Not having free tertiary education is damaging to both society and the individual.
Report this Argument Con Pro begins by affirming that everyone has the right to "free" education, noting that teachers wouldn't pursue a teaching career if it were forced. My point was that claiming a "right" exists means that one is inherently entitled to something.
Yet if someone was not willing to teach you, an entitlement to education means they should be forced to teach you. That's why a right to education doesn't exist. A right is something that one has pertinent to their own self -- that which does not require others to provide something to or for them.
Like I said, everyone has the right to pursue an education. But they do not have the right for it to be provided. Nonetheless, appealing to the authority of the agencies saying this right exists is irrelevant. For this debate is about the right to post-secondary education college to be provided "free" of charge, which is not mentioned in the sources that pro cited.
And by the way, you'll notice that Pro hasn't contested my point that college is not really free. There are unavoidable expenses. My opponent claims that since people don't get to choose where their tax dollars go, it's perfectly fine to put people's taxes toward "free" college.
Yet that is immoral and unjust. Pro notes that by saving money on tuition, students could put that money toward other things.
First, practically NO college student pays for their own college. Either their parents pay, the government pays, or they take out loans. Thus even without the burden of tuition, this would only give parents more money to spend.
However, these parents would also be paying more money in taxes -- so this is not really a net benefit. Consider presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who wanted to provide "free" healthcare and college. By his own admission, taxes would go up for nearly everyone in order to pay for this .
He compared this to European models where they have "free" college, yet to pay for this, they have significantly higher tax margins .
Pro writes, "No company would choose someone in any Financial, IT, Medical or Engineering field if they only have work experience. The history of banking and finance goes back to the early stage of the human civilization .
Likewise, the history of medicine goes back to the very first human civilizations when colleges didn't even exist .Study or train fees-free If you’re planning to start tertiary study or training for the first time you may be eligible for fees-free support.
If you’re a New Zealander or are ordinarily resident in New Zealand and were at school in , or (other than as an adult student), you may qualify for the equivalent of one years’ fees.
Should we follow the German way of free higher education? should higher education be free? 30% of their population has a tertiary qualification, compared to 32% for all countries analysed.
Higher Education should be free. People have more opportunities for job and employment if they are educated meaning they have access to material conditions which they need for better life such as health care and some necessary services which give protection and safety.
In our society, free tertiary education is an inappropriate goal that fails to address the socioeconomic barriers of entry to tertiary education and, if achieved, would divert public funding away from services and institutions that benefit the whole of society towards an exclusive minority.
Oct 05, · Higher education, also known as tertiary education in some countries, refers to all post-secondary education, including both public and private universities, colleges, technical training institutes, and vocational schools.
Education has long been seen as a principal source of economic mobility. But for years now public education, and especially public higher education, has been under attack.