53.3%
49
19.6%
18
22.8%
21
4.3%
4
92 votes
| Sure! That would benefit someone in my current position. I'm not paying taxes quite yet, so why not? |
  |
RiggeeRascal said: But are you down with paying for my son's education (hypothetically)?Sure! That would benefit someone in my current position. I'm not paying taxes quite yet, so why not? Assuming he's not watching Precure on your dime? |
 |
LostClause said: RiggeeRascal said: But are you down with paying for my son's education (hypothetically)?Sure! That would benefit someone in my current position. I'm not paying taxes quite yet, so why not? Assuming he's not watching Precure on your dime? Well hey, no shame in that. I can only assume that he's hard at work becoming a professional that will one day become a valuable asset to his community. When he's not spanking it to 2D heroines, of course. |
| |
| nah |
| I think they should focus on making schools not suck shit first. I sure as hell dont want free shit. |
| No, but those who don't have the means of paying should have the option to help around the university. If they consider education important enough, they wouldn't mind doing odd jobs for the university. This is one way of 'paying'. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| No. Tax payers shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for other people. The value of a degree will plummet since far more people will have one. The job market will be flooded, leading to more supply than there is demand. The quality of education will drop. |
| here in the first world we don't have to pay for knowledge, i even get money for studying... RyanEnsign said: No. Tax payers shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for other people. The value of a degree will plummet since far more people will have one. The job market will be flooded, leading to more supply than there is demand. The quality of education will drop. retarded argument tax payers always pay for other people. the system is called solidarity agreement higher educated people->more taxes->more taxes->more fun...and so on. also degrees won't become useless "becaue more people will have one". Many countries are in need of engineers, medics, phsicans...and for the other subjects (art, social,...) you can set up a high numerus clausus to regulate the student numbers |
 |
| Nope, scholarships are enough. |
| It's already free in Norway. I am almost done with my bachelor and with the scholarship that every student receives (yes, they "pay" you money to complete college) and my part-time job, I'll be graduating college while having gone positive financially. I'd rather graduate college having 30000$ hard cash sitting comfortably in my bank account, than finishing my degree with -30000$ not sitting anywhere cause I have to pay it off. |
 |
JD2411 said: no because it would lose its value Agreed, only rich people should be allowed to study, the filthy plebs can clean toilets imo. |
| well, it's good that there are countries that have high tuition fees (us, uk) as well ones that don't (northern europe, germany) so you are free to choose either. or maybe try undergrad for one and grad for the other and then compare. JD2411 said: no because it would lose its value No. education shouldn't be a product. if you want to increase the value of education, increase the difficulty, not the cost. entrance exams, interviews. and when you're there, unless you do well, they can kick you out. graduation exams and defending your thesis is also an opportunity where, unless you do well, you're out, no degree, 3 to 5 years of life wasted. |
fadesDec 11, 2015 5:31 AM
| Lol no. Some countries tried this and those that did failed, tax payers got pissed and the quality of the education itself dropped dramatically, I don't think it could ever work simply because of the price. |
 hiSets Last FM Anime List Manga List Clue no. 2: Somewhere in one of the pictures in my forum signature. |
katsucats said: Yes, University education should be free to the top students. If you dick around on the taxpayer's dollar, then you pay your own cash for the "college experience". For each 0.1 GPA you drop from 4.0, you pay $1000 tuition per semester. How's that sound? You only went to a community college, in which any moron can get a 4.0 GPA. What makes you think you'll get a 4.0 GPA in a proper university that's way more difficult? Your accomplishments don't mean anything. |
| In my country it's free! I'm always complaining but right now I think that I should be thankful! e__e |
 |
RemeM said: Not everyone deserves or should go to college and get a four year education. That's just not how society functions. Well, the way they made it work here is by making the classes punishingly hard and the system fucking unforgiving. Failing one subject means losing a lot of student’s rights such as loans and picking your own class schedule, additionally you're not being able to be part of any clubs, you have to take the subject you failed all over again and overall you have to put up with being discriminated by the system as a bloody moron. And if you fail 3 subjects in one semester you may as well kiss your degree goodbye, catching up to everyone else will take you about a year and a half and the system only allows about two additional semesters to complete the subject quota necessary to obtain the degree, otherwise you're out of the school and you can't submit your entry exam ever again. There are also quite the list of requirements to actually obtain the degree once you've filled the quota; you must be bilingual, you must have stable job (A real one, you can't work as a McDonalds cashier and call it a day), you must fulfill an entire year and a half of internship and you must fulfill 500 hours of additional course credits. Overall about 50 of 250 accepted students make it through and out of those only about 3 do so with a good grade. Education may be free but it still comes with a price. |
 |
RemeM said: Not everyone deserves or should go to college and get a four year education. That's just not how society functions. why do we view college as something you yourself have to earn? what separates it from, say, k-12? from other things we deem to have benefits to society? most importantly... they said free education. they didn't say "everybody gets into university and goes." why should money be the deciding factor in who "deserves" to go to college? |
Mayuka said: did you call holier than thou bitch right here last.fm |
| Yea. |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
RemeM said: Not everyone deserves or should go to college and get a four year education. That's just not how society functions. I'm happy that I don't live in your third world society. |
RemeM said: Eminem said: I live in the States. Even if I lived in Europe, the same principle would apply.I'm happy that I don't live in your third world society. truisms said: Because it is something you have to earn. Why do people not get accepted in bulk to Ivy league schools, Stanford, or even some of the more rigorous and academically prestigious UC colleges? It's because there is a particular set of standards (albeit not perfect, but they still exist) that people are asked of before they get the right to go to a certain school. There will always be schools for everybody (presumably in some way shape or form), but that does not take away from the fact that the idea of university in its purest form was never to be palatable to everyone.why do we view college as something you yourself have to earn? what separates it from, say, k-12? from other things we deem to have benefits to society? most importantly... they said free education. they didn't say "everybody gets into university and goes." why should money be the deciding factor in who "deserves" to go to college? Society in its current conception has zero need of a completely educated workforce, because all societies inherently need people who do the dirty work. Until someone automates the flipping of burgers at cheap fast food restaurants, taking out garbage, indoor plumbing, construction jobs, and logistics, there is no reason why society should placed full education at the top of its priorities. It is this truth, however sad or despondent it might seem, that is the reason why society continues to function. Any attempt at trying to maintain a fully educated workforce while simultaneously trying to account for all of the dirtiest, boring, and unfulfilling jobs would require a complete overhaul of how we think social compositions. this makes no sense. you're referring to academic standards that have nothing to do with the issue of cost. there are prestigious universities in countries where education is extremely reduced in cost. i don't believe that a society where all labor jobs are filled by people with no options only is sustainable as the divide between the people with few options and those with many grows.if mcdonalds exists only by filling itself with people who will never get out of poverty is it beneficial for our society to have a growing alienated underclass? historically it hasn't been |
Mayuka said: did you call holier than thou bitch right here last.fm |
| No |
 |
katsucats said: Um, newsflash, scholarships exist......Yes, University education should be free to the top students. If you dick around on the taxpayer's dollar, then you pay your own cash for the "college experience". For each 0.1 GPA you drop from 4.0, you pay $1000 tuition per semester. How's that sound? |
SnugglyWhuggly said: Just a topic that's been floating around my mind somewhat of late: Should university education be free? What do you ladies and gentlemen think? Why, or why not? Some points for, and against this: Points in favour: -Individuals arguably have a right to equal opportunity in order to maximize their personal utility, and to break free from the social strata/status in which they are born. -The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder, particularly for more financially disadvantaged individuals. -The state can benefit in terms of superior economic, cultural and leadership development from a university-educated populace. Points against: -The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education. -State control of acceptance/curriculum criteria can have negative effects. -The quality of education (arguably) suffers when university education is free. Converse. i say it depends. I think it should be free to those who test high and want to be doctors and other occupations that we need filled.It should not be free for occupations that are already filled to the brim with certain degree holders,obsolete occupations or something that there is a huge chance you won't get a job in due to the scarcity of that job. So we shouldn't be paying for people to go to college to get a business degree,cartographer or Nasa astronaut. Giving everybody a college degree unnecessarily floods the labor pool with college degree holders and makes everyone with a college worth less to the employer and anyone with just a highschool diploma worthless even for jobs that usually do not require a college degree. |
RemeM said: truisms said: Because academic standards matter, and the issue of cost is inherently present because by our market based system, the best universities almost certainly have some of the largest endowments with the exceptions of smaller liberal arts colleges (which are still relatively affluent to begin with). The difference between a K-12 education and college should be by and far the most obvious difference simply by the way education is structured, and while the costs of universities certainly have been distorted so that the cost and education received are not necessarily similar, that does not hide the fact that well funded colleges are one of the reasons universities are so prized. We already lose our brightest minds in education to Wall Street and SV. If suddenly the salary grade for a PHD teacher dropped significantly (as would likely happen in the event that university tuitions were free, as teacher's salaries are always slashed before anything else), what is stopping a professor in mathematics to simply just go to Jane Street and do quant trading for the rest of his or her life? this makes no sense. you're referring to academic standards that have nothing to do with the issue of cost. there are prestigious universities in countries where education is extremely reduced in cost. i don't believe that a society where all labor jobs are filled by people with no options only is sustainable as the divide between the people with few options and those with many grows.if mcdonalds exists only by filling itself with people who will never get out of poverty is it beneficial for our society to have a growing alienated underclass? historically it hasn't been Your second point is untrue, because there are plenty of people who work at low paying jobs while they are in college or shortly before and after college as they transition from jobs. Few people stay in the same jobs all their lives, but the point I am originally making is that no matter there will be people who have to take those jobs. Nobody wants to have a PHD in English Literature and then end up just taking shitty jobs at retailers while trying to come up with some postmodern post-colonial drivel that will get them some attention in some secondary and non-prestigious academic journal. It's simple supply and demand. There is no dramatic demand for university students to the point where all people on this planet should have access to it. That would only be true if the job market post-grad require a university degree, which is not true in all cases. Finally, I do not take part in any class based arguments, but once again, the idea of free university is an inebriating concept that is practically and financially insolvent. Unless someone puts together a real proposal that isn't something as ludicrously out of touch as taxing Wall Street speculation, then I will take a look. yes, the difference is obvious. why go all the way to 12 though? the majority of jobs still available with only a high school diploma do not require the level of thought classes in the 12th grade do... a huge percentage of low or poverty line jobs are staffed by adults not college students, so that's not really a point. yes they could be staffed but at smaller rates than before, assuming it's true that these jobs need to be filled that would certainly change the market. that the demand isn't there currently and i'm not going to argue either way since it will turn into a class argument. that doesn't support your previous point anyways? that just makes it easier to keep filling the mcdonalds jobs. i don't see the virtue of keeping college paid here. i'm not suggesting the end of private universities, just paid public ones, so whatever issue you have with funding shouldn't be an issue. ludicrously out of touch with what? i'm not going to evaluate that sentence without any justification. |
Mayuka said: did you call holier than thou bitch right here last.fm |
| the only right answer: Yes (your vote) |
 |
RemeM said: truisms said: Because academic standards matter, and the issue of cost is inherently present because by our market based systemthis makes no sense. you're referring to academic standards that have nothing to do with the issue of cost. there are prestigious universities in countries where education is extremely reduced in cost. I have a feeling that RemeM is talking only about the US which does have very business like college education system while truisms is talking more generally, looking at other countries that have very functioning societies and free/or extremely cheap college education. just look at Germany. |
| Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. Most people saying yes here don't have to pay taxes, or hell, they don't even have bills. Education is too expensive, but in no way should it "free". Even if you switch to a tax funded system. Pay taxes, then come back and tell me your answer. |
daveDec 11, 2015 2:48 PM
| Have a grip on the facts, people. The US federal and state governments already spend more than the cost of public college tuition for all students on higher education. Cut off the private colleges that leech off the system, and there you go. |
 |
RemeM said: Not everyone deserves or should go to college and get a four year education. That's just not how society functions. But why should money be the deciding factor? You're barring poor people from higher education. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
MihoWittmann said: Have a grip on the facts, people. The US federal and state governments already spend more than the cost of public college tuition for all students on higher education. Cut off the private colleges that leech off the system, and there you go. lol. it's not actually the tax money they care about it's the fact their money would be going to helping somebody else succeed |
Mayuka said: did you call holier than thou bitch right here last.fm |
| Yes |
 |
Duskfall said: Veronin said: If it means skyrocketting everyone's taxes, no. All student loans mean is that you have a little less disposable income when you start working. It's not the end of the world. If you don't want to have $40,000+ in debt for no reason, major in something that will guarantee you a decent job (i.e. not English or history). Why not English, you fool? Fk you! :) Hey, you're free to major in anything you want, but you shouldn't complain when after graduation you find out that being able to discuss the symbolism in Finnegans Wake is not a valuable skill to businesses. University exists to train people for the workplace and the only thing English really trains you for is being a professor. But maybe that's what you want to do - I don't know. |
 |
| I think the current system let some of the truly talented but financially troubled students go to university for free, though a pretty small number. |
| My Reviews and Rants: http://bunny1ov3r.wordpress.com/ 痛就是爱 |
RemeM said: English majors largely are more employed than people think they are, though they do not have the most stable of circumstances. That being said, nobody on the Street cares if you are an English major so long as you're from Yale, Princeton, or Harvard. I have had plenty of friends who are English majors who work stellar jobs, because most undergraduate degrees are not barriers to entry in trying to land a high paying job. Work experience, personal connections and alma mater are usually more important than what you major in, true. But it's hard to deny that a typical student graduating from a typical university with an English degree is going to have far less options than a business, math or economics graduate. I still hold to the belief that someone should make their major marketable and take the courses they're personally interested in as electives (which usually comprise almost half of a degree, anyway). |
|
Bernkastel said: Dunno how it works in the States, but over here data had proven that degrees like performing arts have negative value, i.e. they actually make you worse than if you never got them. Understandable. The only way you have any chance of making a career in fields like ballet/theatre dancing or concert performance (jazz or classical) is by starting out as a kid. In classical piano for example, most (as in say 99.999%) of them have already begun to perform in public either through various youth competitions (where you can gain experience for the more prestigious career making adult competitions) or through debuting, and that's only possible for the extremely gifted/genius performers. Fact is, the only ones who have a chance at succeeding have already been studying/training at higher learning institutions like universities and conservatories for over 10 years by the time they reach 21 years old. An average joe that decides to fully commit at the age of 18 or so has no chance of succeeding at all because these fields are just way too competitive. The only thing a BA is good for is 'proof of qualification' when you decide to pursue teaching because you realized you just aren't cut out for performing! And the sad reality is, teaching is usually not a secure source of income which is why a lot of these BA in performing arts suffer financially! I have no idea why so many people even go through the trouble of paying at least 20K a year for a BA in performing arts. It's a poor investment. Especially when you can get the same level of training from a small private institution at a much cheaper price. It's makes much more sense to major in something that can guarantee you a financially stable future, that way you'd be able to support your real passion/hobbies! People just need to be smart about college, especially when it's so expensive here in the states. Taking a 40 thousand dollar loan for a degree in theatre?! God some people are stupid. |
NudeBearDec 12, 2015 9:43 AM
Bernkastel said: NudeBear said: It's makes much more sense to major in something that can guarantee you financially stable future, that way you'd be able to support your real passion/hobbies! People just need to be smart about college, especially when it's so expensive here in the states. Taking a 40 thousand dollar loan for a degree in theatre?! God some people are stupid. Pretty much. Taking a 40k$ loan for a worthless degree when you don't have money is like a poor person taking out a loan to stack a room full of video games. If you don't have money the logical thing is do something to make money, not waste it on hobbies and ask the government to bail you out. It's exactly why i don't mind America's ridiculous tuition rates. 1. Through scholarships and federal benefits/financial aid, college is mostly affordable or completely free for those who work for it. 2. Even if you're a poor or mediocre student, you still have TONS of cheaper alternatives. In my home-city alone, there are over 20 institutions of higher learning with tuition ranging around 2k-4k a year, which is pretty cheap when you compare it to the national average. 3. If you're too poor for even that, you still have community colleges. Most of them are free or dirt cheap, so you can pretty much just transfer to a good school with financial aid after doing exceptionally well in community colleges. Getting an affordable, higher education is not as impossible as some people make it out to be. Some people (well, a lot of people) are honestly just not that good at allocating their resources properly. So um yeah OP... my answer is no. |
Bernkastel said: RemeM said: Can you please specify what "degrees like performing arts" means? Performing arts is basically stuff related to the theatre, and unless you're going to be acting in big screen movies or Broadway or find some niche where you get paid money, most of the people I know in performing arts struggle quite a bit, and most of that is basically because performing arts as a whole has lost much of its value over the last century. A large body of research had shown that some degrees are worse than baseline. In other words, your future employment prospect for many courses, such as performing arts (I actually don't know what these guys even do, I just read the papers) is lower than if you just went and did something after graduating highschool. Top degrees (medicine, dentistry, law) are worth close to a million dollars here. I just used performing arts as an example, but quite a large proportion of courses have expected returns lower than the cost of studying it. In extreme cases like performing arts, I remember a study for Australia students showed that you're better off not doing it even if it's completely free. Not only does this make some degrees a complete waste of money for you and taxpayers, in extreme cases, they even harm your personal future. How do they harm your personal future? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Dunno about other countries, but in UK the system is a bit shit to be honest. Should adapt a system where your results decide when ether you get free education or you gotta get a loan. Could even go as far as progressive i.e. if you had to take a loan due to your poor entrance results, you might get your last year free if you achieve 2.1 during your first two years. Oh, and if you enter uni with D an E and an E or without any grades a loan should be even more strict than the current one |
| The least we could do is cut the price so we don't have to pay for complete fuck ups but those who want to |
 |
Bernkastel said: TheBrainintheJar said: How do they harm your personal future? Multitude of reasons, overqualification, debt, wasted 3 years of time, etc. Research usually takes statistics from people who did the degree compared to another group that goes straight to work with similar background. The two groups are compared throughout their entire working lives, then they use formulas to work out how much that degree benefited the individual economically throughout this period. My personal opinion from looking at the data is that degrees can be split into 3 categories: 1. Good degrees (e.g. med, dent, law, STEM) - These degrees always benefit you financially for having them. 2. Degrees (almost everything else) - These open up opportunities that you need a degree for, but nothing really changes regardless of which degree you get from this category. 3. Bad degrees (most of the arts?) - These open up little to no opportunity and in some situations will even disadvantage you for picking them. I need something specific, like "this degree makes people less likely to hire you for general jobs" for example. One having more than the other doesn't prove they lead a better life. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
More topics from this board
» Anyone had a Drought Emergancy declared for their area?vasipi4946 - 45 minutes ago |
5 |
by TibetanJazz666
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» MAL Sakuga ClubaemnTheTroll - Apr 16 |
20 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Are you e-famous? Are you an Internet celebrity?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
33 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - 9 hours ago |
14 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - 5 hours ago |
17 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
13 minutes ago |