Ending Education Subsidies

I have 3 opening contentions to make which I listed below. If the contentions are true, then the conclusion is true as well. After that, I will refute my opponent's round 1 arguments.1) College is absolutely required for the vast majority of people who want to be successful. 2) The majority of people cannot afford to attend college unless subsidized loans are given. 3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill this need. Conclusion: Therefore, subsidies are required. OPENING CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successIt is a well-known fact that college graduates earn a lot more money than high-school graduates. According to the U. S. Census Bereau, high school graduates make approximately $28,000 a year while college graduates make approximately $51,000 a year, nearly twice as much [3]. There are of course exceptions but for the vast majority of people, going to college has a positive effect on their earnings potential. Now, the ideal scenario in this case would be for everyone to go to college since for the majority, college is required in order to be successful. C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsAccording to the US Department of Education, 2/3 of undergraduate students recieved financial aid [4]. This shows that the majority of students cannot afford the cost of college and require loans and financial aid in order to attend college. A student who just graduated from high-school will barely have enough money to afford college. Therefore, they must seek it from elsewhere. The options they have would be to either get federal aid, or have their parents finance their education. Most American families are unable to afford the huge amount of money required for college. According to the College board, it costs $105,000 for a 4 year degree in a private university and $7020 in a public university [5]. However, this is just the tuition fees. Students often have other living expenses. For instance, the total cost of 1 year at UC Berkeley is $32,000 if you live in a residence hall [6] or $120,000 for 4 years with all expenses included. Such staggering amounts are difficult to procure without subsidies. C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needThe primary problem with unsubsidized loans is that they charge interest from the time the money is first disbursed until it is paid in full. The interest is capitalized, meaning that you pay interest on any interest that has already accrued. One way to minimize how much interest accrues is to pay the interest as it accumulates [7]. Now a full-time college student cannot afford to pay interest on their loans since they will be busy with class and have living expenses, the need to buy textbooks, etc. With an unsubsidized loan, they are paying interest on money right from the minute they get the loan. If they do not immediately get a job right after graduating, it will snowball into a huge amount of money that is difficult to pay off. This severely discourages students from going to college. Since college is highly beneficial, it must be encouraged and the government must do what it can to increase the number of students going to college. This can be achieved by subsidizing education. Conclusion: Subsidies are needed. REBUTTALS R1) Human CapitalPro's argument here is that the knowledge learned in college does not translate to higher productivity. He specifically singles out Sociology as an example but I am assuming he is talking about Humanities in general. In any case, let's go with Sociology. Sociology is the study of people and how we interact with each other [1]. A degree in sociology helps students have a better understanding of human relationships. This helps them in a wide variety of careers that involve social interaction such as social workers, community affairs workers, consellors, and teachers [2]. My opponent cites studies to show that learning is highly specific. He claims that the studies show that learning algebra won't help you at a job that has nothing to do with Math. In essence, my opponent is arguing against general education requirements. The key here is that general education (breadth) requirements exist to give students knowledge of the topics at hand as opposed to prepare them to work in that particular field. A college student taking a sociology degree might have to take a math class. While his Sociology class might help at a future job, the Math class might not. However, breadth classes often have skills that are basic enough that they can be applied across various fields. Students also have a lot of choice in which classes they want to take. Pro's studies show that skills aren't transferable. But he is operating under the assumption that colleges claim that teach people how to think. Since I haven't made that argument and am arguing instead that classes in a student's major are actually useful, the studies have limited value. Pro's studies are pre-emptive to arguments that I did not make and are therefore irrelevant. R2) SignallingPro says that the reason college graduates earn more is that college is a signal, and it signals that the graduate has qualities that the employer is looking for. Of course I won't argue with the point that a college degree is a signal. My argument is that college is not just a signal, but much more that that; because it offers many other skills that can be used in the real world such as the ones I mentioned in R1 regarding sociology. My opponent says that people that go to college tend to be smarter and harder-working than those that don’t. However, he offers no evidence to prove this point. It is just as likely that people who go to college are smarter and harder working because they go to college and have learned to take on the load of a college degree, participate in extra-curicular activities, and meet deadlines. R3) Useful Education Pro says that degrees that are useful need not be subsidized. However, there are many degrees like Sociology which are useful and pay a lot more than what high school grads are paid but may not be enough to cover the cost of unsubsidized loans. Pro divides the categories into "useful" and "not useful" but it is not a dichotomy. There is a wide range of usefullness to a college degree, from just a little more financially beneficial than high school to many times as much depending on the degree, and the student in question. So, a sociology major might earn a lot more by going to college but it may not be enough to cover unsubsidized loans. Sources[1] . http://sociology.uoregon.edu...[2] . http://www.soc.cornell.edu...[3] . http://howtoedu.org...[4] . http://nces.ed.gov...[5] . http://www.collegesurfing.com...[6] . http://students.berkeley.edu...[7] . http://www.csus.edu...