The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits

Before I begin addressing the contentions, I’d like to point out some issues associated with the way my opponent has set up this debate. First of all, because my opponent has not set any specifications for the term “college”, I’m going to assume that he’s referring to post secondary education in the United States. Additionally, we must also place a distinction between the inherent and extrinsic costs of college. For example, we can still have colleges without student loans; it is simply the government’s choice whether or not to distribute them. Ergo, student loans are not an inherent cost of a college education; they are simply extrinsic costs that should not be associated with the “cost” of maintaining a college, making my opponent’s second contention a moot point. We must also draw a distinction between private and public colleges, as they are funded differently and receive different kinds of subsidies, which I will address in the contentions. ===THE CASE=== Do individuals benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent’s case hinges on the belief that college education does not necessarily lead to a career or a decent salary. To prove his point, he posts a bunch of unsourced statistics: “College graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn’t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education”. The first problem with this argument is that the statistics he uses to back it up are biased and inconclusive. Obviously some majors are more likely to yield careers than other majors. To put this skewed statistic in perspective, only 4.2% of university graduates are unemployed six months after graduating if we account all majors [1]. Additionally, whether the job they land requires a college education is irrelevant, because a college degree is still an important credential which helps secure employment (even if I were looking for a cashier, I’d rather higher a cashier with a diploma than one without). The second problem with this argument is that it needs some relative statistics to put the information presented in perspective. This relativity is essential because without it, we don’t know whether the high unemployment rates are the result of an inefficient college education or just a frail economy, and when we look at the employment rates for America as a whole, what we find is that high school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed when compared to college graduates. We can safely conclude that despite side proposition’s misleading statistics, college graduates do have a significantly higher employment rate because of their investment in a post secondary education. This idea of relativity brings me to my constructive argument. The fact is that when we tally up unemployment rates, the degree you major in, the number of years it takes to major and everything, what we find is that the individual with a bachelor’s degree earns, on average, almost 1 million dollars more than the individual with only a high school diploma [2]. I’d gladly invest $20,000 – $30,000 for a million dollar return. Monetarily speaking, from the individual standpoint, college is an efficient investment and much more beneficial than costly. Additionally, one must not forget the experience of college, which, to many students, is priceless. Skipping college would mean missing out on college means missing valuable education, networking, and social opportunities (such as college parties). So unlike what my opponent suggests, the average college graduate will most likely not “always be in debt”. What’s more likely is that you’ll go to college, have a great time, and land a career that’ll net you almost a million dollars more than your high school graduate neighbors. Because of the reasons that I have stated, college is clearly beneficial from an individual standpoint. Does the government/society benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent’s argument here is essentially just pointing out how the government has to subsidize colleges, and that the subsidies can go into other much needed investments. This argument falls because my opponent does not state how much money goes into the college subsidies (like saying there is a cost, without saying how much the cost is), and because college subsidies need to be broken down to the cost of college per se and extraneous costs. This needs to be broken down further into subsidies for private and public colleges. When subsidizing public colleges, the government needs to fund the entire cost of building and maintaining the college. I accept that this is a cost of a college education, but I’d just like to point out that the tuition costs of public colleges goes back to government coffers. When subsidizing private colleges, the government basically does three things. The first thing that the government does to subsidize private colleges is offer students financial aid. I have already explained why student loans should be dismissed, as they are not a direct cost of college. Even if my opponent can somehow prove that they are, the point about the inefficiency of providing student loans falls because government loans/subsidies per student have been falling due to increasing attendance rates, and tuition has still never been higher. The government also gives grants for research teams. However, these grants cannot fully be considered subsidies because we are essentially buying information, which is something we benefit from. Lastly, the government gives tax breaks to private colleges. If we disregard financial aid, private colleges are basically a self sustaining, mutually beneficial industry, that does not have a cost. Finally, I’d like to point out that post secondary education is often cited as the most powerful contributor to social mobility, something that society and individuals benefit from. ===CONCLUSION=== I was a little confused when constructing my arguments because of some of my opponent’s arguments. His last to arguments really seem to be about abolishing college subsidies and redirecting it to investments in things such as infrastructure, which I actually agree with. However, as I have explained, these are not inherent costs of a college education; they are simply inefficient ways that the government handles its money. My opponent seems to agree with me that the benefits of college per se outweighs it’s cost, and that it’s just the inefficient way the government approaches it that is the problem. Therefore, the resolution is negated because the benefits of a college education outweigh its cost; the only problem is the misappropriation of government funds. I thank the readers and hand the debate back to my opponent. ===SOURCES=== [1] . http://www.economist.com...[2] . http://www.lorainccc.edu...