Free Tuition at Community and Technical Colleges

Thank you, Debatability. I'll be using this round to provide my constructive case. It will consist of an ethical argument as well as three pragmatic arguments against the resolution. ----------------------------------- ROLE OF GOVERNMENT ----------------------------------- How do we determine what the US government "should" or "should not" do? My opponent seems to assume that the standard which we should be using is consequentialist in nature. However, that is an incredibly subjective criterion. Every governmental policy has innumerable consequences, both beneficial and detrimental, which simply cannot all be accounted for -- reality involves far too many variables to decisively predict the results of any given policy. This is the reason why formal debate as an organized activity has continued for as long as it has: all "empirical" evidence regarding the practical consequences of policies is ultimately subjective, hence allowing a solid case to be made for virtually any political position. This is evident even in the world of academia: the same policies have been debated ad nauseum for decades with little to no consensus on anything coming about among scholars (e.g. death penalty deterrence, effect of guns on crime, minimum wage, etc). Furthermore, even if we *could* accurately determine all of a given policy's costs and benefits, it is impossible to rationally weigh those costs and benefits against each other. For example, if a policy annually results in 100 deaths but prevents 100,000,000 severe injuries, is it beneficial? How about if the number of injuries prevented was only 10,000? What if the number of deaths was 5000? All attempts at answering such questions invariably result in entirely arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately meaningless limits being set. Thus, I contend that deciding issues of government policy based on consequentialist standards is untenable. Instead, to ensure consistency and objectivity in its policies, the government should stick to a more stable, minimalist standard -- namely, the preservation of human rights. In other words, protecting the rights of its citizens is the only plausible role of government. Precisely which rights human beings have can only be determined via argumentative appeal, but the point is that all government actions must have their basis in the protection of a particular human right. For example, if human beings have a positive right to life, then the government is justified in providing them with basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare. If human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, then the government cannot justifiably implement policies like mandatory vaccination or presumed consent for organ donation. Similarly, unless human beings have some sort of right to a college education, then the government cannot justifiably enact the policy stated in the resolution. However, it is not my burden of proof to demonstrate that the right doesn't exist -- it is Pro's burden to demonstrate that it *does* exist. Therefore, for now we must presume that the right does not exist, which means that a free tuition policy is unjustified and the resolution is negated. ------------------------------ PRAGMATIC HARMS ------------------------------ Here, I will attempt to demonstrate that a free tuition policy would be detrimental and therefore unjustified even under Pro's consequentialist standard. C1) Too Many Benefactors Unfortunately, guaranteeing everyone free tuition for community college isn't nearly as simple as it sounds, as it involves several unintended economic repercussions. At least 9 million students are going to take advantage of the free tuition policy every year [1], and there are only 1132 community colleges (CC's) in the country [2], so assuming equal distribution, we're looking at about 8000 extra students per CC. Considering that the average size of a CC student body is about 6800 students [3], that ends up being more than a 117% increase in the average CC's student body! That sort of radical change requires radical adaptation on the part of community colleges. Tuition costs would inevitably sky-rocket just to make the necessary spatial accommodations, and quality of education would crumble due to a lack of resources and doubled student-to-staff ratios. This would not only greatly inflate the government expense of continuing to pay for everybody's tuition, but it would also sharply reduce the value-added by a college education. C2) Over-Competition One does not simply release 9 million newly-trained professionals into the job market and expect there to be no backlash. The average salary and job security of any given occupation is determined by 1) the scarcity of employees with the necessary qualifications of that occupation (i.e. supply), and 2) how much utility that occupation grants to employers and/or consumers (i.e. demand). Given that, suddenly introducing 9 million new workers into a job market where even some of the fastest-growing occupations are expanding at less than 100,000 new jobs per year [4] is recipe for disaster, as it overloads the supply without changing the demand. This will inevitably lead to hyper-competition for jobs among new graduates and leave thousands of people unemployed -- most of whom are likely to be from racial minorities and other socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Considering that the government would have spent several thousand dollars on each of those unemployed people, this means millions of dollars of wasted money from people never actually being able to use their higher qualifications to benefit society. The unfortunate fact of reality is that there simply isn't enough room in society for everyone to be middle class. C3) Under-Matching "A grave concern about higher education in America is that many high-performing high-schoolers, especially from less-affluent African-American and Hispanic households, do not apply for challenging universities for which they actually have the academic ability. Instead, many such young people settle for community college or less rigorous four-year institutions. This is a phenomenon known as "undermatching". This happens for several reasons, including concerns about the financial risks to the student and his or her family. Undermatching widens the education gap between racial groups, and between richer and less-affluent families. An unintended consequence of providing free tuition at only community colleges is that it would likely add to undermatching. That"s because many smart high-schoolers who come from minority or less-affluent families, or who are the first in their family to go to college, would for financial reasons be even more likely to opt for community college rather that a rigorous four-year college" [5]. According to the Student Financial Aid Services, under-matching is a major problem which "perpetuates the cycle of poverty, but also robs our nation of smart, diverse leadership to solve future problems." [6]. ---------------------- CONCLUSION ---------------------- Firstly and most importantly, the only plausible role of government is to preserve citizens' rights, meaning that the USFG is not justified in guaranteeing everyone a free college education regardless of the consequences. Furthermore, such a policy would be harmful to the economy because there isn't enough room in community colleges or the job market to handle the massive number of new community college students that would take advantage of the policy; trying to force it would simply result in radically inflated tuition costs, lower education quality, sharply reduced job security, and increased income inequality (due to under-matching). The resolution is negated. Back to you, Ms. VP! . [1] http://www.usnews.com... [2] http://www.aacc.nche.edu... [3] http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu... [4] http://www.economicmodeling.com... [5] http://www.brookings.edu... [6] http://www.fafsa.com...