The debate "All education should be free so no matter where you live or who you are we all get a good education" was started by
March 9, 2019, 12:34 pm.
81 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
rainingdown, redranger34, krojnar, troythegreat, AlissiaMathew, SanjayKumar, Liam_mc_Sherry, InfinityMachine, SMNR, freakofnaturespitbucket, historybuff, Ayushkoul, jmch, benshapirofan, wordsmith, vastworld, Mj_Bossdude, Hey, Gray_son and 62 visitors agree.
tania11, kacho, aysell, Nemiroff and 16 visitors disagree.
"There is no reason why upper level education, such as college and vocational schools, shouldn't be something consumers pay for."
is there a reason why high school shouldn't be something consumers pay for? I can guarantee that same reason can be applied to college. so again I ask you, why is this the sweet spot? why is it good got high school to be paid for publically and nothing higher? because I believe I listed some very good reasons why college should be something available to those who qualify. why should finance limit a persons ability to contribute to society to the most of their ability! this isnt about luxuries like a playstation, this is about their opportunity to help MAGA!
you never explicitly said you are against it, but if you think free education should just be the basics, then depending on your definition of basic, you most likely are against expanding education.
the basics are not realistically helpful. knowing algebra or history is useless on its own. its college when the basics come together into something realistically helpful. where you take your algebra knowledge to specialize in architecture or physics or statistics. or when your history knowledge refines into law, psychology, etc.
so your request for what is basic and useful may be an oxymoron.
I most certainly would love to audit the federal government in an open manner to find unnecessary waste... however that is a seperate debate. Bernie sanders suggested adding a tax on wall street traders per share. either way this is a must have investment if you want America to remain dominant.
I NEVER said I was against expanding education. What I'm saying is that free education should be the basics and what is realistically helpful, which is why we should edit the high schooling curriculum we use. There is no reason why upper level education, such as college and vocational schools, shouldn't be something consumers pay for.
And, again I ask where all this funding is going to come from? You can say "taxes," but those taxes have to come from somewhere, so are we adding more taxes or taking money from somewhere else?
"very good credit or a co-signer needed ? that make them difficult. The interest rates usually are higher than those on federal loans"
your anecdotal experience didnt differentiate between federal and free market loans. as I said, it is impossible for free market loans to be available for everyone. not logically impossible, but realistically impossible.
and why are we burdening the poor with extra debt when there is great benefit for the nation and our society to do this? if you believe it is wrong to expand education wouldnt it be logical to reduce public education? why is high school a logical stopping point? why not 8th grade, or right after basic arithmetic in 5/4th grade?
low wage work is oversaturated while skilled labor is in demand. wouldn't guaranteeing people the opportunity to earn those skills be better then importing workers like engineers from other countries? and by opportunity I mean to pass and ace the material, not a possible but unreasonable opportunity to afford that opportunity.
if you want to maga, that is the way.
I have never known a person who has been denied a student loan in some order and I do not live in a great community. So, based on my experience, they're basically handing out student loans. Not all loans, obviously, but student loans.
in what reality would free market loans be available to all? why would anyone loan money to poor people who likely wont be able to pay them back?
unless your talking about government loans with taxpayer money or the ability to afford government sponsored community or city colleges...
Can you give statistics where student loans are commonly withheld because I can't find any? And, very rarely is schooling impossible. I go to four schools and have a full-time job
loans are not available for everyone especially those who most need the education. at what point does inconvenient become impossible?
and I mean impossible for an average hardworker, not the exceptional exception (a ridiculous standard that we only apply to "others")
Also, even if scholarships are not universally available, student loans pretty much are. Also, the opportunity for higher education is most definitely always there; even though it may not be convenient
Where would you pull that new funding from?
Funding would come from taxes. Why does that flummox so many people? The idea that a government should provide services to their people is not unusual. Funding school through high school was at one point entire on the parents. it was a radical idea to use public funding for that. But it benefited everyone. I can't understand why extending that to the rest of their education is controversial.
Okay, where would you say that this education funding will come from? And, would it be better to fund all college or to improve high school and make it more practical, because I believe the former would be easier and more realistic
honestly, even up to high school only teaches you fundamentals. the building blocks to do something. educates really does feel like a chore.
once you hit college, even 101s start putting things together and landing you an in demand specialty.
the opportunity is not there for many and scholarships are limited. the few opportunities that do exist are community colleges which are already heavily subsidized by the state.
scholarships are limited. their purpose is to lure good students to their schools. self benefit. this has a different purpose, to elevate our entire society much like when school was first mandated. school wasnt always 12 grades. it was expanded as the times became more complex. is it not time for another expantion? the purpose of this is societal benefit, not the benefit of a single college.
times are changing, repetitive labor is being automated. even many thinking jobs are being automated. we need to grow in order to continue to compete. associates at a minimum should be default offering. only +2 yrs. huge boost to society and paycheck.
The opportunity is offered. And, I would say that scholarships is funding for higher education.
by mandate, I mean mandated to be provided. the person can refuse, or as I said, opt for a trade school option. but the opportunity for the higher education should be mandatory.
up to bachelor's or at least associates should be mandated. perhaps with an opt out for trade school if an individual wants it.
if a person shows sufficient aptitude, I'd fund them all the way to a PhD, assuming they sign a contract to stay and work in the country a certain amount of years depending on the cost if they use public funds.
Do you mean only primary and secondary school or also university and vocational school?