Higher Education ought to be private and indiviuals ought to pay for it themselves.

1) "There is no free lunch" Teachers and administrative faculty will still have to get paid and teaching supplies (ex: labs, desk, classroom) will still need to be bought. Even if education is free, somebody will still have to pay for it, so it is not really free. If the government pays for education, it is not really the government, because the taxpayers are the one's who pay for education. They do not voluntarily agree to pay for student's education but are forced to by the government. Educating somebody else does not benefit him or her as nearly as much as it does the student. Individuals can help pay for somebody's education through the use of charity. One can give a student a scholarship. However, why force others to pay for something that does not benefit him or her? While it is one thing to force others to pay for a military or police service that benefits many people, it is another to force people to pay for others education. 2) A free education is a worthless education http://www.youtube.com... In this video, Dr. Kelso has a lifetime supply of muffins. Since he has a lifetime of free muffins, he can use the muffin for any purpose, even throw it away "because he can" and there is no negative repercussions, as opposed if he did pay, in which he'd lose money for doing that. The same logic applies to making education free. You do not have to take your education seriously since you will not lose anything in the process. If all people are given a free education, then most people will take it, because after all it is a free, why not? However a student does not necessarily have to go to higher education to "learn". He/she can attend for any reason. He or she might do it to find attractive people to fool around with, to party or any extra-curricular activities or sports that the school might offer. While these reasons are not necessarily bad it is because that learning is not a main objective that it becomes a problem. A student can go for these activities, and put minimal effort or no effort into learning. This cause many problems: a)If a school contains many "bad" students the teachers will often dumb down the curriculum, be unsatisfied with his/her job because of these students. b)Those students that do not want to learn will be disruptive, and will be a bad influence on those that are there to learn, bringing everyone down with him/her. c)Extra resources are wasted on these students that will not reap the benefits that education is supposed to show. 3) A privatize higher education is guided by the "invisible hand" while a public higher education is not. The "invisible hand" refers to how competition and supply and demand regulate a market, in this case the market for education. For example, Harvard University, University of Chicago, Yale University, and Massachusetts Institution of Technology are considered the best Universities in the world which many Nobel laureates graduated from. These are all private schools. In the face of competition, organizations will compete to create a better good at a lower price. This is a basic principle in economics. In this case, education is the good. By allowing the private sector, not the public sector, this good can be applied cheaper and better. 4) Education as an investment and other opportunity costs In the basic theory of economics, there are four parts to production of goods: natural resources or land, labor, capitol (goods that produce other goods), and entrepreneurship (those willing to factor of the means of production together). Higher education increases the value of your labor. Thus that is the benefit of higher education and why a good education can improve the economy and cause an increase in one's salary. However, the government could also improve the economy by raising capitol instead, buying natural resources, or creating projects that create new goods. However, the state is very poor at making these decisions, since it is not run by the "invisible hand". For example, the government could overspend on investing in labor, thus making the effects of higher education void. In the United States, the country with the highest Gross Domestic Production, capitol, natural resources, and labor for businesses is raised from loans from creditors, and the stock market. The creditor and stockholders benefit from this since he or she will receive money for these actions. This financial system works well. What's the point? If education does indeed cause labor wages to increase, if one pays for their education, and pays back creditor, everybody wins. The amount of skilled laborers is managed by supply and demand (if education has no benefit, then nobody would obtain an education). These skilled laborers will have enough money to pay back the creditors and still live a good life, and resources can be successful allocated between capitol, labor, and natural resources effectively.