Free University Education

Thank you Pericles :)Cost of universityMy opponent's main argument is that the cost of university disproportionately harms the poor, and hence university education isn't "generally available and equally accessible to all."But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans.Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true.'My opponent has stated that college is for only the brightest in our society to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, such as that of a physician, lawyer, architect, etc., while himself admitting that nearly half of people (not sure where he's referring to, though) have attended/are attending/will attend college according to current rates.'I do not contradict myself, because the former is what university should be and what it was designed for, and the latter is what university has actually turned out to be.Until 1997, university was just for those who required specialist education to do the most cognitively challenging jobs, but when Tony Blair became Prime Minister in the UK, he instigated a 'student drive' that wanted 50% of young people to attend university (1).So the concept of university education being the norm is a relatively new one, and it has had negative consequences - namely regarding the over-saturation of the graduate market. There are simply too many graduates.'My opponent has stated that making college free is unfair on those who don't attend college. This is a self-disproving argument, though, as, if college were free, these people who don't attend college would be able to remedy the issue by, you guessed it, going to college. For free.'Well yes, but as I have made very clear, we do not want everyone to go to university! Only 27% of jobs require a degree, so the last thing we need to be doing is encourage everyone to go to university by subsidising it.Value of universityMy opponent argues that those who do drugs and party excessively will be filtered out of the system. I agree with this, but generally those who don't take university seriously are only kicked out at the end of the year (i.e when they fail the year), by that time two things have happened:1. £9000 has been wasted2. From the government's perspective, they have lost one year's worth of tax revenue from a person partying at university instead of working.So, although those who don't take university seriously will eventually be kicked out, it is better to have university fees so:a) They are less likely to attend a university in the first placeb) They will be less likely to waste £9000 if they have to foot the bill.'And countries where college is free generally have a higher population percentage with degrees, so obviously most people don't behave as my opponent has suggested.'The reason for that is simply that more people go to university in countries with free university - I still maintain that more people would use university as a three-year party.Benefits of university?'My opponent has stated that attending an absolutely free university that only serves to widen your options is a bad thing somehow. He seems to believe that this will decrease the size of the pool from which countries draw unskilled labor. It won't. 'Except most graduates don't think like that. If someone has spent three years extra in education, being told they will get a graduate job, they would naturally feel entitled to a graduate job and will often refuse to work in other jobs.Moreover, they would generally only want to work in a job that accords with their degree (for example, a law graduate would only want to work as a lawyer), so instead it seems that a degree actually narrows one's prospects - at least from a psychological perspective.'those who don't manage to land one will just end up doing lower-paying jobs'Even if graduates do decide to do this - if they are just going to go into low-paying jobs eventually then why shouldn't they just go straight into them after high-school? If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the £27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted.'Plus, these people with low-paying jobs will have a degree that gives them increased potential to advance their status and makes for an educated, intelligent, well-informed populace.'But if these people want to 'advance their status' then they will not be committed to doing the low-paying job they are doing now, also, if people doing low-payed jobs are always looking for a chance to get a better job, then any resembelance of stability will be lost from these industries.Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does. Evidence for this is how employers generally value experience over qualifications.Universities, on the other hand, only really cater to educate someone in a specific field, instead of the holistic education that is needed for a well-functioning member of society. Moreover, the anarchism that is rife in student communities can even foster a desire to not conform to society.'My opponent says that going to college breeds a sense of entitlement, and that graduates won't want to work low-paying jobs. Some will have to, though, if, as my opponent said, there is only a set number of academic careers.'Or, as is shown by the high-levels of graduate unemployment (2), they will just resort to claiming benefits until their 'dream job' turns up.'This is true, except for people who can't afford to pay for college.'These people do not exist, because there is such a thing as a student loan.'Plus, if education is free, this whole point can be disregarded because *everyone can attend college.* They don't have to stay at a disadvantage if they don't want to.'And we definitely do not want everyone to go to college. Considering that only 27% of jobs require an associate degree, it is economic madness for a government to spend £27000 per person to be educated for a job that likely does not exist.__________________________________________________________________________________________(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(2) http://www.independent.co.uk...