take on extra jobs, and/or narrow their choices to the most economically feasible (Such as 2 years at a community college and then 2 years at a small state school as opposed to 4 years at a private institution).

Second, no. The moment you start making college paid for in full through tax payer funds (By the way, that is not "free") then you begin to establish a belief that it is a "right" that people attend college. Once you establish that you begin to create at atmosphere where the difficulty regarding the entry into and standards of college could be reduced. You create a situation, one where sadly going towards already, where college is not HIGHER education but simply "High School Part II". You devalue the notion of a bachelors degree, you extend the "adolecense" cycle by watering down the college experience and making it more wide spread, and essentially move things forward so that this same conversation begins about master's degree's in 10 to 20 years.

No, college should not be paid for in full by the government.
 
Absolutely not. College is a path traveled to meet certain ends in your life. Government funded college to achieve those ends is an attempt to create more equal 'ends', not equal opportunities. The idea of government-funded college is beyond the ideal role of the government.
 
Last edited:
I think there should be affordable college. It is a violation of equal opportunity to make colleges so expensive that only kids with rich parents can attend.
 
I think there should be affordable college. It is a violation of equal opportunity to make colleges so expensive that only kids with rich parents can attend.

It is a violation of PRIVATE colleges to be mandated what they can or cannot charge. It is not a violation of equal opportunity to increase costs for a product that is in high demand. If people are willing to pay for it and the college can remain profitable, what right does anyone have to interrupt this transaction?
 
"Free" college doesn't create equal opportunity. Education deficits exist long before students reach college age, first of all. Secondly, as long as we have majors with little guarantee of broad-ranging success (i.e. women's studies, dance) we shouldn't be requiring tax payers to subsidize the whims of any college-age person in this country.

Secondly, as somebody already mentioned, it's already possible for most people to go to college if they can gain acceptance. "Equal opportunity" shouldn't mean "make everything as easy and challenge-free as possible". People need to work for what they want. Challenge and competition breed successful, capable people. If we start handing things to people left and right we have a lot of people who never learn the necessary skills for survival and success.
 
It is a violation of PRIVATE colleges to be mandated what they can or cannot charge. It is not a violation of equal opportunity to increase costs for a product that is in high demand. If people are willing to pay for it and the college can remain profitable, what right does anyone have to interrupt this transaction?

Did I ever mention private colleges? I said affordable. I am not in favor of making college free. However, finances are one of the biggest challenges that new students have to face. Even public universities can cost a fortune once you factor in living expenses and meal plans. I go to a private university, the only reason I can go is because I have a really nice academic scholarship along with a PELL grant and state aid. When federal aid got cut I worked a full time job in the summer in order to pay off my $2000 debt. I live at home and commute to save money while also working a part time job so I can pay my bills.

College students are adults. An education is an investment. I think all students should have jobs and should work to pay their own debts and their own bills. However, not every family (and certainly not every student) can come up with thousands of dollars to pay for an education. I think everyone from every economic background should have access to affordable university education.
 
I think there should be affordable college. It is a violation of equal opportunity to make colleges so expensive that only kids with rich parents can attend.

It's $580 a semester (12 hours, without books) for my local community college (Dallas County, one of the largest comm college districts in the country). The school offers several two year certification programs, Associates degrees, and transfer programs to 4-year schools. I have yet to pay more than $180 on books for any one semester by shopping online and doing some research. On top of that, at $30k a year I qualified for a grant which pays for everything I need at the college.

College CAN be affordable if you use your brain and explore options.
 
When you say "free" you actually mean "tax-payer funded", because it costs something even if the student isn't the one paying the bill. In which case, I would base funding off of academic performance.

true. The real question is tax payer funded a better way to make sure we get more educated and functioning in soceity than we're doing now.
 
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?

Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?

What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?

Ideally, yes, but in reality no.

1. Economically without some sort of downward price pressure, college costs will go up too fast as there is no motivation to take bloat out of the system
2. Cost to benefit analysis would need to be under taken to see where the profitable amount of subsidies are as compared against the value added to society vs its costs.
3. I doubt we could afford it.
 
Ideally, yes, but in reality no.

1. Economically without some sort of downward price pressure, college costs will go up too fast as there is no motivation to take bloat out of the system
2. Cost to benefit analysis would need to be under taken to see where the profitable amount of subsidies are as compared against the value added to society vs its costs.
3. I doubt we could afford it.

In response to your number (2) - You are suggesting that if we invest $1 dollar of tax payer money and in return society receives $2 worth of product (the graduated student), then we as a society should make this investment, up until the point that that $1 is giving us a return of less than $1. Correct?

Assuming that we could actually come up with these exact numbers, I have some issues with this thought process: As cost effective as this investment is to society and though I may benefit individually from each dollar invested, each dollar I invest has an opportunity cost. Where else could I have invested or spent that dollar to increase either my own wealth (potentially at a greater rate) or happiness individually? By creating these grants you make the decision on my behalf that the opportunity cost for my dollar is less than the opportunity for another's education. And you take that dollar by force (by threatening jail time if I do not comply and pay my taxes). This is not acceptable. Even if I choose to keep that dollar in a savings bank which will not keep up with inflation, taking the freedom/power to make that irrational decision away from me is unacceptable.
 
In response to your number (2) - You are suggesting that if we invest $1 dollar of tax payer money and in return society receives $2 worth of product (the graduated student), then we as a society should make this investment, up until the point that that $1 is giving us a return of less than $1. Correct?

Assuming that we could actually come up with these exact numbers, I have some issues with this thought process: As cost effective as this investment is to society and though I may benefit individually from each dollar invested, each dollar I invest has an opportunity cost. Where else could I have invested or spent that dollar to increase either my own wealth (potentially at a greater rate) or happiness individually? By creating these grants you make the decision on my behalf that the opportunity cost for my dollar is less than the opportunity for another's education. And you take that dollar by force (by threatening jail time if I do not comply and pay my taxes). This is not acceptable. Even if I choose to keep that dollar in a savings bank which will not keep up with inflation, taking the freedom/power to make that irrational decision away from me is unacceptable.

Something like that, even though we should recognize it would be incredibly hard to calculate.

Opportunity cost is of course part of a good cost benefit analysis.

I am sorry you find it unacceptable, however, this does not affect my reasoning as all successful societies, throughout history have made these kinds of investments, even if its not necessarily into education. Education is only one type of infrastructure that can benefit society.
 
Last edited:
Something like that, even though we should recognize it would be incredibly hard to calculate.

Opportunity cost is of course part of a good cost benefit analysis.

I am sorry you find it unacceptable, however, this does not affect my reasoning.

I don't intend on influencing your reasoning with my acceptance of your idea; only to draw attention to my counter-reasoning :)

So let's say opportunity cost is included. Does the fact that the government has found the BEST investment to increase my happiness and/or wealth give them the right to make that decision on my behalf? I do not understand how you can say yes to this question. If I choose to be unreasonable, why would you take that choice away from me? It is a freedom to make that choice. The underlying philosophical problem I have with grants is that they are another tax to redistribute my wealth. To make investment decisions of my property on my behalf and to punish me if I do not comply.

If this method of redistribution were merely an opportunity and voluntary, then provide me with the data that the investment is worth my dollar and I will make the rational decision, the decision that makes me the happiest. It seems you fear that people, when presented with a fully informed decision, will be irrational and so we must force the rational choice upon them through legislation. I've made some leaps here; feel free to correct my assumptions. I'd really like to know why you think that grants would be appropriate in any situation, so giving you all the benefits of doubts, how do you defend your position?
 
I don't intend on influencing your reasoning with my acceptance of your idea; only to draw attention to my counter-reasoning :)

So let's say opportunity cost is included. Does the fact that the government has found the BEST investment to increase my happiness and/or wealth give them the right to make that decision on my behalf? I do not understand how you can say yes to this question. If I choose to be unreasonable, why would you take that choice away from me? It is a freedom to make that choice. The underlying philosophical problem I have with grants is that they are another tax to redistribute my wealth. To make investment decisions of my property on my behalf and to punish me if I do not comply.

If this method of redistribution were merely an opportunity and voluntary, then provide me with the data that the investment is worth my dollar and I will make the rational decision, the decision that makes me the happiest. It seems you fear that people, when presented with a fully informed decision, will be irrational and so we must force the rational choice upon them through legislation. I've made some leaps here; feel free to correct my assumptions. I'd really like to know why you think that grants would be appropriate in any situation, so giving you all the benefits of doubts, how do you defend your position?

Is your screen name from I Love Lucy??
 
I don't intend on influencing your reasoning with my acceptance of your idea; only to draw attention to my counter-reasoning :)

So let's say opportunity cost is included. Does the fact that the government has found the BEST investment to increase my happiness and/or wealth give them the right to make that decision on my behalf? I do not understand how you can say yes to this question. If I choose to be unreasonable, why would you take that choice away from me? It is a freedom to make that choice. The underlying philosophical problem I have with grants is that they are another tax to redistribute my wealth. To make investment decisions of my property on my behalf and to punish me if I do not comply.

If this method of redistribution were merely an opportunity and voluntary, then provide me with the data that the investment is worth my dollar and I will make the rational decision, the decision that makes me the happiest. It seems you fear that people, when presented with a fully informed decision, will be irrational and so we must force the rational choice upon them through legislation. I've made some leaps here; feel free to correct my assumptions. I'd really like to know why you think that grants would be appropriate in any situation, so giving you all the benefits of doubts, how do you defend your position?

easy, I defend my position because I don't think what you bring up is all that important.

While there is a place for individual rights and needs (and a huge one at that) they should always be balanced with societal needs as the two are always linked.
 
Last edited:
easy, I defend my position because I don't think what you bring up is all that important.

While there is a place for individual rights and needs (and a huge one at that) they should always be balanced with societal needs as the two are always linked.

We're moving pretty far into the abstract at this point; what is a 'societal' need? I assume you would consider college to be one of them, with all of the assumptions made about cost-effectiveness.

But the balance is naturally occurring, assuming that the few individual rights are being fully protected. The job of the government should not be to define societal needs. Government represents and protects individuals, not societies. Those individuals create and define society. That is how they are linked. Not through government.
 
Nope, and I would suggest the OP learn the difference between opportunity and entitlement.
 
We're moving pretty far into the abstract at this point; what is a 'societal' need? I assume you would consider college to be one of them, with all of the assumptions made about cost-effectiveness.

But the balance is naturally occurring, assuming that the few individual rights are being fully protected. The job of the government should not be to define societal needs. Government represents and protects individuals, not societies. Those individuals create and define society. That is how they are linked. Not through government.

The job of the government is to provide for societal need as a well working society is essential to a government's survival. What you're saying is that it's your job to defend your house, but not to make sure the people living in it have food to eat. It's nonsensical to say the least.
 
In a perfect and functional world and society, the list you could put under "job of the government" would be incredibly small.
 
In a perfect and functional world and society, the list you could put under "job of the government" would be incredibly small.

Then you agree that it is a government's job to provide for societal needs in order to just survive?
 
Back
Top Bottom