The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education For Everyone

"Let me clarify then. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor but rather how hard you work that determines your outcome in life. And that even if all students were equal in wealth the key determinant for their success would be effort and of course natural ability. Wealth alone is not enough to succeed in education or life in general. " I do not agree. There are many hard-working families that remain poor for generations. Besides; how do you expect to work hard and get a job if you do not have an education and evidence that you will be proficient at this job? The rich will be afforded this chance with their fancy degrees, whereas the poor would not. This is the inherent problem with the current system. While I agree that wealth alone is not enough to succeed, those who are wealthy have a significantly greater potential for success than the poor. "Of course, but life isn't fair. I would say that an egalitarian life would be boring and de-motivational. If everything was fair and everyone was equal then what would be the point in striving to do your best or trying to overcome your circumstances? Not everyone sits there content to complain about their circumstances and actually do something to achieve their goals. " I agree that equality for all would be a boring situation. I am only proposing an equal education. An equal education does not mean equal success, equal personality, and equal viewpoint. The fact is, you would still have to work in order to succeed, still have to apply what you learned with your education in your job. You talk about how not everyone is "content to complain," and instead "actually do something. " You gave me two success stories. There are three hundred million Americans in this country, and the number is growing. I think that the proof of two people's successes doesn't prove that the current system is fine. Besides, I looked at . http://www.horatioalger.com...... . http://www.horatioalger.com...... and notice how the articles seem to contain numerous phrases like: "Call it fate or destiny, but," or "Because of the Horatio Alger scholarship," or exaggerations of hardship such as "My childhood was without my real father. .. I suppose I would have turned out differently if I had a "dad" but, thinking about it now, I don't know how I would be a better person. " " I hope I didn't mangle the proposal too badly. So, given that what I think you mean is what you mean then the non-rich already are offered scholarships, grants, and loans to attend University and is even a part of some Universities' diversity goals. Much like desegregation, schools see diverse economic backgrounds as benefit to the overall educational environment. It would seem, then, that the only difference between your proposal and current reality is that in order to get into University students would have to be exemplary. I would argue that even C students should be afforded the opportunity since C students may have the ability but not the drive in primary education but could be driven to excel in post-secondary. " Sorry, but you did mangle my proposal. I apologize for not making my proposal clear. My proposal was that the rich be required to excel in public primary and public secondary education before attending private primary and secondary education institutions. However, I suppose that this could be extended to universities, that you have to succeed in public primary and secondary before attending a private university. The poor and middle class would receive scholarships for attending private primary and secondary institutions: scholarships financed by an increase of taxes for the rich. I apologize for not defining rich in my initial statement. Rich are those abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds, according to dictionary. com. In other words, those who can easily finance their child's education are rich. Those who cannot do so are classified as non-rich. You refer to the fact that C students who are maybe not so driven in public primary and secondary may be more driven in post-secondary. I ask: why would this be the case? At any rate, even in the current system, if you are C student you wouldn't get into Harvard, or MIT. "We both know why the government intervened – there was a huge disparity in quality of education between the segregated schools and segregation was just wrong. I'm not even arguing that it shouldn't have been done. What I'm saying is the law of diminishing returns becomes apparent after 40+ years. Are you proposing further desegregation? And if so, how would this significantly impact educational outcomes? " You discuss that segregation is "just wrong. " I won't argue, but why do you suppose that is the case? Perhaps words like equality, fairness, and life quality figure in the argument that segregation is, as you say, "just wrong? " The reason we all think that segregation is wrong is because we believe in the fact that all people should be afforded equal quality of life. Quality of life correlates directly to the quality of education. Besides; by disagreeing, aren't you segregating the rich from the poor? Isn't this, as you say, "just wrong? " "Which is it? You say the states should respond but that it should be passed into federal law. This is precisely why Alexander Tytler, in the 18th century said, ""A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. " Just because the majority thinks everything should be free, fair and equal does not make it right or affordable. " I apologize for my earlier ambiguity; people and/or states and/or the federal government can ensure that this proposition prevails. The people can ensure it because although I agree whole-heartedly with Alexander Tytler, his statements do not form a basis for us to suddenly trash the constitution. The states can ensure it because they are the ones responsible for education, and the federal government can ensure it by providing a financial incentive to the states. "Equality in wealth is not only unattainable but undesirable. In order to achieve this end would require depriving others of their wealth which is antithetical to fairness and equality. I would offer that equal opportunity should exist as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence but using the Federal treasury to do so is the wrong approach. Your station in life is influenced by external forces but your path is ultimately in your own hands. " First, I am not proposing equality in wealth. Secondly, I am not, as I clarified above, proposing to use the federal treasury to enact these changes. CONCLUSION I maintain that the US should ensure quality education for everyone because not only are these changes realistic, but not enacting these changes would be siding with the segregation that, as my opponent pointed out, is just wrong. Thank you again for your courtesy. I await your response. ant981228