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.
184 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 39 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 18 arguments, SMNR posted 1 argument, Hkmxfiq posted 1 argument, tniromin posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, RandomGuy posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
rainingdown, redranger34, krojnar, troythegreat, AlissiaMathew, SanjayKumar, Liam_mc_Sherry, freakofnaturespitbucket, historybuff, Ayushkoul, jmch, benshapirofan, wordsmith, vastworld, Mj_Bossdude, Hey, Nemiroff, Premjeet, Minimalist, SMNR, RandomGuy, heyitsben, ZhiZho, happy, Sk, tniromin, castor, lalala, Preston, umer, I_know, Charlie, chrissurvivor, Gray_son, Alfredogutierrez, Leftist_Tears, lukeluckynuke123, bigbuttgal, lolopopo and 145 visitors agree.
tania11, kacho, aysell, MADHURA and 35 visitors disagree.
Yeah, people have the rights to get there education. And it's there choice if they want to learn or not.
But people shouldn't by there way through Graduation. Otherwise what did you learn? Kinda lame to have teachers teach then someone will say. "Yeah I will just by my way through."
free education doesnt mean theres no criteria on performance.
if you don't want to continue your education, you don't have to.
if your grades suck, you can pay for your continued education yourself, although I believe in opportunities to prove you've changed like tests or papers.
but if you showed the aptitude and the desire (and you sign a contract not to take your skills elsewhere for x years), it will only be a benefit to our society.
Except a lot of parts of the U.S. Graduation rates are bad. Education is a good thing. Unless People don't care for it.
are you saying I'm trying to take private property and privatize it?
as I thought, you ran with my idea and imagined some sort of extreme scenario, although you went even farther then that and went full commie!
not only do I not want to take over the public colleges, I dont want to pay for those bloated Bill's either. especially with many community colleges charging under 3000 dollar tuition. I want to built more of those! and steadily, not overnight or all in one year. as fast as possible, but not by spending money we cant raise.
there is always logical middle ground between 2 counterproductive extremes.
Those are my more logistical issues, but I would also say that many upper schools are businesses and if we give them over to the government (as I assume that's where most of the funding would go), then I feel like they would become subject to many of the same issues as high schools
college is not like high school. it's not random general knowledge. it actually prepares you for a job.
it is no different then your technical school, only for more valued work. what do you think having more high value workers will do for our society? I think it will be mostly positive.
your main concerns were
cost, and scope ("every class will free")
cost: what kind of number are you exactly imagining here? and how soon do we need to spend it?
scope: what exactly do you think in suggesting on funding, and under what criteria? I said this already, but i think there might have been some confusion.
you brought up your non inventive and seemingly demotivated friends, I was just responding to that sentiment, although not about your friends but poor in general.
this has everything to do with education as education is how you get out of being poor. if you know your chances of going to college are slim, why bother with high school? there is no future to plan for. their only hope is a path of massive struggle putting in more work for less gain.
Why plan for the future? So you know what tomorrow will bring because you planned it.
But, I'm not sure what the conversation that we have digressed to still has to do with free or funded upper level education
I dont know the context of your friends, but regarding many people who choose to abandon work. I guess you believe people are majority lazy or unmotivated internally, but I disagree. it is idleness that drives people insane.
what I see there is surrender. they were dealt a bad hand from the start, the climb is too great. many choose not to start.
have you heard of the marshmellow experiment where kids were told to not eat a marshmellow with the promise of 2 if they are patient? a follow up test tried lying to the kids, they waited but did not get the second marshmellow. they rarely waited again.
if you're in a situation where you arent sure what tomorrow brings, why plan for the future? grab what you can today. yolo. this isnt a bad choice, it's a good reaction to a bad situation. a situation they were born into, not one they earned.
but capitalism is not, by any means, designed to create a merit based system. its 1 and only purpose is to maximize profit for its successful players. it was embraced because it happened to increase the merit basis of our system, but it was an increase from essentially 0. it is by no means perfect. I dont have a whole alternative, but I have plenty of small tweaks.
1. regulated capitalism.
I like capitalism. it is great, as long as we use it properly and dont just worship the ideal as if capitalism was our creator. do you think any human creation or concept is perfect and shouldnt be subject to occasional improvements? do you disagree with any of the points I made?
2. the company frequently pay for training of specific employees for specific classes, often with contracts to ensure their benefit. Even if a company has an incentive to work in an environment full of educated workers, it doesnt have an incentive to alone pay for it when none of the competitors is doing it. this is a fallacy.
my best example involves the min wage. if all companies pay their workers more, way more people will see an increase and the companies will see more business = profit. but if 1 company does it, he increases his costs, but 99% of his customers dont have any more spending power then before. hes at a loss. it's called unilateral disarmament and it would be a stupid move. a frequent right wing fallacy used against min wage, democratic money raising, I'm sure more but this is just off the top of my head.
and if educating workers is a worthwhile effort for companies, why not copy.
also I never said pay for any classes. I gave a lengthy criteria statement and it's a work in progress.
1) What is a better economic form than capitalism?
2) I thought that them going to college would help the companies? Then, the companies might help
part 1 continued tho
capitalism is certainly an improvement on previous systems that had no mobility, like feudalism, but it is far from the ideal or even an efficient system for merit promotion.
social mobility is always a possibility, but whether it's a practical possibility or a theoretical possibility depends on the math. it is theoretically possible for my atoms to align with the atoms of a wall according to quantum mechanics and I could walk through it.... but practically that's not happening, and as far as reality goes, it may as well be impossible.
let's make up some hypothetical numbers
let's say earnings are 5 and costs are 5. and lets say moving up is very doable.
but if earnings stay at 5 and costs double to 10, it might get difficult. if they go to 20, 30, 50, etc, eventually this "opportunity" is nothing but a sham... depending on the math. I dont think your giving the math any consideration. opportunity is practically nonexistent. just a slogan.
capitalism is designed for only 1 purpose, maximizing profit, nothing else.
if there is a way to increase merit based success, but the companies that would enact it wont make a profit do you think they will do it? even if they dont lose money, they lose time and effort with no gain.
if there is a way to make profit, but the result will be less merit based success do you think the companies will do it?
the only factor being considered in capitalism is monetary gain vs monetary cost. all other things are side effects.
part 2 coming later
I think that our society, for the most part, is based on merit. That's what capitalism is designed to do. A lot of people simply go different directions, which I feel that they would probably go anyways because that's what they wanna do. For exactly, I'm a head instructor of a martial art and I'm going to college for philosophy. Near none of my friends are gonna be anything, like, inventive or anything. I don't think a lot of people wanna be, for example, an engineer and free college, if it's free (based on your merit system) for all courses wouldn't help guide to that.
I looked up skill center schools but couldnt find any relevant data. I found examples of high school skill centers, college skill centers, local government funded adult skill centers... all first hand info from the centers themselves more to do with prices and addresses rather success/fail info. can you provide any info because I couldnt find much, and what i found was all over the place, only a minority having to do with high schools.
but either way, you are blocking many people from pursuing the jobs our economy needs not based on merit but based on their birth. we don't need more mechanics, (maybe some) what we badly need are more engineers (just an example).
what you are promoting (aka the current system) is that some people must work their butts off for the opportunity to work their butts off. that's a double whammy based solely on birth, not merit. I want this society to run directly on merit, with no birth factors dictating your future.
The world can't thrive on entrepreneurs, alone. But, free schooling would only be for public schools, anyways; private schools would still be private schools
it truly should be free because it will create equal and standardized schools as both rich and the poor will have to attend the same school so the rich will be forced to develop the existing schools but chances are that rich would eventually start new private schools.Not even that we need to create more entrepreneurs
Thanks, and Moo Yea-Do is my art.
For the vocational high schools, I would encourage you to look up Skills Center schools, which have been wildly successful when applied.
Yes it should. I don't see a down side. To the people who disagreed, elaborate for me.
I quoted 1 suggestion of how to pay for it, by taxing wall street trades. the thing is that there are many ways to fund something and finding which one or which combo is kinda above our pay grade, requiring information beyond our reach.
we could sell bonds or us treasuries, we could reverse the tax cuts which helped the only people who werent struggling, we could do more targeted taxes like gas tax, coal tax, marijuana tax, capital gains tax, etc.
what we could discuss is a guesstimate of how much it costs (and compare to existing programs), and how much benefit we can get. and once again, you are avoiding the immense benefit this will bring our society. the returns are very worth the investment imo.
I'm not suggesting free college for all, it would be merit based. a flunkie will get a shot a vocational training, a good student will get an associates/bachelors funded, and a hard working genius I would fund to a PhD. all with the condition they work within the country a certain number of years depending on how much we invest in them. making sure our economy and society reaps the benefits, or they get a bill+interest.
there are those who make money off pro gaming... I wouldnt use public funds for it, nor put it in most colleges. but very interesting, which martial art?
I absolutely want to reform our primary education, but not to change, but rather beef it up. many community colleges assume freshmen will require remedial courses.
I don't think vocational courses would work as part of a mandatory curriculum. how would you house so many specialties in a high school? I know this isnt what you said, but the only way to make that reality is to cut the currently inadequate mandatory education early to offer vocational training. I believe vocational training should be an option, but we should promote higher aspirations for our children. we dont need mechanics, we need engineers.
Well, considering my occupation now is a martial arts teacher, haha.
And, as I have said multiple times, we DEFINITELY need a reform on primary and secondary school education to make it more practical. Maybe 11th and 12th grade giving students specialized classes similar to vocational schools. Like, I went to Skill Center, which is like a high school level vocational school. However, this does not mean that we should make upper level education free.
And, once again, you have avoided the question of where the funds are gonna come from?
please try reading my post again. you seem to have completely mixed up what I said.
maybe also see what I was replying to for context.
How can u ensure that education brings nothing to our life? Education doesnt only limited to high school only and if u are so confident that not everybody should have access towards education, what is ur stance anyway. In your argument i still dont understand what are u currently fighting for.
I believe that the statement above is absolutely true without any doubt because education is one of the basic human right as of on 21st century we're currently living in.
As has been declared by the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, education is one of the human rights. Education shall be free. Why? Because education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world as has been quoted by Nelson Mandela. We can't predict how much advancement can we bring to our civilisation if everyone was educated? But can we imagine living in a world where Einstein, Edison, Curie or Newton were not educated? We might be centuries behind what we had achieved nowadays. Think back about the people who are not educated in today's world or in the future. They could be the future Einstein, they could be the future Newton and suffice to say, they could be the world changers. I think that was more than enough reason on why education shall be free to everyone.
Yeah duh lol Perhaps maybe not FREE but rather at least, extremely affordable just like many other public schools. It is far too expensive, you can buy a house with some student loans.
Bottom point; Smarter people, smarter nations.
mma was a bad analogy. may as well make it playing video game classes. not the same thing.
what exactly does a high school education prepare you for? job wise?
it teaches you how to be a person and the basic knowledge of what things are and how they got here. what can you do for a living?
full response later. but the maga is not used as a noun here, but as literal short hand for "make America great again" (I dont believe we werent great so MAG would be more accurate)
in other words what I said was "this is about their opportunity to help make America great again".... nothing about trump, right wing, or any political movement. just a phrase.
I don't believe that current high school curriculum is sufficient and I believe I stated that earlier. But, the reason public high school should be free is because it does (or should) teach the basics; basic, practical skills (that, unfortunately, high school often does not teach). College and vocational school, however, are for specific skills that are passed the basics. That's why they should be paid for. Just like, for instance, I had to pay for MMA classes because it was a specialized skill.
And, I still haven't heard an answer as to where all the money is gonna come from?
Also, I don't know if you're implying that I'm a MAGA, but I'm not?...
"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?