Sponsored Ad: (Join for no ads)
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 053 College and university education should be free for all

  1. #1
    Ankylosaurus Forum Admin Erin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,185
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    55


    Good post? Yes | No
    Sponsored Ad: (Join for no ads)
    53. "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."
    ☼ Waiting for Godot

  2. #2
    Cudntthinkabettertitle anmolsethy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    India
    Posts
    270
    Rep Power
    12


    Good post? Yes | No
    Originally posted by Erin Billy

    53. "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."
    Finally found a esaay for which i am the first one to reply


    Financing of the college and university education has been a issue of hot debate for quite sometime. People on both side of the issue have put arguments and counter-arguments. Lets take both sides of the issue one by one.

    A free for all education would give all the students a equal chance to pursue higher studies , independent of their economic background and enabling merit to become the sole criteria.The problem with fully self-financed education is that it makes education a object lying in a shop for buying. Only, those people who have the money can study further then school and as a result merit takes a back seat.

    One shortcoming of free education might be that it puts a lot of burden on govt.(government) resources. But this can be easily countered by increasing the taxes. This will prove to be better for both the govt.and the citizens. For the govt., it will be able to generate more resources and for the citizens it will have numerous advantages.

    Some might not like to pay this extra tax. But they need to understand that its advantageous in many ways.Firstly,It wont put a sudden big burden on the family's economy as a relatively small amount of money
    would be deducted every month as compared to huge fees annually. Secondly,When there own children come to university they wont need to pay the fees.Thirdly, They will be helping in the nation building. After all it is the college and university students who form the next generation of politicians, researchers, economists etc.And more is their merit, better is the chance of netion's prospering.

    Another claim that sometimes is raised is that a free education cuffs that hands of universities to generate money for their self-maintenance and infrastructural development. But these funds can be generated through taking industrial projects and researches. Also this would force universities to make use of their Alumni. And, besides government would itself be providing with sufficient funds.

    And it's not just the factor of merit that gets more importance by free education. Free education also helps in reducing economic disparity in the society. Because it gives poor students a chance to get a better job then otherwise they would have got.

    Also, indirectly regional disparity would decrease. Per-capita-income of some states remains quite low that the national average. As a result, educational institutes there arent able to perform at par with institutes of richer states.This is because,They can't ask for huge fees. They just wont be able to get it. A example of this is the state of Bihar in India.It has the lowest per-capita-income in the nation and the institues here just dont have the money for infrastructural maintenance, paying the faculty. As a result ,brilliant students from this state have to go to cities like Delhi or Bombay(which are amongst the richest cities in the country) to get a good education.If all education become free, then these institutes of poor states will be somewhat able to come at par with the other institutes because of equal and increased amount of funding.

    Germany and Sweeden are amongst the best examples of free education. These countries are today on the forefront of research and development.A counter example to this might be picked up like US. BUt in case of US we need to realise that the government does provide some funding and 50% of its post-graduate population and 25% of the research population comes from the poorer Asian countries where the standard of higher education is not that good. As a result of which the best brains of these countries are forced to study and work in US.

    After considering all these various parameters I support the proponents claim that university and college education should indeed be funded by the government. This helps in building a more capable future generation for the nation and also assists in eliminating social and economic disparities in the population.


    I think the essay is needlessly verbose.

  3. #3
    Within my grasp!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    193
    Rep Power
    11


    Good post? Yes | No
    Originally posted by anmolsethy

    Originally posted by Erin Billy

    53. "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."
    Finally found a esaay for which i am the first one to reply


    I THINK THIS IS THE BEST OF YOURS I'VE READ -- ALL QUITE CLEAR, WELL EXPRESSED, GOOD EXAMPLES, FLOWS WELL. I DON'T THINK IT'S VERBOSE, BUT HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO WRITE? MY ONE SUGGESTION IS TO STATE YOUR POSITION UP FRONT -- FOR, AGAINST, A LITTLE OF BOTH. YOU DO A GOOD JOB OF COUNTERING THE OPPOSING VIEW -- I CAN LEARN FROM THAT.


    Financing of the college and university education has been a issue of hot debate for quite sometime. People on both side of the issue have put arguments and counter-arguments. Lets take both sides of the issue one by one.

    A free for all education would give all the students a equal chance to pursue higher studies , independent of their economic background and enabling merit to become the sole criteria.The problem with fully self-financed education is that it makes education a object lying in a shop for buying. Only, those people who have the money can study further then school and as a result merit takes a back seat.

    One shortcoming of free education might be that it puts a lot of burden on govt.(government) resources. But this can be easily countered by increasing the taxes. This will prove to be better for both the govt.and the citizens. For the govt., it will be able to generate more resources and for the citizens it will have numerous advantages.

    Some might not like to pay this extra tax. But they need to understand that its advantageous in many ways.Firstly,It wont put a sudden big burden on the family's economy as a relatively small amount of money
    would be deducted every month as compared to huge fees annually. Secondly,When there own children come to university they wont need to pay the fees.Thirdly, They will be helping in the nation building. After all it is the college and university students who form the next generation of politicians, researchers, economists etc.And more is their merit, better is the chance of netion's prospering.

    Another claim that sometimes is raised is that a free education cuffs that hands of universities to generate money for their self-maintenance and infrastructural development. But these funds can be generated through taking industrial projects and researches. Also this would force universities to make use of their Alumni. And, besides government would itself be providing with sufficient funds.

    And it's not just the factor of merit that gets more importance by free education. Free education also helps in reducing economic disparity in the society. Because it gives poor students a chance to get a better job then otherwise they would have got.

    Also, indirectly regional disparity would decrease. Per-capita-income of some states remains quite low that the national average. As a result, educational institutes there arent able to perform at par with institutes of richer states.This is because,They can't ask for huge fees. They just wont be able to get it. A example of this is the state of Bihar in India.It has the lowest per-capita-income in the nation and the institues here just dont have the money for infrastructural maintenance, paying the faculty. As a result ,brilliant students from this state have to go to cities like Delhi or Bombay(which are amongst the richest cities in the country) to get a good education.If all education become free, then these institutes of poor states will be somewhat able to come at par with the other institutes because of equal and increased amount of funding.

    Germany and Sweeden are amongst the best examples of free education. These countries are today on the forefront of research and development.A counter example to this might be picked up like US. BUt in case of US we need to realise that the government does provide some funding and 50% of its post-graduate population and 25% of the research population comes from the poorer Asian countries where the standard of higher education is not that good. As a result of which the best brains of these countries are forced to study and work in US.

    After considering all these various parameters I support the proponents claim that university and college education should indeed be funded by the government. This helps in building a more capable future generation for the nation and also assists in eliminating social and economic disparities in the population.


    I think the essay is needlessly verbose.

  4. #4
    Cudntthinkabettertitle anmolsethy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    India
    Posts
    270
    Rep Power
    12


    Good post? Yes | No
    Well PAM thanx.
    I hardly expected that anyone would like the essay.I cant belives that u werent able to find those nitty-picky stuffs.....there must be some.

    Whats the time there rt. now .........and i thing GRE has two more days to go ?


    Well i think people havent like my giving my stand later in the summary.I have 2 reasons for this,may be u can clear waya my doubts

    1. In the essay u r suppose to analyse and then come to a conclusion.
    If we write our stand the very first line,doesnt it in a weay mean that we have come to conclusion first and later we r trying to prove it ?

    2.Helps in keeping the openings and summaries different.Otherwise u r forced to make them the same.

  5. #5
    Within my grasp!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    193
    Rep Power
    11


    Good post? Yes | No
    Originally posted by anmolsethy

    Well PAM thanx.
    I hardly expected that anyone would like the essay.I cant belives that u werent able to find those nitty-picky stuffs.....there must be some.

    Whats the time there rt. now .........and i thing GRE has two more days to go ?

    I'm reading this at 1:00. Test is tommorrow. Lots of reviewing I need to do.


    Well i think people havent like my giving my stand later in the summary.I have 2 reasons for this,may be u can clear waya my doubts

    1. In the essay u r suppose to analyse and then come to a conclusion.
    If we write our stand the very first line,doesnt it in a weay mean that we have come to conclusion first and later we r trying to prove it ?

    No you are supposed to already have come to a conclusion, which you state as the thesis of your paper at the first. Then you support your statement and address objections to it.

    2.Helps in keeping the openings and summaries different.Otherwise u r forced to make them the same.

    I notice in the examples they don't have these formulaic openings and summaries, but I think it appropriate to restate the thesis or give a short summary in the closing.

  6. #6
    Eager!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    11


    Good post? Yes | No
    Any comments are welcomed

    This everybody will agree that college and university education has become very important in today's life. Wherever you see an advertisement for job, there is some certain criteria for certain posts. For example for marketing executive employers prefer MBA Marketing person, for eye surgeons hospitals prefer oculist, engineers in different fields are required fro specific technologies. Without a college degree a person is unqualified for such posts. So what will happen if this college education is provided free to everybody? We need to consider advantages and disadvantages regarding this before drawing any conclusion.

    If the education is given free to all then admission will be given wholly on merit basis. Which will result in increase in level of competition. It will be certainly beneficial to everybody those who could get admissions. Brilliant students will build a strong nation. May be new invention will take place. New technologies will emerge if everybody has best level of intellectual. So it will be helpful for the growth of nation. Everybody will get an equal opportunity. Education will no more be monopoly of rich people. Those who are really capable but were incapable of paying fees will get education. Probably after getting a good degree if they get good jobs their monetary level will increase. This will result in reducing the monetary discrepancy within the society.

    What about those who would not get admission? May be some students will be having great caliber but they would not get admission just because of failing to reach up to the mark. Those students may get frustrated. Being brilliant they will need to attend courses in which they do not have interest or they do not want to learn. Such students may get addicted of drugs or drinks. There are few universities who have canceled the grades for first year bachelor’s student. The reason is all brilliant students when compete with each other everybody cannot get A or A+. But these students earlier were first or second in their classes cannot bare the low grades and they get baffled. Similarly the students who will not get admission may get frustration.

    The most important point we cannot neglect that "is government capable of supporting monetarily all the education free of charge?" If government has to do that then it will increase the taxes. Paying more taxes will obviously be a great burden on everybody. Many of the families will not have any kids studying in colleges still they will need to pay more taxes. Ultimately more taxes mean it will be an indirect burden on society. In such cases the families who has more kids will get benefit. But families having one kid will feel like they are unnecessary paying extra taxes. It will be a chaotic situation.

    This issue has both positive and negative sides as we saw above. The best thing will be to make the education free for those who are economically backward, are really incapable of paying fees for education but they have caliber. But education should not be made free to people who are rich and are capable paying fees for their kids. This will really help to reduce the economical differences in society as poor will be able to get good jobs after getting free education.

  7. #7
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    11


    Good post? Yes | No
    This is the first time posting. Harsh comments please.

    "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."


    In some countries as Germany and France, the goverments fully finance college and university education though there are some exceptions. When we observe the educational circumstance of these countries, it seems that the policy works well. However, for many countries, it is financially difficult for goverments to fully finance college and university education. Moreover, the financing by the government may cause many problems.

    If the government of a country take policy to fully finance the college education, the government has to limit the number of colleges and universities since their budget is not limitless. In case of developed countries as France and Germany, they are possible to finance many colleges and universities since they are one of the richest countries in the world. But for many developing countries, goverments can not finance as many universities as France and Germany do. Therefore, if goverments decide to take the policy, they have to limit the number of the institutions. The limited number of educational institution will produce many problems. Only a limited number of good students will be allowed to enter colleges and university. Many people, though not academically superior but arduous, will not be given opportunities for further education. As an inevitable consequence, a rigid hierachical system will be constructed according to the level of education. Opportunities for education must be openned to everybody.

    We can assume another consequence of the policy. If governments fully finance colleges and universities, educational institutions might be subjected to the government. This situation was evident in former USSR and other communist countries. Since universities were subjected to the government in these countries, they could make researches what were allowed by the government. The range of choice was limited. Scholars were not free to make researches what interested them. This situation unfairly limits the possibility of academic and educational progress. Though it is possible to avoid this situation by implementing some additional policies, it will be an unproductive choice for many governments to fully finance colleges and universities.

    In addition, as a result of the full assistance, competitiveness of colleges and universities may be lowered significantly. Regardless of their academic and educational performance, they will be financed after all. In this situation, their motivation for achieving good performance is expected to be low. Though fame and money can not be everything, fame and money motivate colleges and universities for better academic and educational performance. In order to secure the competitiveness of colleges and universities, government should not fully finance them.

    In sum, in order to give educational opportunities for many students, and ensure academic and educational development, government should not fully finance colleges and universities. The policy works in some countries as Fracne and Germany, but for many countries itĄ¯s not a suitable choice. However, though governments should not fully finance colleges and universities, it doesnĄ¯t necessarily mean that governments should not finance them at all. Governments must not neglect less privileged students who are unable to pay for their education. Scholarships and other kinds of financial assistence must be provided for those students.

  8. #8
    Within my grasp!
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    11


    Good post? Yes | No
    53. "College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."

    Should government fully finance all students going to college and university? As per my opinion, such type of financing would not be fair and impractical for the government. I think, the government should facilitate financing for poor and needful students rather than everyone. Also, free college and university education for all students will minimize its importance and necessity.

    Firstly, full financing for college and university students demands involvement of huge amount for the government. Moreover, there are several public institutes that rely entirely on government for monetary support. For example, the public health centers, adult education centers and the orphanages survive on the funding supplied by government. Therefore, free education to all college and university students will unnecessarily encumber the government financially.

    Secondly, most of the people would agree with my opinion that the importance of anything diminishes if it is given for free. So the same will happen if the government offers free college and university education to all students. It would hardly matter for a student, who is least interested in studies and his carrier, to remain in the same class for years because it is free. In advanced countries like USA, we will see that reputed universities and colleges demand for higher percentage as well as educational fees. Thus for recognizing importance of anything we have to pay for it.

    Lastly, it is not the case that the government has not provided any facilities for education. In most of the countries, students get free school education. As per my opinion it is a great facility given by the government. Because I think, free school education help student for getting a descent job and at the same time continue his further college education. Thus he can easily earn money for his college or university educational fees. Moreover, the government has provided promotions such as scholarship, assistantship for talented students. Also, people whose income is below poverty threshold are eligible for financial assistance and many other educational facilities by the government.


    In sum, the government has provided many financial facilities for the needed students for their college and university education. Thus, it is not necessary for the government to fully finance college and university education for all students, which would certainly overburden the government budget. Moreover, the education has its own value, which is inevitable for all students.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-30-2013, 06:41 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 11:40 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 05:39 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 04:56 PM
  5. Free public education
    By Aimhighest in forum GMAT Critical Reasoning
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 08:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.