Free University Education

IntroductionFirst I would like to clarify that, even though this debate is applicable to all countries, I am focusing on Britain since I am British; and furthermore this debate pertains to Britain particularly as there will be a general election next month and tuition fees are an oft-debated subject between opposing political parties.Britain is also the birthplace of the university, with its institutions setting the mould for universities worldwide.Finally, it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics that are representative of the world population, so I have to pick a country from which to draw statistics, despite one country not being representative of all other countries.Therefore, I request that I am forgiven for using UK statistics.Financial benefits / costsMy opponent cites the large amount of debt that is the result of university. However, the fact remains that student debt allows anyone go to university no matter how poor. So the assertion that university fees make it inaccessible remains refuted.Furthermore, a graduate is generally more likely to get a higher paying job than a non-graduate, so this would cancel out the debt acquired at university.Finally, student debt is one of the most moderate forms of debt there is:1. If you earn less than £16910, then you don't have to repay the debt (1)2. You only pay 9% of what you earn (2)3. If you don't pay it off within 25 years, then it's written off (3).To summarise, student debt isn't some life-destroying, crippling financial burden - it is actually very manageable and will be likely to be completely offset by the salary increase from a graduate job.There is very little actual risk involved; if you don't earn enough to repay it, then you don't have to. And if you can't pay it off after 25 years, then you don't have to.But considering the personal financial benefits that university can give, a mild form of debt is a very generous form of payment for it.GraduatesMy opponent doggedly insists that graduates would be willing to work in undesirable jobs, but the high level of graduate unemployment suggests otherwise (4).Besides, when was the last time you saw a fresh-out-of-college graduate working in a low-paying job? I can't remember.Pro makes a valid point regarding how graduates are more likely to be more educated than non-graduates.But this is only theoretical education, not real-world, practical wisdom. Employers consistently say that experience is more valuable than theory. (5)Moreover, a degree only provides education in a specific area. For example someone with a degree in ancient history will only be highly educated in ancient history. Therefore graduates would only be significantly valuable to the job areas that accord with their degree, which limits their options in the job market.I agree with pretty much everything my opponent writes in his last paragraph, but people can study civil rights, philosophy, history, science etc.. in high school. One doesn't need to go to university to become educated in these matters.Ultimately, my opponent's last argument is an argument for free schooling, not necessarily for free university. ConclusionI would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it is certainly an interesting subject with more aspects than I initially predicted. But overall, I maintain that my opponent has not given sufficient reason why the government ought to pay for university education instead of the beneficiaries themselves. (1) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com...(2) ibid.(3) http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk...(4) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...(5) http://www.theguardian.com...