The U.S. should make collegiate education free

TheProphett states: 'The contender also takes a shot at my “credibility” in his rebuttals.'TheProphett continues: ' Right now, most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development (sources from previous arguments) in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education.'I decided to investigate these 'previous sources' regarding this assertion, as the stated conclusion above was, in direct contradiction with the findings of my own source links.TheProphett, provided two sources and I checked them both for the above assertion. In the first, the Berkeley Blog, all that I could find was this interesting sentence.'We need more public investment in higher education, but free public college tuition for all is not the best use for such funding.'(Why Pro would use this is to push 'the opposite' is a matter for him to consider.)We are then left with the second source provided by TheProphett, (TheThirdWay.org) to substantiate his declaration regarding research and development spending. On examination of the source link I found that the word research was used within it (30 times in total, three of which had contextual relevance to the point in question)(i) I found this generalization'Federal policy seems almost intended to shield colleges at the expense of students and their families by blocking access to critical performance data, not doing enough to hold colleges responsible, prioritizing research but doing next to nothing on instruction, and defraying without holding down rising college costs.'(ii) I found this generalization'Enmeshed in these dismal outcomes is the federal government, which, as one of the principal payers of college tuition, could have immense and unique leverage over post secondary education. It controls access to valuable data and oversees the accreditation process, funds significant university research, and administers a massive loan and grant infrastructure. In fact, the federal government spends around $126 billion per year on undergraduate student aid, contributing 69% of total state, local, federal, and private aid. But Washington has neglected to use that leverage.'(iii)This, on the other hand, is positively shameful. Please read it with care!'If one took its cues entirely on the federal government, the conclusion would be that colleges exist to conduct research and publish papers with student instruction as an afterthought. For every $100 the federal government spends on university-led research, it spends twenty-four cents on teaching innovations at universities. While the federal government awards $33 billion a year incentivizing quality research, it spends just $79 million a year in a way that incentivizes quality teaching—a ratio larger than 400 to 1.'This is one of those articles that reads like a tabloid newspaper. You know the type, where you get the sensationalist heading repeated continuously within the text and then the article is posthumously back filled with word cladding. What is 'teaching innovations'? What is 'ways that incentivize quality teaching'? They have the audacity to suggest a ratio. This is TheProphett's source for his statement regarding spending on research. He too has the brashness to tell us to check this out. Nowhere is ''most of federal funding in education in the U.S. is focused on research and development in collegiate institutions, instead of providing government aid to instruction and quality of education.'All reputable sources state the opposite. Here are the actual statistics of thisIn 2013 the federal government spent nearly $76 billion on higher education, while states spent about $3 billion less, according to the "Federal and State Funding of Higher Education" study. Federal support include nearly $25 billion in research funding obligations, which are paid over a series of years depending on the length of a research project.https://www.insidehighered.com...In truth, it has been difficult to engage with Pro on this subject. I have had to spend too much time monitoring his Tea-Party Antics. His case would have been better served by offering a 'shoot from the hip' student-eye view of the populist notion of 'no fees'. I thank Pro for inadvertently directing my attention to the political outlook of John Adams, the second president of the U.S. This man was an enigmatic person, to all his contemporaries but upon reflection I consider him to have been a political genius with a strong moral pragmatism. He was at loggerheads with most people and the overall impression given is that of a public servant filled with honesty and integrity. I doubt if we would condone his name being used to promote the Pro argument here, especially in the deceitful matter highlighted above."kritiks" are debating boomerangs and when you introduce Tea-Party Sponsorship and an American President to the mix you had better be aware of the danger of these things backfiring on yourself. Here is our friend, John Adams again.Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John AdamsBetter still would be to adhere to your own exactitudes, ie Rule 8 No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks)In ConclusionThe dynamics of a good Educational system are complex and interrelated. They throw up statistical information regarding their efficacy. I have provided source references for this material. There is no impetus or urgency for the introduction of a 'free College Education Model' to be extracted from these statistical trends. It is a non starter for government for the reasons highlighted in my first submission and it is promoted only by the truly mischievous to gain popularity or by those wishing to hone their debating repertoire. I thank all who have read the literature of this exchange and I hope that it has been both beneficial and informative. My regards go to my opponent in all this, ie TheProphett.zeromeansnothing