Not implementing a nationwide curriculum makes success less attainable.

Pro says that he has exploited my biggest flaws, when in reality he has done no such thing. First, Pro brings up my point that having a degree from a prestigious university is often times what helps people accomplish monetary success. He notes that prestigious universities often have certain admittance requirements, such as taking X amount of years of a foreign language. My opponent makes 2 drastic mistakes here. First, he completely ignored my argument that sometimes people cannot use a prestigious university to their advantage for other reasons (ie. they can't afford to attend the college, they get bad grades in college, or simply do not want to attend an Ivy League or would rather attend somewhere else). Right there it eliminates using the degree as a sole factor in determining success, so implementing a nationwide curriculum would be irrelevant. I will expand more on this point in a little bit. For now, I'd like to point out my opponent's second flaw and that is the fact that you do not need a nationwide curriculum, just nationwide REQUIREMENTS. A curriculum is a set of courses or a plan for a particular area of study [1]. In other words, Pro advocates for all schools to teach the exact same thing and offer the exact same courses and have the same exact graduation requirements. I've already pointed out why that would be impossible and unfair (considering different schools have different amounts of resources to work with). On the other hand, the U.S. has requirements about what every school *HAS* to offer... such as foreign languages. I'd like for Pro to show me one public HS in the U.S. that does not offer foreign languages as he has asserted. I highly doubt that he will find one, because high schools are already expected to offer the "basic" course requirements one needs to get into college. That said, it is the individual's responsibility to enroll in the classes they feel would best help them succeed or prepare themselves for the future. For instance, I attended a Catholic private school that did not offer many AP (Advanced Placement) courses. Many college admissions look favorably upon students who take those courses, though there were simply very few of them available at my school (and many times students who wanted to enroll in them could not). Under Pro's standards, every school should offer the exact same classes to give people "equal opportunity" to be admitted into college, but as I've already pointed out, people's opportunities can never really be equal to one another despite the curriculum considering all of the factors that play a prominent role in success. As such, if AP classes were that important to me, I would have switched schools or found a way to compensate for the lack of offerings. Pro notes that a HS curriculum plays a role in landing a job, but it does NOT play a "huge" role as he has said. The only thing it affects is your entrance into college, and even that's a giant if or maybe. If one noted that a certain course was not offered at their school, and yet they did well in the courses that WERE offered, a college will generally not hold it against them. Moreover, colleges already have a "standard" to hold students by; something nationwide that every student has equal access to are exams like the SAT and ACT. Since these tests measure one's basic knowledge in important areas and determine one's overall reading and assessment capabilities, then what classes they took in HS are generally irrelevant. Colleges have their OWN graduation requirements and expectations. What colleges want to see when you apply is your course load because it shows how brave you are (they look favorably upon taking more difficult courses), the grades you got in those courses, what extracurricular activities you took and if you had any leadership roles, and how you scored on standardized tests in comparison to your peers [2]. Yet again, having an identical course as your peers is perfectly irrelevant. Also, several times throughout the debate Pro has said things like, "I'd like to point out this whole idea" and "Again, I would like to point out this whole paragraph." What do those statements even mean? They are entirely grammatically flawed and do not make any coherent sense. Nevertheless, I'll respond to Pro's assertions. For instance, he points out that Thomas Edison was not successful because he "died poor." However, Pro has defined success in R1 as the attainment of wealth, POSITION, HONORS OR THE LIKE. In other words, Thomas Edison's fame and accomplishments have made him successful by Pro's own standards even if he wasn't rich, so Pro's point is a moot one. Pro also says, "Nothing in this paragraph proves that success is attained just as easily without this nationwide curriculum." I have no idea where he got the idea that I was supposed to explain that. What I pointed out was that success is dependent upon a bunch of factors, most of which have very little or nothing to do with one's HS curriculum. Furthermore, I have proven throughout the debate that implementing said curriculum would be unfair due to things like resources (it would hold the affluent communities and schools back, infringe upon private schools, etc.). Also, what about those who are home-schooled? They are done so particularly because they'd like to have their own learning standards; meanwhile, Pro wants to use government force to mandate a certain curriculum. That is unconstitutional. Having minimum requirements is one thing, but imposing an entire mandatory curriculum is another. Pro has completely ignored this point. In short, I have responded to all of my opponent's claims about college admission and the falsities surrounding Pro's idea, such as his absurd view that everyone would have "equal opportunity" for success if their curriculum was the same... even though other factors are more important in determining one's success than curriculum, and so people would still have unequal opportunities even with the same curriculum. I'd also like to point out that Pro's "final point" is completely wrong. He says - and I quote - "If more people are given the opportunity to succeed... EVERYBODY would be able to succeed." This is FALSE! As I've pointed out several times throughout the debate, an equal curriculum does NOT mean equal overall opportunity (as there are far more important and numerous factors to consider aside from curriculum). With that said, I'll send the debate back over to Pro for now so he can make any final corrections or rebuttals in the third round. Thanks again to my opponent for debating and the readers for reading... Though I'd like to point out that you don't have to be in grade school to "understand" Pro's point. Pro's point is wrong and you can see that at any age ;) [1] http://www.sil.org... [2] http://www.airweb.org...