All education should be free to all people and paid for by the government. This statement has caused great controversy over the past decades.
On the one hand, it should be free since there are poor who are smart, intelligent and capable, yet the state provides no education for them. How would you feel knowing that your life is never going to get better because you don’t have the opportunity? Another argument is economic development. Finishing school and pursuing a career will allow you to get a higher standard of living hence economic development.
The last argument for free education is economic growth. If everyone gets a well paid job, they will contribute to society by becoming taxpayers. The state will be capable of improving the country.
On the other hand, It shouldn't be free as tax would need to increase to provide free education and not many are pleased with this idea. However, if tax doesn’t increase, we will get a mediocre education. This is seen in Peru where there aren’t even enough schools and universities.
In addition, if everyone gets educated, no one would want to take the low paid jobs. An example is Spain. An ex- CEO prefers not to work rather than to work as a taxi driver.
In conclusion i do think that education should be free since it is our right to get the opportunity to improve our lives. Yes, it can be very expensive for the state at first, but the advantages are invaluable to our society.
...Free Higher Education
We pay a price for everything we get or take in this world. Although ambitions are well worth having, they are not to be cheaply won. Every day is an opportunity to make your life the way you want it to be. Anything is possible when you work towards it one day at a time. Skip a day and you lose momentum. Try to do it all at once and you will burn out. Work steadily and consistently to make every day count and you will reach your goals. Soon, with consistent effort, those little bits add up to major accomplishments. Is there something you want to change? Today is the day to start changing. Is there a new customer you want to land? Today is the day to start making it happen. You control today and you can control your life.
When speaking of whether higher educationshould be free for all, I couldn’t stop thinking about all the problematic issues that would arise. For instance, students would lack that sense of ambition and drive to succeed I know this because I’ve met people who’ve had everything handed to them, and through their actions and behaviors you can see that they seemed not to care as much about education as those who were taught to get things on their own. Also there would be insufficient funds --where would the money come from? And lastly, students would place less value on education. Those are...
...Economics for Business
Should higher education be free to students?
University education has become a major hot topic recently as governments have struggled to find the funds for universities. Therefore, there have been many debates raised of what the best way to fund university education is and whether it should be free or not. Firstly, we will start by going over why tuition fees were actually introduced. The idea began in the labour party manifesto in 1997 when Education was known to be the biggest priority as Tony Blair called for ‘Education, Education and Education’. Tuition fees were all paid by the governments before and many more grants were given out. However, throughout the years the government had lost the money and had no income to be able to pay for university education so therefore top-up-fees started. This was a way in which universities can charge fees for whatever price they wish. When labour came to power in 1997, there were no fees but there were only means-tested maintenance grants. But after one year grants were no longer available and a means-tested fee regime of £1,000 a year was introduced. In 2004 the higher education bill brought in top-up fees of up to £3,000. The tuition fee limit has remained at about £3,000 up to now and there are current plans and...
...The demand is meant as a polemic against the increase of tuition fees. These fees appear to them as the price for a commodity named education or training. For them, “economic thinking” would enter a sphere where it has no business being – the sphere of university education. Education cannot be given a price and has nothing to do with “economic uses.” In addition, a high price for education would constitute another hurdle which must be overcome before “working class and minority students” can study.
This criticism of tuition fees is annoying: on the one hand, it is unclear what the protesters actually have to complain about in the commodity character of goods and services if they find fault with it in education. Do they want to say that the exchange of commodities for money is okay if it takes place where it belongs, in the economy? Do they want to endorse the opinion that money plays a useful role for supplying people with goods? One learns, namely in school, that exchange without money would be incredibly complicated; that money fulfills an “allocation function” and, as the universal means of exchange, allows access to the whole diverse world of commodities. So it says in the social studies books which prepare kids for the rules of life: a private lack of money only happens when daddy has not saved enough.
On the other hand, however, do the students infer from the increase of tuition fees what...
...Shouldall public transport be free and paid for by the state? |
[Edit]Background and Context of Debate:Some governments have considered paying for public transport out of taxpayers' money, making it free. This would take cars, along with congestion, off our roads, and help the environment, so many people think it's a great idea and everyone would be able to see its advantage. However, like nearly all policies, it does have its cons. This debate article explores that.In Belgium the government made public transport free, and it was a huge success. Lots of money was saved by all parties; the transport companies, the government and particularly the customers. They saved on everything, even printing tickets. It is still free. |
EditWould free public transport help the environment? |
[Edit]ProFree pubilc transport would reduce the number of cars on the road. Global warming is a serious issue and if public transport was free, more people would use it, taking cars off the road. 1 train could take 2000 cars off the road. A public transport system with 20 trains could take 40,000 cars off the road. Some people would simply choose to not own cars, further reducing the number of cars on the road. Across dozens of cities in a nation and thousands world-wide, the result of free public transport would be...
...sources such as rise in tax and ultimately rise in everything possible. And to add, providing it for free means bad quality of education because everyone can afford to have it. Teachers will be less inspired to teach since what they do is something the children hardly value, because they got it for free. Schools also will be of less quality since everyone has access to it. In short, good things come with a price.
I would suggest that highereducation must be free for every one. One major reason behind that most of the students are unable to pay their tution fees. While I can understand Government needs to spend a lot of money for that there is certainly a positive outcome by spending money in this sector. When a student finish his study, he can play a vital role in making a strong economy for his nation. Different nations have their own methods to contribute
in higer study. For example, we can consider the example of Canada. In Canada, students can borrow money from Government for their higher study. Although they have to return a portion of that money when they are in job, they don't need to worry about the tution fees and other expenses during their study. I do think other Governments should follow Canada or take a
positive stand on this issue to make higher educationfree for their future citizens.
As another post had stated earlier in the discussion,...
...Should University Education Be Free of Charge?
Education is a way to understand the real world better and whether this educationshould be provided to university students freely or not is one of the most debated topics over the last decades. It is a topical issue, which is discussed all over the world. Nowadays, people need education in order to survive in this fast-growing civilization. Everyone understands the value of education and on that account the competition to get into the most approved universities is very fierce. University educationshould not be free of charge, but these fees should not be as astronomically high as they are in so many countries. The situation is different in America, in Great Britain and Slovakia and it can be effective to compare these 3 distinct countries.
There are many universities in the world, both state and private ones, which offer a variety of study fields. Let us imagine that all of these universities were free of charge. This way everyone would apply for them and after successfully finishing their studies, they would start to seek for a job. The source of the problem would be that there would be too many graduates to begin with. There would be a lot of teachers, architects, lawyers etc., who would not find a place to work....
...There is no such thing as 'freeeducation fully financed by the government'. A zero-tuition college education simply means that instead of the students bearing the cost of attaining their degrees the taxpayers bear it. Students and parents misperceive the price of education, considering it to be free, even though it comes out of their pockets in taxes.
And why should low-income taxpayers finance theeducation of wealthier students? Proponents of state-financed education argue that absence of government help would put higher education out of reach of poor students. But I tend to disagree in that there are no 'poor college students'. College-caliber students possess great wealth in the form of human capital. Anyone headed for college has enormous wealth in the form of intellectual capital and will receive earnings from his/her college education. So, the benefits of a college education are essentially reaped by the individual acquiring higher education. The future earnings of the individual typically constitute an adequate return on the gross investment in abtaining higher education. Moreover, providing free college education to all is a rather inefficient way to serve the interests of poor students since a large proportion of students who acquire higher...
...education is damaging to both society and the individual. Free tertiary education is both desirable and affordable. It would result in a much better society.
Getting a university, polytechnic or apprenticeship qualification means that society, as a whole, is more educated. We all benefit. Everyone benefits from having plumbers who understand the entire pipe system thingy, scientists who understand the problem and can effectively deal with it (whether it is bio-security, nuclear reactions, or finding a cure for AIDS), accountants who can book-keep properly or teachers who can actually teach your children. This is beneficial for everyone. No one benefits from poorly done jobs, it is annoying and costly. Having a highly trained workforce means that no one needs to worry about quality, we become more efficient as a whole.
By giving free tertiary education, the government would provide a level playing field for everyone. Many would argue that the loan scheme achieves this. It does not. People from poorer backgrounds are less likely to burden themselves with debt as, relative to what they have lived their lives of, it is higher. They are frightened away from taking on too much debt (comparative to their parent’s income). They thus do not get a tertiary education. The student loan scheme works to keep poorer people out of university, not to get them into it.