Question: Is a college education worth it?

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits =Monetary Benefit=The average cost of college tuition for a State school is roughly $15,000 a year for a 4 year program. [1] This averages out to $60,000 total in college costs after 4 years. The average salary for someone with just a high school diploma is $23,000 a year. [2] The average salary for someone with a Bachelor's degree is $45,500 a year. [2]With a college education you're making $22,000 a year more than if you didn't go to college.If we average this out, say you get out of college at age 22 and you work until age 65. That's 43 years of work. Say you're unemployed or injured for (a generous) 5 of these years. That's 38 years of work. Over these 38 years a college graduate will make $890,000 MORE than his counterpart that did not go to college.Subtract out the $60k for college costs and you've still got a net profit of $830k that you would not have made if you didn't go to college at all. =Social Benefit=There is a huge social benefit to going to college. Not only do you make lifelong friends and connections, you learn to live on your own. You have to feed yourself, go to class, work, pay your bills, do your laundry etc without your parents help. Those who leave (or don't leave) at 18 will have the penalty of not having the beneficial college transition into life. After college, students are usually prepared and willing to go out and live and work on their own, completely independent. While social benefit doesn't have a numeric value attached to it, it is extremely valuable. You can't replace the "college experience" with work experience. The friendships, job connections, skills and social transition are all invaluable and give those who finish college a huge boost over those who did not. =Opporitunities= My opponent keeps claiming that college is "too risky" and that many people shouldn't even try. But if you don't go to college at all, if you don't try for fear of failing etc then you'll forever shut out the opporitunities that a college education can bring you.Many jobs REQUIRE a college education. If you don't have one, you'll forever be barred from applying for them. Even if you don't get a job right out of college you'll always be able to apply for college degree jobs. Those who don't attend high school will never be able to apply for these, ever. My opponent claims the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? It is silly to forever shut out ample future opporitunities for better employment, better pay and greater experiences due to the fear of failing. Even if it doesn't pay off immidiately after you graduate, you'll always have the degree and the experience to use for the rest of your life. " Individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor’s degrees." [3] You're more likely to be unemployed...always, without a college degree. "Statistics project that 75 percent of future positions are expected to require at least some type of certification or licensure, and professions that require a bachelor’s degree are projected to grow nearly twice as fast as the national average, making a college degree a good investment." [3]All of these positions are forever barred to you without a college education. That severely limits your opporitunity of employment and careers. =Conclusion=* There are tangible and large monetary advantages for those with college degrees vs. those without.* College has social value and provides you skills and experiences that are valuable throughout life.* A college degree is a permenant asset and a long term plus. You'll always have it. * College degrees open up and hold far more opporitunities than just a diploma. * The costs of a college education are easily outweighed by the abundant benefits. [1] http://nces.ed.gov...[2] http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu...[3] http://www.back2college.com...;

College is worth it Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits BenefitsAs the majority of this debate will come down to weighing costs versus benefits, we first must know the benefits of a college education. "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years, and excluding those graduates with advanced degrees, calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. " (. http://www.insidehighered.com...) (his actual report can be downloaded here: . http://chronicle.com...)Monetary Costs"This year, according to the College Board, average published in-state tuition and fee plus room/board charges exceed $17,000 at four-year public institutions. " (. http://www.cnn.com...) At four year private institutions, this number is roughly $11,500 annually. (in the Charles Miller report). Students are forced finance these costs with large loans, resulting in a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars by graduation. "Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The effect of this debt goes far beyond decreasing the lifetime earnings of a college graduate. Collegeboard now reports that the average age by which student loan debt is paid back stands at 33. (. http://www.soundmindinvesting.com...). This greatly limits what can be done by graduates within the first 11 years of their working life. "College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, “running back home. ” That hurts us all. " (. http://chronicle.com...) Opportunity CostTo show that opportunity cost outweighs the monetary benefits of a college education, one must show that there is a better way to spend the money which can not be achieved by going to college. This can be done fairly easily with investing potential. Using the average savings rates, cost of college tuition, student loan interest rates, and investment returns, an individual who invests their college fund instead of spending it will earn $1.3 million by the age of 65. A typical four year college graduate "will have less than a third of that. " (. http://www.nypost.com...) There are other, similar methods of investment, all of which will result in more money than a college education. Another form of opportunity cost is the 4-6 years of lost job experience while attending college. With more and more job opportunities opening for those without college degrees, the 4-6 years of additional training and chances for promotion may very well outweigh the $279,893 monetary benefit of college. This job experience can also be gained while investing in the previous scenario. Shrinking Benefits of a College EducationRecent graduates, which excludes graduates over the age of 25 who where able to find a job before the economic downturn, now have roughly the same unemployment rate as non-degree holders. "Over the past year, for example, the unemployment rate for college grads under age 25 has averaged 9.2 percent, up from 8.8 percent a year earlier and 5.8 percent in the first year of the recession that began in December 2007. That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. It also suggests that many employed recent grads may be doing work that doesn’t require a college degree. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The majority of college graduates that do find a job are often underemployed, working as waiters food-service helpers. "More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend. .. According to the Census, the number of Americans under the age of 25 with at least a bachelor's degree has grown 38 percent since 2000. Not nearly enough jobs have been created to accommodate them, which has resulted in falling wages for young college graduates in the past decade, as well as the employment problems we're now seeing. " (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With food preparation and service receiving the largest job growth between 2000 and 2010, the job opportunities for non-degree holders are only increasing. In fact, "among the top 10 with respect to actual job growth, 3 will require a postsecondary degree and only 1 will require a BA. " (. http://www.educationalpolicy.org...) The Risks of Attending CollegeThe risk one takes while attaining their college degree is the most important cost to be considered in this debate. These two risks, defaulting on student loan debt and dropping out, go hand in hand. In the United States, only 46% of all students who started college managed to complete it. "The "Pathways to Prosperity" study by the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2011 shows that just 56 percent of college students complete four-year degrees within six years. " (. http://www.reuters.com...) College dropouts are forced to pay back their debt, but without the benefits of receiving a college degree. Dropouts gain a very minimal increase in wages, and spend years of their lives with nothing to show for it except debt. Default rates are also abysmally high. 19.2% of "borrowers who graduated with a certificate from a for-profit, less-than-four-year institution" defaulted on their student loans. (. http://www.educationsector.org...) "A recent study by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found that for every borrower who defaults, at least two more fall behind in payments. The study found that only 37 percent of borrowers who started repaying their student loans in 2005 were able to pay them back fully and on time. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) Student debt overall has now reached over $1 trillion, more than credit card debt. (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With student loans unable to be forgiven through bankruptcy, and with defaulting resulting in tax refunds being offset and wages being garnished, a college education is a high-risk, low-benefit investment.

A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Increasingly in the past couple years, people have seem to forgotten the immense value of a college education, more specifically a four year degree. However a four-year degree(full-time) is more valuable now than ever. In a time of unbelievable competition in the job market, something has to be done to separate the best from the average. A four year degree shows not only knowledge in a specific discipline but also shows that one had the commitment to get the degree over a period of time. In the choice between a person with a four year degree and a lesser education, the person in the four-year degree tends to win due to the credibility of crendtials and knowledge. A four year college degree also gives an immense amount of options, compared to a two year degree which allows trade specialization. A four year degree allows trade speicalization of a two year, but also a lot more options that the other may not have available. A lot of the best paying workers start with a four year degree. In a dynamic world having options is invaluable and if you want real options of four year degree is the way to go. A full time education/ a four year degree often causes debt but so does any college education, however schooling for any comfortable life style costs money. The existence of grants and scholarships help offset much of this cost. Studies show that a full time student make more money faster than a part time student. According to Erica Loop who published an article called, "What Benefits Are There for Being a Full-Time College Student Over a Part-Time Student?" states that "A full-time student is more likely to receive the full amount of the grant than a part-time student is". It is more common for people with 4 year degrees make substaneously more than those with a Associates so people with a higher education degree have more of a capability to pay it off. Also some student may be discourage by the amount of time in order to be successful and loose focus.

The costs of college outweigh the benefits As billionaire Warren Buffet stated, "The greatest investment is yourself." Before stating my contentions, I'd like to define some terms within the resolution. A college education is the completion of a bachelor's, master's or PHD degree. Outweigh: to exceed in value, importance, or influence, (and) benefits: something that is advantageous or good in short and long term. Contention 1: - There are many alternatives to pay for college rather than paying out of pocket. As we all know, the United States is currently in a recession, attacking the middle class drastically. Many people who are not financially capable to pay for college can obtain certain resources like scholarships, grants and/or financial aid to help pay for expenses. The people who receive these financial aids come from struggling middle class families. According to CollegeBoard.com, a total of 35% of high school students earned academic scholarships and 11% earn athletic scholarships in 2011. Also, 20% of students going to ivy league schools obtained the pell grant. As you can see, there are many alternatives to help paying for college without giving the students too much debt. Why should financial burdens prevent a qualified student from going to a college of his or her dreams? Contention 2- People that go to college have a more fulfilling job. The definition of satisfaction is an act of fulfillment and gratification. One may be content with themselves no matter what occupation they do every day. However, when one obtains a degree in a specific field, they will gain more financial wealth and security, thus gaining the capital needed to pay for student loans and other expenses. According USA.gov, in 2010 alone, 68.1 percent of high school graduates attended college. Compared to the 32 percent that didn't attend college, those who did grossed an average of 29,000 dollars more a year. With that much money made more a year, a college graduate can afford a larger mortgage, or save their money towards his or her's children's college fund. The more someone invests in themselves, the more return they're going to get out. Contention 3-When students attend college, they help maintain the democratic system America has so perfectly designed. Imagine if your state senator or representative did not attend college? Imagine what decisions these politicians would make without having taken an ethics class? As Thomas Jefferson stated "Information is the currency of democracy." If college is not worth going to as the affirmation attempts to advocate, then, my fellow americans, we are a country of poor democratic worth. Also, according to a statistic stated by CollegeBoard.com, 60% of college graduates play a role in our democratic system, either by attending city council meetings, volunteering for potential political candidates, or simply voting. As you can see, when students go to college, they participate substantially more than high school graduates.

College is a Necessity to be Successful I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning "half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. "According to Wall Street Journal,"Paying for college never is easy, but it"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can"t afford a college education. That"s wrong. Most of them can." Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits My refutations:Monetary BenefitsMy opponent comes up with a number similar to that cited by collegeboard, of roughly 1 million more dollars being earned by those holding bachelors degrees, as opposed to those holding high school diplomas. However, my opponent's calculations fail to take a variety of other factors into account. The letter from Charles Miller, cited in my "Benefits" section, shows one of the issues: "The report assumes a student will finish college in four years. Actually, the typical time to graduation is closer to six years in higher education today. The addition of two extra years of college costs and two less years of earnings makes a significant difference. " My opponent also fails to take into account the fact that tuition is financed by student loans, which are difficult to pay off. As I already mentioned, the average college graduate will be unable to pay off their debt until age 33. Given my opponent's estimates, this age should be 23.5 years, or after 1 and a half years of earnings. My opponent's number for the yearly cost of college also should not be considered, as he only included the price of public institutions. According to the fact sheet that he cites, the yearly cost of all four year institutions is $20,986. The income data which is cited by my opponent is also from the 2000 census, which is far too outdated. To repeat the quote used in my "benefits" section: "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years. .. calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. "At the end of this round, I will be showing another major issue with my opponent's case in general which works to farther refute this monetary point. Social BenefitsThe majority of societal benefits cited by my opponent are not gained solely through a college education. An individual must learn to live on their own even if they don't go to college. Other benefits which my opponent brings up, mostly social skills, aren't as beneficial as one might think. Students already go through 12 years of school to gain social skills. The additional four years, while it may be beneficial, are by no means required. Rather, students should be putting their social skills to the test in the real world. Simply put, real world experiences outweigh college experiences. My opponent also briefly mentions "job connections. " In this case, the 4-6 years of employment and job experience gives far better job connections than the college experience. The overall impact of this point is very small, and can be easily countered by weighing it against the arguments I brought up. Opportunities My opponent is attempting to decrease the impact of my risk point. "Fear of failing" is not an adequate phrase. The fear is of 54% chance to drop out, and to not gain any of the benefits from a college degree. The high default risk, almost 20%, is far too large of a risk for the average student to take. I'd also like to state that student loan debt cannot be forgiven through bankruptcy. Defaulting on such debt is virtually a guarantee to have your wages garnished, to suffer an incredibly large drop in your credit, to have tax returns offset, and to be ineligible for future federal employment. My opponent also asks if "the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? " The reason why the value of a college education is dropping, largely in respect to employment opportunities, is because more and more individuals are graduating college, while job growth simply cannot keep up. This does not decrease the value of not going to college. My opponent then brings up job sector growth. There is a large issue with the statistic my opponent brings up: It is focused on percentage increases. Meaning an industry which goes from 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be said to have higher growth than an industry which goes from 5 million to 9 million. The study which I cited in round one focuses on the actual number of jobs created. Among the top 10 growing jobs, only one requires a bachelors degree, and among the top 20, only 4 do. Problem With Pro-College StudiesThis section is aimed at employment and income prospects. Any study which brings up the benefits of a college education must show that these benefits can be obtained by recent graduates. For this reason, the quote "individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor’s degrees" cannot be considered because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago, when the benefits of a college education were much larger. College graduates were hit especially hard by the recession: the previous unemployment rate of 5.8% has nearly doubled to 9.2%. "That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. "The same goes for future earnings. Studies cannot include individuals who have already held a college degree for 20+ years, and already achieved a large income. This is due to the fact that the rising costs prevent current graduates from reaching such future earnings. Effectively, recent graduates are no longer able to obtain the employment and income benefits that past graduates have. Therefore, studies which show the benefits achieved by past graduates do not show that recent college graduates will obtain such benefits. Causation Versus CorrelationWhile this may be a generic argument, it is important to consider in this round. What's important to note is that college's tend to enroll students who are already geared toward success. Students who graduate with high gpas will, more often than not, continue in to college. However, as high school gpa is also correlated to future earnings, this skews statistics which report on the earnings of college graduates. This rebuttal can be summed up as follows: Any student which meets the requirements to go to college will, on average, earn more than the average high-school diploma holder, regardless of whether or not they attend college. This does not completely negate con's future earnings statistics. It is true that college graduates will have higher incomes. However, one must always keep in mind that, due to what I described above, the numbers will always be a couple thousand dollars lower than what is cited. The Overall Chance of Any BenefitsThis relates to my rebuttal against "opportunities," yet is large enough to deserve its own section. The overall chance of achieving these benefits is very low. The 54% drop out rate means that one is more likely to not receive any of these benefits, and instead be faced with massive student loan debt. The 20% default rate means that even if one does manage to beat the odds and graduate they will not receive any of the benefits. Instead, they will receive massive wage garnishments and federal benefits being offset. Even if one can somehow manage to graduate and not default on their student loan debt, they will more likely than not be put into a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Thus, even if my opponent manages to prove that the monetary benefits of college outweigh the monetary costs, voters must keep in mind that its extremely unlikely any college graduate will actually achieve these benefits. ConclusionCollege graduates only earn $279,000 more over the course of their lifetime, not $890,000. A college graduate is unlikely to actually obtain such lifetime earnings. There are very few social benefits of going to college. The large risks taken to obtain a college degree vastly outweigh the potential benefits. College graduates do not have a lower unemployment rate. Job potential for high school graduates is increasing.

College is worth it I accept your challenge, under the pretense that we can qualify which college experiences we are debating about, i.e., I will argue that a number of specific majors/fields of study are not worth the time and money, if one is hoping to gain employment through them, while I will conceed that other types, such as trade schools, are more worthwhile in today's economy.

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...

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits In this round, I will finish up final rebuttals, then list both the costs and benefits of a college education. Weighing and impacting each point will be done at the end of the round.Monetary BenefitsWhen talking about monetary benefits, note that the claim was always about lifetime earnings. Lifetime earnings and opportunity costs are different points, and higher lifetime earnings does not show that you will accumulate more wealth, simply that you will have a higher income. I agree with my opponent that the average college graduate will have a high lifetime earnings differential. However, there is no "averaging" to be done. The number stands at roughly $275,000, as other studies are too flawed to be considered.DebtMy opponent has mostly dropped this point, instead focusing on monetary benefits. Simply because one will have higher earnings (not wealth) over their lifetime does not mean that debt should be ignored.The average college graduate will be in debt until the age of 33. As was brought up in my first contention and not refuted: "College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, “running back home.” That hurts us all." Some small weighing to be done: A small chance of earning $275,000 versus being in debt for eleven years, with a 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything. It's fairly obvious that these costs outweigh the monetary benefits, especially when combined with opportunity cost.Investment Potential (opportunity cost)A brief reminder: If a college graduate misses out on an opportunity, this is considered opportunity cost. If I can show that college graduates miss out on an opportunity to make more money, then this must be considered for total wealth accumulation.My opponent only responded to my point on job experience, leaving the investment point un-touched for the entire debate. This alone justifies a pro ballot. Investing money, rather than going to college, will result in far more wealth (more than three times as much) by the age of 65, even if the college graduate invests too. This is using the average savings rate, investment returns, cost of tuition, etc. Simply put, this point outweighs any possible monetary benefits that my opponent can bring up, and the point was dropped. The opportunity cost of going to college is roughly 1.3 million dollars.Pro-College Studies PointIn the last round, my opponent claimed that this point reinforces his case. This is entirely false. The only way it would do this is if con could refute my points of how college graduates no longer receive the same benefits that they did years ago. I brought these points up in rounds 2 and 3, and will reiterate them here. In round 3, I showed that the recession did hit college graduates harder, as is shown by the fact that they now have the same unemployment rate as non-graduates, when 10 years ago they didn't. Again in round 3, I showed that job growth is occurring in areas where college degrees are not needed. However, more and more people are going to college. This greatly decreases the value of a college education. This causes underemployment, meaning more and more college graduates are not gaining the wage benefits that my opponent has brought up. "More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree." Default rates have increased. Drop out rates have increased. An average college graduate is going into an environment that is completely different than it was 20 years ago. Thus, this entire point still stands: only recent college graduates can be considered, unless con can show that these graduates will eventually reach the earnings/employment potential of past graduates (note that burden of proof is shared in this debate). Drop-outs and Defaults.My opponent misunderstands my drop-out point. The focus was not on the cost of dropping out. The focus was on the fact that less than half of those who go to college even gain any benefits.Defaulting, however, should be considered as a cost. This point has not been adequately touched upon by my opponent. We've already established that the monetary benefits will be roughly $275,000 (other than opportunity cost). If you default on your student loans, you lose all of that. It cannot be forgiven by bankruptcy: your wages will be garnished, your tax refunds offset, you will be ineligible for future federal employment, etc. This is an extremely large point greatly undermines the value of a college education. One-fifth of all borrowers will default and lose all their monetary benefits. My opponent focuses a lot on the benefits of a college education. However, one must ask themselves: how likely am I to actually achieve this benefits? The answer is not likely at all, roughly 40%. Once again, this point alone can justify a pro ballot. If 60% of students will not even attain these elusive benefits, then they shouldn't even be considered in this debate.Social BenefitsAs I've stated before, this point has a very small impact.My opponent again mentions that you are "learning to live on your own gradually and constructively." I brought up in round 3 that you must also learn to live on your own if you don't go to college. My opponent responded to this by saying that "you're also getting an education," but this point is meaningless as we're debating about whether or not the education is worth it in the first place. What's the difference between learning to live in college, and learning to live in the real world? You have to constantly worry about debt, you have to work jobs to in order to finance your education on top of class work, you have to go 11 years knowing you're at a disadvantage for buying a home or getting married, you know you have a massive default/drop out rate, etc. The social benefits of going to college are easily countered with the social costs. I concede that you do not lose job connections by attending college. However, it is fairly clear that you don't gain many either. Why? Because the unemployment rate for college graduates and non-graduates are the same, and because the majority of job growth is occurring in areas where you don't even need a college education. Also note that my opponent statistic on 80% of jobs aren't advertised does not show that non-college graduates only gain access to 20% of jobs. Con's own source mentions you gain access to these 80% of jobs through your "network," which includes, friends, family, peers, social organizations, service providers, recent graduates, etc. This does not require a college education. Causation versus CorrelationThis point wasn't intended to completely negate con's benefits. Rather, it was to show that those who qualify to go to college will automatically have higher earnings/unemployment potential than normal high-school graduates, due to their own personal traits. My opponent's claim that college offers benefits because success-driven people decide to go simply cannot stand in this round until con can show that they achieve such benefits. I've already shown that there are little benefits to a college education, and large costs.What is not a benefit?Lower unemployment.Greater overall wealth.Social benefits.Job opportunities. BenefitsRoughly a 40% chance for a $275,000 lifetime earnings differential.Costs1.3 million dollars of opportunity cost, which my opponent has not refuted at all.A 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything if you borrow money.Being in debt for 11 years and unable to become a full consumer.ConclusionYou will have roughly 1 million dollars less wealth than if you were to spend money elsewhere.You will gain no noticeable benefits over a non-graduate.You are extremely unlikely to achieve any benefits. College is 11-15 lost years of your life with nothing to show for it.

A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Moving past unemployment, underemployment, and debt I would like to focus on life after a person has graduated a full four year college. Based off your claims I cannot deny that a person with a full college education does make more money than a person who decides to skip college or only work for their associates. Even seeing that unemployment and underemployment may be avoided if a person really strives out of a state such as California where finding jobs is much more difficult. But even though a person may find a job and pay off all their debt how long will it take for a four-year college graduate to finally live a normal life? Based off the online article website, "The Balance", and their article "Making it Between College and Your First Job", last updated March of this year, they state that it takes up to six months for a college graduate to find a job, depending on their field and the current economic conditions. Six months may not seem like a lot of time but compared to an average person without a degree who can find a job in between six weeks, there is a huge gap. Within these six months the graduate will need to not only figure out how to manage their lives but also figure out how else they will support themselves. This last issue many college graduates then face after college are the delays in their life. Facing the fact that compared to a person without a degree and who has already a paying job the graduate will then need extra time to move on with their lives. Finding delays in saving for retirement, delays in buying their homes, and maybe even delays in getting married. A full college education can take a majority of a person's time and while they are busy studying it takes time away from preparing for their life after college. However, because a person with a full college education can afford a home and save for retirement much quicker than a person without, it then all depends on the person. Some people would prefer living their lives out rather than having a college education and if that is their preferred life so be it. Overall, a college education can benefit those who decide to follow that path, but they will face their share of hardships during and after just as a person who doesn't go to college will face their own working difficulties.

Going to college is worth Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com...

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits =Monetary Benefits= My opponent tries to comb through my argument and pick through it but the bottom line is, though he disagrees with the extent of my claims made, that there still is a monetary benefit for college educated people. He claims there is ONLY a difference of over $275,000. That's still a lot; a salary boost of thousands a year. In the end, though we have varying studies (and there are literally dozens of college income and average income studies and numbers out there) the bottom line, concluded by both of us, is that there is a long term monetary benefit to attending college. Even the low number given by my opponent is pretty high, and if we average the two the benefit is even higher. Through it all my opponent failed to refute the claim that there is a monetary benefit to attending college which only helps to add weight to our case going forward when combined with other points.=Social Benefits= My opponent claims that 12 years of public schooling and some start up job positions can replace the benefits given by a college experience. However, this is simply not the case. He claims "real world" experiences are better than college experiences. However, while learning how to live on your own gradually and constructively in college you're also getting an education. Instead of flinging 18 year olds into a dingy apartment right away, college eases young adults into this transition making it easier on them. Also, my opponent claims "job experience" will give them more connections than college will. This is simply an unpractical claim to make. The jobs 18 year old high school graduates will be hourly wage jobs to start almost guaranteed. They'll have to work their way up to a management position in the 4-6 years they could be in college. College students however are usually hired for higher positions automatically and will forgo the wage jobs. Another thing, colleges have Career resource centers which specialize in helping college students get jobs. The UF center for example, gives out thousands of jobs a year to college students. [1] Also, they claim that many jobs are not advertised and are only reached through school and professional connections. Up to 80% of jobs never reach the "job market" via advertising. College students will have these connections via professors, internships and the resource center on campus. Non college students are barred from all this.=Opportunities=My opponent claims 54% of students have a chance of dropping out and 20% will drop out. Almost 100% of these drop outs occur within the first year of college meaning the damage financially and to their time will only be the extent of a year. They will owe 1/4th that of traditional 4 year students. The risk is not as high as my opponent claims. On year of tuition will be about $5k not the full extent of a student loan. Also, again, the experience and status of being college educated is always there. Even if you have to start out poorly, you will always have that status which will help you advance long term. People without college educations will always hit a barrier when on the rise. People without college educations will always be barred from positions requiring an education. This is huge. The opportunities presented by a college education are forever. Not having a degree will close these doors to you and they will never be opened. =Problems with Pro-College Studies="because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago" This helps to reiterate my point that college degree benefits are more long term than my opponent wants to acknowledge. Even 20-30 years later these college graduates will get jobs and according to multiple studies will be making some amount more than their non degree holding counterparts. My opponents claims about the recession are misleading. The recession caused EVERYONE'S unemployment numbers to rise. It did not affect any one group more or less than another. Of course, if unemployment is above 8% college graduates will be affected by this. =Causation Versus Correlation=My opponent makes a rather weak claim here about causation. He claims people who go to college would be successful anyways and therefore college studies are not as straight and true as they appear. However, it doesn't change the common denominator in all these studies which is a college education. People geared towards success do tend to go to college as my opponent points out. Why? Because college gives benefits. If college benefits did not outweigh the costs then these success driven people would not attempt to attend college. They attend college because of the tangible benefits to be gained.If these college eligible people would earn more regardless of college; why attend? Because college is obviously more beneficial than not. Or else they'd continue without it and earn more anyways. College enhances these skills and benefits. =Chance of Benefits=I said before, college benefits last a lifetime. The degree will always be with you, so chance of success is exponentially greater throughout their lifetime than a non degree holding person. Also, as I mentioned before, the drop outs occur almost exclusively in the first year of college so the damage done is only a year's worth. College loans for one year, not four etc.The chance of benefits and success are exponentially greater for a college degree holder than a non college degree hold over a lifetime due to the ability to be exposed to college educated positions etc.=Conclusion=* College monetary benefit is present and confirmed by my opponent* Opportunities for jobs are exponentially greater than non degree holding people* Most high level people (CEO's, politicians etc) all have college degrees* If college didn't offer benefit's so many success geared people would rely on themselves and forgo collegeThe benefits of college outweigh the costs.[1] http://www.crc.ufl.edu...

A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It I cannot deny that four-year college educations do provide higher paying jobs compared to a person with only an associate's degree, but even though the person may make more money it all depends. It depends on the major the person took, it depends on the amount of debt they will be in, it depends on the college they went too, it depends if there are even jobs available for them after graduation. I say this because yes, all college education does cost money, but some a lot more than others and it is because of this cost and rate of recent unemployment for certain jobs why perhaps the four-year education is currently not worth all its time and effort. While there are grants and scholarships for full time four-year college students to apply for to aid in their debt, that is if they take the time and effort to do so, many cannot forget that even after graduation and debt there also may lie unemployment and underemployment. Seeing in the online website article," The Economic Policy Institute", last updated in April 21, 2016, that, "For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 12.6 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007)". Despite how low these rates may be now it cannot be ignored how dramatically the percentage changed from 2007 to 2016 in the underemployment rates and shows that in the due future these rates will only become increase. Through this percent of people who face underemployment and how it will begin to grow over time it can be seen that many people will have their four-year degree but most will never work to their educations actual potential. Lacking in that higher paying job they so longed for and then for those who had not applied for grants and scholarships finding themselves stuck in debt that they cannot escape due to their underemployed job. It is not common, but there are associate's degrees that allow a pay just as high as any bachelor's degree may provide. It is with these certain opportunities that people may take through a shorter college life that they will end up with not only a much smaller debt but also a well paid trade and working job that are currently in the need and are not facing unemployment or underemployment.

In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits All right so we're looking at the benefit to the majority. I don't believe the resolution should pertain to EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the United States. The ENTIRE population should not be looked at here. The main focus should be on the people actually paying to go to college. How would you analyze the benefits that a random person across the country receives from students paying to go to college? We must look at the group paying to go to college and what benefits they receive and whether this outweighs the cost (I'll touch on this later). 1. College does not benefit the majority Basically 68% of high school graduates went to college. So this 68% would be the ones receiving any sort of benefits. The people that did not even attend college cannot be a factor. Of course they didn't receive any benefits. But they didn't have to pay anything either! So these people who weren't even in college cannot be used by either side of this debate, because the resolution simply does not pertain to them. Now, my opponent says 45& of the people do drop out after paying for college. So this 45% does not receive any benefits. But guess what! The other 55% receives benefits from college! (I'll touch on the benefits later after my rebuttals) 55>45, therefore the majority still receives benefits. "The Labor Department’s American Community Survey[2]tells us of another 22% of college graduates that are currently employed at a job that doesn't even require a degree. All of this points to the idea that all of the individual benefits that the Con is sure to point out aren't actually obtained by the majority of the U. S populace. " Ok so 22% of college graduates are employed at a job that doesn't require a degree. .. Well I'm glad that the other 78% of college graduates found their degree useful and a benefit to them. 78>22, therefore the majority receives benefits. 2. College contributes towards the growing income gap in the U. S "According to the Center for the Study of Democracy in 2007[4], from 1973 to 2005, wages of those in the 90th percentile – where most people have college or advanced degrees – rose by 30 percent or more, and among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated in the top 1%, which includes venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. " Hmmm. .. getting a college degree leads to making more money? A lot more money? Sounds like a good benefit to me. "In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below, where many people have at most a high school diploma, real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent. Although there isn't a causal relationship between the growing income gap and college education, these statistics still show an increasing gap between the payment of a blue collar worker and a white collar worker. This means that people who can’t afford college, people who drop out or fail college, or even people who don’t want to go to college are punished, and in most cases, the act that they’re being punished for is completely out of their control. " You're right - there isn't a casual relationship between the growing income gap and college education. People who have college degrees ARE making more than people without college degrees. But again, my opponent is looking at a lot of people who didn't have to pay anything for college, because they just didn't go. If you don't go to college, how on Earth would you receive the benefits of college? 3. College contributes to the destruction of the U. S health care system Ok so basically my opponent is saying that medical sutudents pay much more for their education and many of them are in debt. However, the number of medical students in the US is only about 67,000 (. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...). Compared to the 18.2 million students who enrolled in college in 2007(. http://howtoedu.org...), that number seems pretty miniscule. So the extremely high costs does not affect the majority, and the majority is not left in a ton of debt. 18.2 million total>67,000 medical therefore majority is not affected. All of the other statistics my opponent is showing is basically trying to connect the bankruptcies and misfortunes of other people to the costs of college. Once again, I believe the group who is closely affiliated with the colleges and the costs and benefits of them, i. e. students, should be looked at here, not every single person in the US. Ok, the US has a very expensive healthcare. So what? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number 1 Benefit for Going to College - "College graduates, on average, make a whopping one million dollars more in lifetime earnings than those with a high school diploma. " (. http://www.eduguide.org...)Now isn't that worth the measly costs of college? College costs are on average $29,000 for private colleges and $12,000 for public colleges, every year (. http://businessmajors.about.com...). But for paying that amount to go to college you earn 1 million more than you would have if you didn't go to college at all! Talk about a benefit! Of course there are many other benefits to college that can't be measured in numbers such as the whole experience. Meeting lifelong friends, awesome parties, living on campus, etc. Sure college can be pretty costly, but it more than makes up for it in the end.

College is a Necessity to be Successful The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to "Actually, College is Very Much Worth It" by Andrew J. Rotherham "College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans." College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.

The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits I'm not exactly sure how to respond.A) You did not source your arguments like I asked of you. Simply stating them is not enough, I could pull out any statistic or quote and say it came from a newspaper.B) You haven't read my arguments. For example, I rebutted your contention on the individual's standpoint by pointing out that in the long run College graduates earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, making investing 20,000 - 30,000 dollars in post-secondary education an efficient and thoroughly beneficial investment.Please take the time to reread and construct actual arguments before posting your response. Thank you.

Going to college is financially not worth it It is worth it to go to college, and I will explain why it is worth it in the second round of the debate. Yes, I will post arguments using mathematical sense. Sincerely, Dr. Maniac

A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called "Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like "tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.

Going to college is financially not worth it We are debating whether or not it makes economic sense to go to college, in other words whether or not college will create a net-income gain or a net-income loss. Arguments should be based in statistics and mathematics and not in strict opinion.

A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that "...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt " and maybe no job in sight". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations.

The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits OK. B(

College is worth it No round as agreed

The costs of college outweigh the benefits colleges are playing with our money and giving us nothing but a kind of education that makes us inelligible in the job market.the increasing number of unemployment shows us that the market do not think that our college degree does have some value.if our employer don't think our degrees are valuable and fire us for that reason, our degrees really don't have ny value.therefore college education has no benefit at all.

In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Thanks for accepting. I'd like to start off by outlining a framework for this debate. There are a few key factors that need to be looked at: 1) The cost to the individual 2) The benefit to the individual 3) The cost to the majority 4) The benefit to the majority In any effective cost/benefit analysis, the cost or benefit to the majority is always carries more impact than the cost for benefit to the individual. Thus, for framework of this debate, the Pro must prove that the costs outweigh the benefits for the majority of the U.S populace, and the Con must prove that the benefits outweigh the costs for the majority of the U.S populace. With that, here are my contentions: 1. College does not benefit the majority The Bureau of Labor Statistics sheds some light on the amount of students who attend college, and from that, the amount who actually graduate. According to a BLS study in 2010[1], 68% of high school graduates attended college. According to this same study, 45% of those who enrolled in college didn’t even graduate. From that, we can conclude that 62.6% of the students that graduate from high school did not receive a college degree, whether they dropped out or didn’t even attend in the first place. Right off the bat, that's more than half of the U.S population who do not receive individual benefits from a college education, whether the reason be dropping out of college or not even attending at all. Although that doesn't seem like a lot, it's enough to prove a point. The Labor Department’s American Community Survey[2] tells us of another 22% of college graduates that are currently employed at a job that doesn't even require a degree. All of this points to the idea that all of the individual benefits that the Con is sure to point out aren't actually obtained by the majority of the U.S populace. 2. College contributes towards the growing income gap in the U.S Bryan Caplan, a professor of economics at the George Mason University, says that “From a moral point of view, far too many students are going to college – just as far too many people stand up at concerts”[3]. This analogy compares going to college with standing up at a concert: Sure, doing so will benefit you individually, there's no denying that, but by doing so you are effectively hindering the people around you. The more people that stand up at concerts, the more it hinders everyone there, just as the more people who attend college, the more it hinders the U.S populace, which includes both people who chose to attend college, and those who did not. According to the Center for the Study of Democracy in 2007[4], from 1973 to 2005, wages of those in the 90th percentile – where most people have college or advanced degrees – rose by 30 percent or more, and among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated in the top 1%, which includes venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below, where many people have at most a high school diploma, real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent. Although there isn't a causal relationship between the growing income gap and college education, these statistics still show an increasing gap between the payment of a blue collar worker and a white collar worker. This means that people who can’t afford college, people who drop out or fail college, or even people who don’t want to go to college are punished, and in most cases, the act that they’re being punished for is completely out of their control. 3. College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care system The U.S is infamous for its astronomical health care prices, and semi-infamous for the high cost of a decent college education. Is it a coincidence that a medical school education is one of the most expensive educations that one can receive, but the potential profit from that career path is exponentially higher? I think not. The Association of American Medical Colleges reports that tuition rates alone for first year students averaged at $50,000 a year[5]. This doesn’t include room and board, textbooks, and other expenses, and it also doesn’t include graduate school. A study done by the American Medical Association reported that the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2010 was $157,944[6]. From the same study, they found that 78 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000, 42 percent of graduates have a debt of at least $150,000, and 85 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans. In fact, the average amount of time that it takes for a graduated medical student to pay off his or her debts acquired from med school is 11 years. It's no wonder why health care costs are so high, how else would these students pay off their loans? The AMA states that tuition fee is the largest contributor towards the astronomically high price of health care by saying "Medical education debt is driven by rising tuition. AAMC data show that median private medical school tuition and fees increased by 50 percent (in real dollars) in the 20 years between 1984 and 2004. Median public medical school tuition and fees increased by 133 percent over the same time period. Other recent 20-year periods show similar trends." What problems does this cause for our health care system? Reuters ranks the United States as the most expensive health care in the world[7], which is largely due to the debt accumulated by medical students and their need to pay it off. The cost of U.S health care has led to 16.7% of the U.S population who are completely uninsured because they can’t afford health care, according to the U.S Census Bureau in 2009[8]. This lack of insurance leads to the unnecessary deaths of 18 thousand people per year according to the U.S Institute of Medicine. Those who are insured still have trouble paying the costs of the health care they receive. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. Having the most expensive health care in the world wouldn’t be so bad if it was also the best, but that’s not the case either. The World Health Organization ranks the United States as having the 37th most effective health care out of the 191 countries that were analyzed. So if you’re somehow able to afford health care, it’s still not even the best you can get, despite its outrageously high cost. To summarize, college education in the United States does not benefit the majority, it contributes towards an increasing income gap between blue and white collar workers, and it leads to the increasing of price in the already ridiculously overpriced private health care in the U.S. Given these contentions, I affirm. 1. http://www.bls.gov... 2. http://www.census.gov... 3. http://chronicle.com... 4. http://www.frbsf.org... 5. http://services.aamc.org... 6. http://www.ama-assn.org...? 7. http://www.reuters.com... 8. Unfortunately, this isn't available online anymore, so here's the most recent version, it gives the same information: http://www.census.gov...

The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define ‘costs’ We would like to define ‘costs’ as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government’s money we’ll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today’s debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today’s debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don’t let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone’s life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, 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. That isn’t even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that "Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?" asked Van Horn. "While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority." This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates’ loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests.“It's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up” - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way.

Should colleges be free On average, a college graduate with a bachelor"s degree earned $30,000 more per year than a high school graduate, or about $500,000 more over a lifetime, as of Apr. 2013. [8] Earning an associate's degree (a 2-year degree) was worth about $170,000 more than a high school diploma over a lifetime in 2011. [9] The median income for families headed by a bachelor's degree holder was $100,096 in 2011"more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate. [10] The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007. [11] 85% of Forbes' 2012 America's 400 Richest People list were college grads. College-education.procon.org

A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It It is true that finding a job or position after graduating can be hard but like you said it all depends on the person's work ethics and situation. This may cause people to get a job from six weeks to six months depending on the major and area. Some areas need more jobs than others depending on the community's needs, resources, and stability. Some colleges have programs that make it easier to find positions for specific majors and it also depends on how bad the job seeker truly wants it. No matter what kind of education one accquires, full time or not, a person will have some difficulty finding a job. But it is after the position is obtained by an individual that makes the true difference. One goes to college to obtain a better and comfortable lifestyle by earning a greater salary. Charles Purdy published an article called "10 Job Search Mistakes of New College Grads" by a website called Monster Worldwide Inc, offering career advice and researching the top mistakes most job seekers and grad students make. Some of the mistakes listed on the website were not using the college's career office, not taking the job interview seriously, appearing unprofessional, setting expectations too high, misusing the internet, relying solely on the internet, and not being proactive enough. To elaborate on students and job seekers setting the expectation to high, most of them think of the perfect job instead of their "first job" or actually giving it a fair shot. In this economy, the first job should be about finding a position where one will learn great deals and skills, be super busy, and be surrounded by lots of people in order to get familiar and be more hands on with their career or major. Afterwards, there is always the option of transferring to another location if the first job isn't meeting their expectations. In conclusion, achieving any sort of education may seem challenging but the sole purpose of obtaining an education should motivate one to achieve greater than what they had before, whether it's a high school diploma or associates degree. A full time education may seem stressful but one should keep their eyes on the prize once their journey is completed.

Going to college is worth I accept, and will be arguing that college is worth it for some people.

Going to college is worth It is not !!!!!!!!! CAn i hear your why-statement ?

The costs of college outweigh the benefits 1] yes there are scholership to get a college degree but what after that? will you get a good job?2]watch this documentary and you will understand what kind of fullfilling job you can get after college education.http://www.youtube.com...3] abraham lincoln did not have college degree yet he became president of united states. thomas paine did not have a college degree, yet he designed the american constitution.so college education has nothing to do with democracy.

In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Higher education is required for all but the most basic of jobs (Contention 4)You're probably wondering why I'm trying to make this point. Obviously college benefits the individual even more if it's required to get a halfway-decent job, right? That's exactly the point. But what happens to the rest of the population without a degree? They're left behind to "feed off the table scraps".In the book Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, Anthony T. Kronman, a professor of law at Yale Law School, said: "All but the most unskilled forms of labor are increasingly based on knowledge of a kind that can be acquired only in school, and in supplying that knowledge America's colleges and universities provide a tremendous service to the individuals who come to them to learn a trade of profession"[1]. There is no denying the benefit to the individual when he or she receives a college education, but those who do not are limited to all but the most basic of jobs. In defense of my contentionsContention 1) College does not benefit the majorityMy opponent states that the people who do not attend college should not factor into this debate because the resolution doesn't apply to them. This was true, until I brought up my fourth contention. Now, those who do not go to college must be included in this debate as a group of individuals who are suffering the consequences of not going to college. If we are forced to include the individuals who do not attend college, we are now left with a resulting 62.6% of high school graduates who have not benefited - but have actually been impacted negatively - by a college education.Contention 2) College contributes to the already growing income gapGiven my response to my opponent's objection to my first Contention, my opponent's response to my second is also void. Yes, college graduates make more money, and their income has been proven to increase over time compared to the income of blue-collar workers. This is exactly what my point was trying to get across. If the wages of higher educated jobs are increasing faster than the wages of lower education jobs, then that is an income gap that is increasing.Contention 3) College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care systemMy opponent seemed to misunderstand this contention. Yes, it's true that med-school students have to pay more than regular college students, and yes, they are part of the minority. But I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that health care prices in the United States are so high BECAUSE med school students have to pay so much towards their educations. It takes an average of 11 years to fully pay off the debt that one acquires through med school, and it is for this reason that the costs of health care in the United States is so high. And seeing as the cost of health care affects everyone, this is an obvious detriment for the majority of the U.S populace.Responding to my opponent's contention:College students make more moneyI agree. The arguments in my fourth contention apply here as well. What about the students that do not attend college? What about the students that can not attend college? It's simple, they are forced to make less than their higher-educated counterparts. So again, I acknowledge the benefits to the individual, but that is insignificant compared to the detriments to the majority.I urge an affirmative vote.Citations:1. http://books.google.com...

Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation RE: What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. I don’t doubt these statistics and agree that it is probably true one with a college degree earns more than the amount a high school graduate can earn. It is beneficial for society as a whole to earn a college degree rather than without. However, in the context of this debate it is important not only to ensure that millennials are not being exploited by college degrees, but that they are using them in alignment with their core values/ ambitions, for higher education to be worth it for them. Therefore, the fact that one can earn more than a high school graduate is only a good thing for millennials given that: P1: Millennials aim to utilise university to generate the most income The millennial generation can be characterised as being ‘interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns’, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that ‘money is the best measure of success’, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2). Hence, if most the millennial generation are not pursuing high income earnings directly this point is not enough alone to argue the worth of a college degree for millennials. RE: College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. ‘there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in.’ P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) ‘this (college debt) is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.’ I agree with the latter, but disagree in the former as I believe the fact that con agrees this issue can be solved by making college tuition free reinforces my point that college education needs reform (I would say the total eradication of fees is considered serious reform) P3: There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don’t even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. Abraham Lincoln himself says ‘if you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done…it is a small matter whether you read with any one or not; I did not read with anyone...Always bear in mind your own resolution to succeed is more important than anything’ (4) P4: A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). RE: College education helps you go into a career you really want I admire those who know what they want in a career and go after it. I agree that a college education may help you reach there – having a college education is perfectly fine here. Especially if you know you want to be a teacher, doctor, engineer etc. What I have a problem with is many young people do not know what they truly want. We are characterised as the ‘indecisive generation’ because we have so many more options than previous generations available to us. By 2010 nearly 60% of employed millennials had already switched their career at least once. Whilst the possibility exists that some people equated a ‘career change’ with a ‘job change’, it could also mean that millennials are considering alternatives and many options when it comes to finding a career pathway either due to personal preferences or societal pressures (rapidly transforming jobs etc. as elaborated in A1, P3). (3) Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. Hence, reform is necessary to allow students to experiment and experience practical work culture etc. instead of allowing vulnerable youth to pursue something they are not interested in/do not know much about under the pressure from their parents etc. RE: RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. ‘In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.’ There is a simple observational error. My opponent has compared a statistic I used (anxiety or depression affection 13% U/G and 15.6% P/G) (6) that was recorded in 2005 with results that were measured in 2015 (6.7% of the general population affected by depression). Additionally, whilst the statistic used in regards to anxiety affecting the general population being 18.1% is verified, 1) This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) 2) There is a problem with the method of calculation. According to con’s calculations, an accurate representation would be 18.1% of the general population in 2005 have an anxiety disorder + 5.4% of general population in 2005 with a depressive disorder(7)=23.5% affected. Therefore as 23.5% is greater than 13% and 15.6%, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected. This is higher than the average anxiety or depression disorders existent in the general population, and hence you can argue that anxiety or depression is higher among college students than the general population. This is an example of why this form of comparison is not very good. It is better to quote research involving direct comparison between college students and non-college students. Final Remarks I’m sorry I could not add additional arguments to this debate. Although the bit about college education increasing inequality might be considered one, I’ve mostly only included rebuttals this round due to time constraints as I’m currently travelling. Thanks for your response con, I look forward to continuing this debate! Sources: 1) https://www.brookings.edu... 2) https://www.brookings.edu... 3) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... 4) https://priceonomics.com... 5) http://www.nbcnews.com... 6) https://www.researchgate.net...... 7) https://www.cdc.gov...

Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I thank Capitalistslave for accepting my challenge. I will now proceed with the debate by stating my arguments. Also happy new year and sorry abt the confusion earlier.Technology & globalisation has made knowledge taught at higher education increasingly redundant P1) Technology has created access and opportunity. It allows humans to communicate and collaborate with each other. Teachers are in many ways no longer the primary sources of information. It has become increasingly flexible to reach out to information and consume it, allowing us to be eager participants in lifelong learning. [1] [2] When we have the internet, college degrees are increasingly redundant as the content we learn can easily be learnt online.P2) University curriculums rarely change. [3] Colleges are too slow to reinvent themselves [6]. An example of this is accounting where graduates struggle in practical situations that are not visited in their classes. Technology has revolutionised accounting so much that much of the content that taught in accounting are also automated and do not need to be learnt. [4] Essentially it becomes clear that most students are attending university for the degree, and not education.P3) Jobs and knowledge are transforming too rapidly in today’s world to validate the worth of a single/double rigid university major. We are constantly multitasking, we are time poor and we are predicted to have 7 career changes in our lifetime. [5] What is the point of studying for a job with a curriculum that was written decades ago when said job did not exist?University education is no longer worth itP1) Unlike previously thought, a four-year college degree has no guarantee for decent wage growth due to wage stagnation [6] Figure 5. Hence the argument that college is an investment as it helps you become a high-income earner is not true. Hourly wages for young college graduates were lower than they were in the 1990s [6] Figure 5. This further reinforces my point that higher education is not a worthy investment.P2) Higher education is a money consuming machine - in 2014 college tuition has effectively risen to 1125% of 1978 figures. Compared to the 279% increase of the consumer price index, this is massive. In an increasingly tougher labour market, to have a huge sum of tuition fees to repay is an additional burden. [7] The costs that are incurred in higher education are uncorrelated to market trends, making it difficult for students to support themselves after. University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. P1) Evidence suggests that mental health issues are increasing amongst students in higher education. In 2005 alone, 10% of undergraduates seriously considered attempting suicide. In 2007, 13.8% of undergraduates and 15.6% of postgraduates were screen tested positive for depression. Students facing financial struggles because of university and those who spend more hours working face a higher risk of mental health problems. [8] University students are four times more likely to be depressed/anxious than others their age. [9]‘Most lifetime mental disorders have first onset during or shortly before the typical college age (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005), and these problems may be precipitated or exacerbated by the variety of stressors in college life, including irregular sleep patterns, flux in personal relationships, and academic pressures.’ [8] If long term mental disorders are mostly developed during or just before higher education – we must seriously consider the benefits to cost ratio of putting oneself in a high stress situation, and the costs may be permanent & long lasting.Students nowadays go to university for the degree (appearance), and not the education (depth).P1) There is a lack of intellectual curiosity and creativity in universities. An indifferent culture is a dangerous culture that has its youth disengaged and complacent. If this is the culture in uni today, there is not much reason to go.Now I’m not claiming that it is specifically the fault of universities, but still the rigid structure of university courses perpetuates ancient dogma (that is no longer relevant) about what you can get out of university. (e.g. a job, a successful life etc.)Under the guidance of ‘helicopter parents’, students were less open to new ideas/actions and instead was stressed, anxious and self-conscious. Today they are pushed for academic achievement, ‘completely uninterested in the items in their resumes’ etc. Many college students think that they must study a specific area and their paths have already been set out for them. (like engineering, law, accounting etc.) [10] A combination of old beliefs about having a straightforward path to success with the inflexibility of university courses results in students being prevented from fully discovering their interests etc. This creates a generation that is disillusioned, trapped and dissatisfied. Additionally, when acknowledging world famous institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge, a former student is not surprised when increasingly seeing unaccomplished graduates from these places. This is because a ‘sense of entitlement, elitism and false idea that one is somehow better for having attended Oxbridge can prepare a person for a frankly unimpressive life. One characterised by complacency and security rather than by the ability to make genuine contributions to society.’ This is where graduates aim for a privileged life instead of a meaningful one. [11] This is yet another example where passion is no longer present in higher education, and how many turn to it to create illusions of success and accomplishment in correlation with our increasingly superficial world. Concluding remarksI’d like to add once again that I’m not against university. But I do believe in terms of the material/content that is taught much reform is needed for university to truly be worthwhile.Sources:[1] http://online.purdue.edu...[2] http://www.sanfordbrown.edu...[3] https://www.ft.com...[4]https://books.google.com.au...[5] http://www.wsj.com...[6] http://www.epi.org...[7] https://www.bloomberg.com...[8]https://www.researchgate.net...[9] http://www.smh.com.au... [10]http://www.slate.com...[11] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

We regret the emphasis on college education The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence. Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one"s potential in many ways. Students who didn"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.

Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I would actually agree that higher education is outdated for the millennial generation, but I believe it is still necessary. The first point I shall make is that, while I agree that there is probably not much to gain from a college education since we have access to all of the information at our fingertips through the internet(though, I would argue that in many ways the internet has made us dumber; however if you're smart, you know how to find high quality articles on matters, such as using google scholar instead of plain google) the formality of going through a college education does have a lot of bonuses to it.1) What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. While what my opponent said that a college degree earns you less than it did in the past, it still is a fact that a college degree earns you more than a high school degree does today. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering: High school drop outs: $18,734 High school graduates: $27,915 College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206 Advanced degree holders: $74,602" [1] Now, while a high school graduate will be able to earn more money upfront, whereas a college student will be spending a lot of time on college, probably after a few years of a college graduate being in the workforce will ballance out to the money that the high school grad earned. If you take these numbers(which are not what the person makes first out of college or first out of high school, so these numbers would be lower for that, but I'll use them anyways).Suppose you have person A who is going to college before doing any kind of work, and Person B who started working full time right out of high school. Person A is not earning anything while Person B is earning money. Person B, in 4 years(the amount of time the average college degree takes to earn) would earn $111,660. At this point, the college grad would then be able to start working in the work force, and they would be getting $51,206 a year. After another 6 years the college grad will have earned 307,236, while the high school graduate, in 10 years(4 years of working while person A was in school, and 6 years while both were working) of working will have earned 279,150. So, in the long-run, a college education will earn you much more. And that's not taking into account that as a college student, you can easily have a part-time job while going to school full-time. I did this myself and still retained excellent grades.I suppose Person A, however, may have a lot of college debt, which my opponent mentioned that higher education is very expensive. However, this is not true for every college graduate. Some had such good grades that they earned scholarships, others came from a family that was well off enough to afford to put them into college, and others went to a community college(which are much more affordable than 4 year universities) and then transfered to a 4 year university and saved a lot of money going that route. In addition, this is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.However, now that I looked into the average debt a college student has when coming out of college, it's $30,100[6]. This amount can be paid for by less than two years of work, since the average college student makes $24,000 more per year than a high school student. Sure, for the first year and half, they would in reality be making the same as a high school graduate since they have to pay off their debt, but after that they will catch up to the high school graduate in less than 10 years and surpass them in the amount of money they gained over the years.Here's another example where a college education would greatly benefit a person. Depending on what field a person goes into, they will earn a lot more than others too. So, people could easily choose the higher-paying careers. For example, I'm currently going to school to become a psychiatrist. This takes an addiitonal 4 years after a bachelor's degree to complete, usually. The average annual salary a psychiatrist has is $193,680.[2] A psychiatrist earns more than double the amount the average wage for advanced degrees, and doctors and other specialists are in the same boat. If more people were to consider going into the medical field, they would earn a lot more and it would definitely be worth it. There are also other fields which pay well as well. 2) College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. Now, if you take a high school graduate who learned everything online, there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in. Unless employers started giving some sort of examination on their field of work instead of requiring a bachelor's degree, a high school graduate who learned all of the necessary things for that career via online with no degree is at a disadvantage for getting that job, and probably will earn around the average a high school graduate makes. So, in order to make what my opponent proposes come true, where people could just self-educate themselves via the internet instead of a formal education, we would have to force employers to stop looking for college degrees from people and have them hand out some sort of examination to test if the person is qualified for the job. There's no guarantee employers would do this either, unless we forced them to. 3) College education helps you go into a career you really wantAs mentioned in the previous point, to get a specific career, it's often the case you need a college degree. Even if it's not earning enough to ballance out the fact that maybe you have some debt and that you weren't earning more money while you were going to college, it still means you got to go into a career you enjoy which you may not have been able to if you didn't have a college degree. RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. As for my opponent's argument that university causes depression and anxiety disorders, I would like to point out that the study they linked to says " The estimated prevalence of any depressive or anxiety disorder was 15.6% for undergraduates and 13.0% for graduate students" [3] while my opponent was slightly off for the numbers, that's not what my point is going to be about. Let's compare that to the anxiety and depression rates of the general population. In the general population 18.1% of adults have an anxiety disorder[4] while 6.7% of all adults have depression[5] for a combined total of 24.8% of the general population with either. In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. This is a good thing that the rate of depression and anxiety is lower amongst college students than the general population. It indicates that college is not as big of a stressor on people than events later on in life. Sources:[1] http://howtoedu.org...; [2] https://www.bls.gov...;[3] https://www.researchgate.net...;[4] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...;[5] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...;[6] http://ticas.org...;

College is a Necessity to be Successful Having a degree doesn't open as many doors as people think it does. Many employers who post job openings are now saying "this *blank* degree required or equivalent experience." For example, I am currently running my own media business and I often take clients downtown in our city for photo shoots. It just so happens that there is a college campus located downtown, and I often run into many photography majors on assignments when I'm on shoots. Several have come up to me on the job and asked "are you doing the assignment for professor so-and-so," or "do you go here?" and I have to reply "nope, I'm actually working..." I'm the same age as they are, I'm passionate about the same things are they are, but I'm MAKING money instead of SPENDING it. There are so many careers you don't need degrees or any form of certification for, you just have to have the perseverance and will to gain the experience and master your craft. One of my biggest pet peeves is when I ask a high school senior what they want to do, and they reply with, "I don't know, but I'm going to school for business because that's a safe fall-back." How is wasting you time and money "safe?" If college was 100% free of charge, then shoot, go for it. Or if you or your parents can pay for it out of pocket with no problem, then be my guest. But if you're taking out student loans on a credential that you may not actually need, then I'd say you're being reckless, not safe. Plus, college can always come later! If you've really tried to do your own thing for a couple of years and found you can't get anywhere you want to be without a degree, then guess what? You can still go get that degree. There is no harm in taking a gap year, in fact it has proven to be extremely beneficial to kids who have no idea what they want to do.

Going to college is financially not worth it It seems you have misunderstood me. Notice how you are debating the Pro for the statement 'Going to college is financially not worth it' meaning you are debating that it is not worth it to go to college.

In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits I am arguing that the costs of a college education do outweigh the benefits.

College is worth it This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals

College is worth it I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate, I had several unexpected events come up. All votes should go to my worthy opponant and if he sees fit to re-issue this debate, someone more worthy than me should accept.

Being successful in life is easier with a college education. College does not make success in life more easily achievable. 1) Some of the most successful people did not attend college, or did not graduate college. http://elitedaily.com... 2) College causes a lot of people to go into debt leading to insecure financial standings. http://projectonstudentdebt.org... 3) With the technological age there are a lot more opportunities outside of a structured college environment to receive exposure to the world, and access opportunities. http://www.examiner.com... http://www.crossculturalsolutions.org...

College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponent states 2 main points that: 1. American citizens can't afford a college education. 2. It doesn't guarantee a good job. However, I believe that college should be required as: 1. Universities offer better returns if you invest. 2. The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. 1. Caroline Hoxby, a Stanford (and formerly Harvard) economist who specializes in educational issues, states that "the value of the education has actually been increasing faster than the tuition. She calculates that at the most selective colleges, the amount spent on each student has grown at an average annual rate of 13% from 1967 to 2007, reaching about $92,000. Over the same period, tuition at the selective schools grew at an average annual rate of 6%. The difference is made up by increasing charitable contributions from alumni and others. The investment, says Ms. Hoxby, is well worth the money spent. Even accounting for charitable contributions, she notes, studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't. The studies suggest that the return on investment in education at a selective school is similar to the long-term return on stocks. "Since the mid-1990s, the average (inflation-adjusted) wages of college graduates have skyrocketed, increasing by 18 percent" as of 2004, a recent study found. In contrast, wages of high school dropouts rose at about half that rate -- 10 percent -- over the same period. The Census Bureau in 2004 calculated that the average college graduate earns $27,800 more per year, adjusted for inflation, than the average high school graduate. That adds up to more than $1 million over a lifetime As you can see, and have probably already heard, a college education does lead to better wages for the majority of people who attend and graduate, therefore college does in fact offer better returns. 2. The number of scholarships are increasing, and community colleges are always an option. The University of Minnesota Scholarship Drive seeks to increase by 2,250 the number of students who are helped through privately funded scholarships. The goal is to raise $150 million, making it the largest scholarship fund raising effort ever undertaken by the university. Currently, 4,500 students receive scholarships funded through private gifts to the university. Indiana State University has increased the number of Presidents Scholarships to 20 for 2009-10, up from 15 in previous years, and has created a new University Honors Scholarship that will be awarded to 80 incoming freshmen. The Presidents Scholarships award is the most prestigious award at the Indiana State University, and increasing it to 20 is a massive amount, as it provides students with $15,000 dollars a year. The University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg will be offering approximately 75 more scholarships to incoming freshmen this fall as part of an effort to help students in tough economic times and maintain enrollment totals. Community college costs just a fraction of the total price tag for public or private four-year residential colleges. If you're short on cash and don't have the test scores to win a merit scholarship, community college can save you thousands. But don't make your decision based entirely on money -- many four-year colleges offer excellent financial aid for those with serious need. . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://www.nasfaa.org... . http://www.giving.umn.edu... . http://www.pittsburghlive.com... . http://collegeapps.about.com...

College education is not necessary to become successful College important. In this economy if you do not have at least an associate degree then its even hard to get a Job in McDonald. There are only a few people who became successful without going to college such as bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc but even Albert Einstein who was a genius since the day he could speak decided to go to college to improve himself. College gives us a chance to be in a real world by teaching us skills to build a career, to make connections, experience and to learn more about the career that you are interested. Not to mention the satisfaction that it gives us when you are a college graduate compare to a high school graduate.

College education is not necessary to become successful College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or "career". In order to get a "career" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .

Being successful in life is easier with a college education. College does make success in life more easily achievable. 1.) College makes financial success easier to obtain. Students that graduate from college have tremendously larger average lifetime salaries than students that do not attend or graduate college. You can more than double your income though attending college, and college graduates are more likely to obtain jobs with better benefits, saving them tremendous amounts of money over a life time. College graduates also have more job security and a lower rate of unemployment.2.) College allows you to experience new things, and expands your point of view, allowing for a life that is based off of more experiences, and is open to many more perspectives. Going to college allows you to have experiences you would not have otherwise, which allows you to feel more fulfilled in life. Self-fulfillment is a large part of success as it leads to happiness in life.3.) College opens doors and allows you more choice in your future. By obtaining a better education, you also have the opportunity to explore different fields of study and work that you would not be able to explore without a college education. The choice of what path to take in life is a form of success because it makes it easier to be an autonomous individual.College allows oneself to be more successful in life financially, though self-fulfillment, and through allowing more autonomy and opportunity for happiness.Sources:http://www.finaid.org...I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.

In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Accepted. I will be arguing that the benefits of a college education outweigh the costs. I hope this is a great debate! :p Go!

College is a Necessity to be Successful You might think that you are making loads of money, but you are not making as much as a college graduete would have made.Many people go to college for many reasons,but most people go because they want to make a difference in their lives.They have more opportunities in life than someone who didn't go to college.Isn't going to college better than having a poor paying job at a fast food restaurant?

Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. The main purpose for education is to gain knowledge so as to be able to get a better job. The cost of a four year college will cost any were from 3,000 to 33,000 per semester. There are very few people who could afford this kind of money for fun, or to be better human beings. People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people. Now I pose the question to you and the voters. If you could not get a better job by going to college would you pay to go? http://www.collegeboards.com...

Organized sports is ALWAYS put before EVERYTHING ELSE in high school Best friends since pre school Bob an John did every thing together, grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same school, and even knew the same people. Bob's parents where always pushing him to excel in his academic studies because they knew that would make his life a whole lot easier in the future. Johns father pushed John hard in sports, every chance he got he would teach John how to throw the football or shoot the basketball. Bob was always on his high school honor roll and graduated head of his class. Meanwhile John was a getting less than average grades throughout highschool but man could he run around the football field and shot the basketball. At the end of there senior year in highschool Bob decided to accept a academic scholarship to the University of Florida and continue to push towards his college education. John however wasn't able to get that scholarship that he and his father had been praying for through athletics, so he had to start work immediately after highschool. Now ten years have passed an the best friends have reunited at a highschool reunion. Bob now has his college degree an has become a highly paid doctor. John is still searching for a stable job that can get him through his tough times. John tells Bob "Things would be a whole lot easier if I just had a college degree." Many parents stress to there children to further their education by going to college. The benefits of a college education are endless, However many people have been able to by pass a college degree and still maintain in today's society. While a college education increases ones chances of earning more money, its not the only way to a well paying and rewarding career. Thus brings the question why is a college education important in today's society? The main benefit of a college education is it betters your career opportunities. A college degree opens a variety of opportunities in the working force, giving a better chance for success.

why colleges It's not the same things you learn in highschool. There are tons of topics you can study in college that many if not most highschools don't offer. Highschool gives you a pretty general education on all the main topics, but it leaves out things like particle physics, quantum mechanics, a whole bunch of language courses, most of the stuff you learn at medical school, pretty much everything you learn at law school, and if we also consider vocational schools then we have to include pretty much every trade outside of wood shop and basic car work. You say that college should be about what career you want, well that's what it's for. You can't be a doctor or a lawyer without going to college, and highschools just aren't equipped to educate kids on how to be anything like an engineer. You also say that we should be able to immediately get a job in the field we studied in instead of getting an unrelated job. Well I agree, but thats more a problem with the job market, that's not the fault of the college. Keep in mind that people who only get a BA still earn on average almost double what people with only a highschool education earn over their lifetime [1]. You also say that college is a waste of time and money. College is expensive, I agree with that, but what you're saying is too extreme. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. We can work to make college more affordable, you don't need to get rid of it all together. Also, like I said before, you earn almost double when you get a BA (over your lifetime), so it's obviously not a waste of time to do. [1]. http://www.dba-oracle.com...

Going to college is worth Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha

We regret the emphasis on college education Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.

studying is not the only way to get rich Hi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me. lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that "SOME OF THEASE" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide "not all of them, and it is a real fact and not "OUTRAGIOUS" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that. first I want to start by some real stories: i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed) here are some more real tragic stories Toby Thorn from England, had "8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over "40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his "1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the "14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 "" from 75 to 112. source(www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession) Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt: Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it"s been severely under-reported. I can"t ignore it though, because I"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.http://newworkplace.wordpress.com... In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:http://EzineArticles.com... here is a note from a suicidal student from America "I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a predatory banking system coming after us. There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully come to the forefront of public consciousness." source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, "Up to Our Eyeballs" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he "retires," in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I could go on this topic................. ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says "on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success." not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly "peace of mind", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those" successfully hired graduates" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old? you also did say "'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate) also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are "underemployed" not "unemployed" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education "" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions" here is the source again :http://www.huffingtonpost.com... look back maybe your eyes work this time. and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree :http://www.businessinsider.com... interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads "In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to "" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree" with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in operation.by his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young. I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option. I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....)

A degree will become more valuable. How much a degree is worth is proportional to how prestigious the institution is and how well-known the course is. A rise in tuition fees will only lead to the poor being forfeited the chance to enrol in a degree course and hence, resulting in only the better off people obtaining degrees. A degree, in this sense, has lost its purpose and worth as it is just a luxury good that can only be afforded by the affluent. One might argue that financial aid is available for the poor who perform well academically, but then again, with the rising costs of tuition fees, will there be more grants and scholarships handed out? I highly doubt so.

It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. The amenities and tools that universities offer their students to gain higher education, including the excellent standard of university professors, are priceless. Consequently, an increase in tuition fees would definitely still be worth attending university for as there is no other institution that can give such high quality facilities, teaching, help and advice in addition to a highly regarded qualification (a degree). Such a qualification as a degree could potentially allow for huge salaries and pay packages in the long-run, making the tuitions fees paid to the university which had made all that possible, seem insignificant.

It is well known that a university education leads to great benefits in later life. It is well known that a university education leads to great benefits in later life. University graduates are more likely to have better jobs and higher wages than people with only a high school education. Seeing as university graduates receive all of these benefits, and will be able to afford it – it is only fair that they pay for the education they receive. This is the basis of all taxation.

We regret the emphasis on college education OK I think I've lost. This is my last gasp. Rebuttal) 1. Pro is saying that college shouldn't be a prerequisite. But actually, my point is that the status quo is that college has become a prerequisite. I'm not saying that it should. Because it has become a prerequisite, the students should flexibly focus more on college education, like it or not. 2. About civic awareness- I think I need to explain what I meant by that. When people are educated, they come to reevaluate the injustices and etc. that are revolving around them. When citizens are better educated, they are less gullible, and less injustice would occur. 3. About higher efficiency- Actually, college does sometimes provide these on-the-job experiences when it is thought to be needed. A common example(at least in South Korea-I don't know about other places) is student teachers and trainee teachers. 4. About better technology- I believe that the more deeper and specific education the students get in college(you granted that) will be more help in making better technology and the wider view they get with wider education will make more creative and innovative ideas. And that's about it. My thanks to whiteflame.

We regret the emphasis on college education Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates. Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students. Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college. Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient. Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity. So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions: 1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting? 2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations? 3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society? 4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated? I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits My opponent and I have decided to forgo this round on the account that I am ill with food poisoning.Thank you.

The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits OK.

Ending Education Subsidies C1: Human Capital?The idea behind subsidizing education is that since education improves human capital (makes people more productive), subsidies will pay for themselves. We’ve all heard the statistic that college graduates earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than non-graduates. But is that income differential caused by the education? It’s hard to believe the knowledge learned at college directly translates into higher productivity—very little learned in school has anything to do with real world work. Some things learned in school obviously translate into higher productivity—basic literacy, numeracy, and computer skills, for example. But it’s hard to believe that anyone uses the skills they learned in a Sociology class in their job. College isn’t completely useless of course, but the majority of classes have no application in the real world.Ah, but educators usually don’t claim that the stuff they teach will ever be used in the “real world.” They’re supposedly teaching you how to think—by learning math and literature, you’ll be better at learning other, work-related things, and therefore be more productive. It turns out educational psychologists have tried to test and measure this theory—the literature on the subject is called ‘transfer of learning theory.’ And they found that your teachers were wrong, and that learning is highly specific. There is specific transfer of learning—learning algebra will help you learn calculus. But there is no empirical evidence of general transfer of learning—learning calculus won’t help you be more productive at a job that has nothing to do with math. [1] Studies on this subject date back to E.L. Thorndike’s 1901 study, where "Subjects estimated the area of rectangles between 10 and 100 sq cm...After sufficient practice to produce improvement (1,000 to 2,000 trials) on the original series, subjects got two test series. The first test series consisted of rectangles between 20 and 90 sq cm not included in the original training series. The second test series consisted of shapes other than rectangles, like triangles and circles. On the second test series, errors after training were about 90% as large as errors before training. Thorndike and Woodworth concluded that there was practically no improvement on the general skill level of judging the area of figures." [1] In addition, “Since the classic Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) experiment, there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments reaffirming the same point.” [1] A review of these studies from Thorndike to the present found that while there was evidence of ‘near’ transfer (specific transfer, like algebra helping with calculus), "there has been no positive evidence of general transfer besides a few highly questionable studies." [2] C2: SignallingBut then why do college graduates earn more than non-graduates? Part of the reason is that college graduates were already more productive than non-graduates before they went to college. People that go to college tend to be smarter and harder-working than those that don’t—so they would probably earn more even if there was no such thing as college.But that can’t be the whole answer. If it was, smart kids could skip college and expect to earn just as much as if they went. That might be the case for a few exceptional people—Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc, but for most people, it likely isn’t true. The other part of the answer is that a degree is a signal. It signals traits that employers value—intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity. Someone without a degree could have those traits, and someone with a degree could lack them, but on average, people with degrees are smart, conscientious, conformists—people who will be good workers. If employers require a college degree for a job, they will get applicants who are, on average, better workers, and will be less likely to have wasted money hiring someone who turns out to be a bad worker. If this is true, then the case for subsidizing education falls apart. Improvements in human capital have social benefits, but signaling doesn’t. Signaling benefits the person with the signal at the expense of everyone else competing for that job—it doesn’t benefit society overall. The billions spent subsidizing education are thus wasted—in addition to the opportunity costs of the students going to college when they could have been doing productive work instead.C3: Useful EducationWhile I think most of school is socially useless signaling, obviously some education is actually useful. Medical schools teach the skills necessary to be a doctor, for example. But that doesn’t mean these things should be subsidized. If something is actually useful, then it doesn’t need to be subsidized—the monetary return on getting that degree is enough. People that can’t afford medical school can take out loans and pay them back with the higher income medical school will help them get. People that can’t afford to get Sociology degrees probably won’t get loans without the government being involved, since private lenders would be unwilling to lend to someone who couldn’t pay them back.[1] Detterman, D.K. (1993) 'The case for the prosecution: transfer as an epiphenomenon', in D.K. Detterman and R.J. Sternberg (eds) Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction, Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation.http://cms.educ.ttu.edu...[2] Singley, M.K., & Anderson, J.R. (1989). The Transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted?

Being successful in life is easier with a college education. 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower." The source I provided stated;"An Associate’s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor’s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor’s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor’s degree." Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.

In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Extend my arguments. I urge an affirmative vote.

Is education necessary for people's future lives Counter Argument ensuing....College wasn't the right place for Bill's mind. But we are off topic now, let's start focusing on the bigger picture, all people.True college is a tool to be used that helps us find our way in adulthood, but if you have ideas and motivation, there is no need. With the right ideals and determination, money could be better spent on starting a business that could grow into something beautiful. College now a days is all about getting the diploma that looks pretty to employers. Many of the creative and idea forming types, aren't very good at being employees and want to be in charge of themselves. Not going to college and pursuing their passion enables them to do whatever they want! Where do all great businesses start? In the land of no restraints and boundaries.I make the argument that higher education is NOT a necessity! Intrinsic motivation is all it takes to follow your dreams and make your own success. Sure you got a Stanford diploma, but is this a predictor for ultimate success in your life? No. All over the world, college is becoming more than just a means of education to better yourself, it is becoming a novelty, a piece of paper that is so desperately craved by people who want to look good to employers. Whether you are big or small, intelligent or not intelligent, you can make your own success without the validation or "seal of approval" from a college. Choose the way you want to live your life. College is not a necessity, and success is purely decided based on your actions.

The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits We are cutting out the round used to defend our own cases. This round will be used for con to attack my case, and then round 5 will be final rebuttals/summary.

Ending Education Subsidies Re: Con’s ContentionsHis statistics about college graduates earning more are begging the question. I agree that college graduates earn more than non-graduates. The question is why—simply stating that they do earn more proves nothing.Con then argues that many people would not be able to go to college without subsidies. I agree. My whole argument is that there should be less college education, because it costs a lot (both directly, and in the form of the opportunity cost of not working during that time) and usually doesn’t increase productivity.C1: Human Capital Con misunderstands my studies. Perhaps my algebra and calculus examples weren’t clear. My point is that the only reason algebra helps with calculus is that its part of calculus—you need to know how to do algebra to do calculus. And calculus doesn’t help with anything that doesn’t explicitly involve calculus. Con claims that he isn’t arguing for general transfer of learning, and therefore my arguments don’t apply. But by ‘general transfer’, I don’t mean general education requirements. I mean anything that isn’t actually part of your job. Not related to your job, like how the study of human societies in sociology class might be sort of related to social work or teaching, but actually part of your job. Like, learning how to use Excel will make you more productive if your job requires using Excel. Taking classes provides students with a specific set of knowledge, and unless you use that knowledge in your job, it doesn’t make you more productive. Transfer of learning studies failing to find evidence of general transfer of learning doesn’t just mean that classes completely unrelated to your job are useless; it means that classes that aren’t pretty much exactly the same thing as your job are useless.In the experiments I’m citing, educational psychologists tried very hard to find general transfer of learning. They made the sets of problems as similar as possible to each other to make it easier for students to transfer their knowledge from one to the other. The problems in the study I mentioned last round are very similar—if people can apply their learning to different situations, then surely they’d be able to apply it to different problems as similar as estimating the area of a square and estimating the area of a triangle. But they didn’t. Even extraordinarily similar problems found no evidence of transfer—in a 1974 study, they trained students to do a word problem involving cannibals and missionaries. They then tested to see if that training transferred over to the exact same problem with the words ‘cannibals’ and ‘missionaries’ replaced with ‘jealous husbands’ and ‘wives’. They found no evidence of transfer—even though the subjects were not the average person, but college students! [1] The literature on Transfer of Learning theory shows that the only way to get better at X is to practice doing X. People can succeed in college classes because you’re tested on exactly what you studied for—but work in the real world is rarely exactly what you studied in college, so college classes usually won't make you more productive at work.C2: SignallingI don’t think I need any evidence to show that people that go to college are smarter and harder working than those that don’t—it’s self-evident to anyone who’s ever been to high school, and observed the differences between college-bound students and non-college-bound students firsthand. Think about what gets you into college—good test scores and grades. Are people with good test scores and grades just as smart and hard working as those without them? And, of course, people who go to college and graduate and probably smarter/harder-working than those that go to college but drop out. Anyway, even though I don’t think I should need it, I do have evidence. The average IQ for college graduates is 115—that is, the average college graduate is smarter than 5/6 of the population. [2] In addition, going to college shows conscientiousness—that is, being goal-oriented and forward looking (being low on conscientiousness means being more laid-back, present-oriented, and impulsive). Going to college for 4 years before getting the reward shows that someone is goal-oriented and forward looking. This is an important trait for employers—conscientious employees are more reliable, more motivated, harder working, and have lower rates of absenteeism. [3]Con argues that college causes students to be smarter and harder-working, which completely contradicts his earlier claim that he wasn’t arguing that general transfer of learning exists. College classes making someone smarter in general would be general transfer of learning. College may improve work ethic more than sitting around doing nothing, but it certainly doesn’t improve work ethic compared to actually having a job. Think about it—would you want to hire someone with a college degree that had never held a job? The average full-time college student puts in only 14 hours of studying per week—compared to 24 in 1961. [4] Hardly a way to build one’s work ethic. Coincidentally, the average return to education has sharply increased during that time—the opposite of what the human capital model would predict.C3: Useful EducationMy argument is that only education involving specific job training, like medical schools, significantly increases productivity. For other degrees, like sociology, the investment is not worth the cost. If someone won’t make enough to pay back an unsubsidized loan, then that just proves that that money would be better invested elsewhere. Saying that you need a subsidy for an investment to be profitable is admitting that the investment is a waste of money.[1] Reed, S.K., Earns, G.W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436-450.[2] http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...[3] Roberts, B.W.; Jackson, J.J.; Fayard, J.V.; Edmonds, G. & Meints, J (2009). "Chapter 25. Conscientiousness". In Mark R. Leary, & Rick H. Hoyle. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 257-273.[4] http://www.aei.org...

Paid-for college should be available to all high school graduates that require the financial aid In fact, even the most basic degrees boost income by a considerable amount. For the exact numbers, follow the link I provided, but to summarize, even the most modest degree, not even a bachelors degree, has a 4k per year advantage over people who haven't gone to college. The number just increases from there. http://education-portal.com...

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...

kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education Pros of free college believe that it would benefit the entire nation, not just the individual students who take advantage of it. They see it as both a private and public benefit. After all, more and more of today's jobs are knowledge-based or require advanced technical skills. So a better-educated workforce would help fill many of the skills gaps that prevent America's economy from growing faster. Plus, since more people would be able to attain employer-desired credentials, more people would be able to take the good-paying jobs that often go unfilled. And that could result in billions of additional dollars circulating throughout the economy since people tend to spend more money when they have higher incomes and little or no debt. It could also mean that the government would take in a lot of extra tax revenues, which could go a long way toward paying for free public colleges. But the issue of why college should be free isn't just an economic one. It's also a moral and philosophical one. Do we want every American, regardless of social standing, to have an equal opportunity to reach his or her potential? That's what this country is supposed to be about, yet social mobility has been eroding for the poor and middle class. And without easy and affordable access to quality higher education for everyone, the collective intelligence and goodwill of the nation could also erode. America might become even more socially divided. Ultimately, many people believe that a college-level education should be an absolute right, so long as you have the ability to benefit from it. Here are some of the other commonly cited reasons why college should be free: There might be a lot fewer Americans who need to seek other forms of public assistance. People would have more freedom to contribute their talents, try new ideas, and pursue the lives they want if they didn't have to start off in debt or stay stuck in a low-wage job. That could lead to happier people. And happier people could lead to a happier, more prosperous nation as a whole. A better-educated population could result in smarter decision-making at every level of society, which could lead to faster progress in solving our most difficult, collective challenges. Students would be able to focus more on their studies rather than worrying about how to scrape together enough funds for each upcoming school term. As a result, more of them might graduate on time, ready to take on important jobs in their communities. Many of America's top-performing high school students never apply to the most challenging colleges and universities even though they have the ability to succeed at them. They often come from minority and low-income households and end up pursuing more affordable, less-selective schools instead. And that helps create a widening gap between wealthier families and those that are less affluent. Although it benefits many students, the nation's existing financial aid system currently fails to provide an equal opportunity to every qualified American. Graduating with high amounts of student loan debt has been shown to reduce a person's chances of owning a home, getting married, having children, and accumulating wealth.

Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation I'm typing this on my phone so sorry in advance for any typos/terrible sources. Thus debate has been quite problematic as... 1) whilst the premise 'higher education is outdated for the millennial generration' is clear enough, I wasn't clear on what my argument would be on - that higher education is outdated and needs serious reform whilst being maintained. 2) con accepted the debate believing that higher education was indeed, outdated for the millennial generation, and accepted anyway believing that he would argue for 'pro education' (if my interpretation is correct) 3) this confusion was found out after my first argument as shown in the comments. Hence I suggested and we agreed to compromise so that my argument would be 'higher education is outdated, and therefore not worth it to everyone'. Sadly I later found myself arguing for a position I did not personally believe in, but I will maintain this position for the sake of this debate. CON RE: millennials care more about contributing to society, and college education opens up more doors to help society that High school cannot. (E.g. Nursing, doctors) 1- Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime. Medicine has extended everyone's quality of life for 7 years. Yet, 1) the amount of good medicine has done is overestimated 2) increase in age is not mutually exclusive to increase in disabled life - hence a full quality life is not completely true. 3) doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses) In the end, we can save 6 times the amount of lives a doctor saves by simply donating 10% of our income wisely to a worthy foundation. 2- You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impact (the idea that these are mutually exclusive is false) examples : Stephen Spielberg, Mark zuckerverg, Bill Gates 3-Medicine is not the only way you can solve world problems it is sometimes not even the best way. What about electricity? Or education? Or government? CON RE: if college is not worth it, why are more millennials going to college than any other generation? They must be going for a meaningful degree that can help society. Millennials are going to college more than any other generation because they have the most opportunity to go, because they are pushed (45%) by their parents to go, perhaps because they believe it can lead them where they want to be also. However millennials are also expected to only be able to repay their debts in the next 11 years, 37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree. (2) RE: there exists alternative pathways to college education - Con argues some fields do not have alternatives, and alternatives are not needed if college education becomes tax funded. 1- yes some fields do not have alternatives, but it is increasingly clear today that college is not necessary for everyone and not worth it for everyone. Commerce, arts and in some cases even in science. Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about. Additionally one field of practise is not enough to validate the value of higher education for the entire pool of millennials as a whole. Only 0.27% of the population are doctors, for example. (2) 2-Con suggests that tax payer money be used to fully fund college education. Whilst that is the case for Germany today, and even Australia in the past, I personally don't believe this is possible in America. It is a strong liberal democracy that values it's small government. It also strongly advocates for the freedom of the people from 'corrupt officials' etc. To believe a call for such a huge reform with such major repercussions on the people to become successful would be too idealistic. One would have to convince the president-trump, Congress (which I imaging would be near impossible) and the judiciary to even consider this. Not to mention the inequality that exists in the US today already - to ask for more tax paying money would be difficult. RE: Skill can be better used as a qualifier for job performance - Con argues you often develop your skills from college and not every employee will give you an examination, and hence college is necessary to indicate your skills. Yes many develop skills from college but this is only because it forces people to keep working. Your own resolution to succeed is what is important. Hence, you do not need a college degree to develop your skills. No, usually a career in these fields do not require an examination, but rather an example of their work (e.g. A photograph, a piece of writing, a translation, a conversation in French etc.) which I believe speaks louder than certifications of a degree. RE: statistic argument Sorry as you didn't exemplify that you averaged the two statistics I only guessed that you compared each statistic with the general statistic of 23.5%. Yes I admit my calculation was wrong but I didn't really trust that addition of the two percentages anyway and it was used more of an example as to why comparing 2 independent means together is unreliable. As to why your calculation is unreliable - I don't have my computer here but it seems to be that you don't know the sample size of any of the statistics that you used (undergraduates with anxiety or depression, postgraduates with anxiety or depression, adults with anxiety, adults with depression) and hence am unable to make a reliable statistical comparison between any of the figures. You don't know if these population sample figures are normally distributed either, or independent from each other. Hence you cannot come up with a reasonable T statistic to accept or reject the null hypothesis which is - are the means of postgraduates with anxiety or depression the same with the means of adults with anxiety or depression? (Or likewise with undergraduates) not to mention that adults with anxiety or depression have two different sample sizes being from different sources. I have also taken statistics as a unit this year (3) Also, Thanks for this debate con! I enjoyed it despite our confusions haha. I have developed a lot more insight about millennials, about the past, and about college and higher education in general. 1) https://80000hours.org... 2)http://www.forbes.com... 3) https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu...

Going to college is worth Extend.

Going to college is worth Extend.

Going to college is financially not worth it Oh no...

studying is not the only way to get rich I hope this goes well. Pro didn't lay down rules for terms or anything. Because of this, I will state definitions of terms that will be used. Salary - average earnings per year FROM A JOB College degree - a degree of college, bachelor's or higher Seeing as Pro has already posted some type of argument, I will choose to rebut his points and make my own arguments in this round. Pro is against those that think "studying or collage degree [sic] is the only way to earn a good salary. " These people are correct. To earn a good salary, one must have better experience with their job and a better understanding of the pressure of a workplace. These are most commonly earned with a college degree. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that those with professional degrees earn more than three times those without a college degree. For those with less than a high school degree, the average weekly salary is just over half that of the average person. Also, the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate. Without a high school diploma, the average unemployment rate is an astounding 11%. Compare this to the 2.3% rate of those with professional degrees, and you can clearly see that a college degree allows an individual to earn more money and have a more secure job. Source: . http://www.bls.gov...

The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits I did state my sources. Since that is your only refutation, I should win

Paid-for college should be available to all high school graduates that require the financial aid The money would of course find its way back into the government. People who graduate college earn a larger wage. This then results in higher income tax and more money being spent in America. Of course it would cost money, but the money would then go back into our economy and benefit everyone.

College education is not necessary to become successful Although that might be true. The job market for people who are recent graduates is very low. For example look at the people who want to become lawyers , they graduate with their bachelors degree , further their education in law school and at the end still end up with no career. In college you focus on one major, and if the job market under that major is not hiring, then you are left with nothing. People who have their high school diploma can get jobs easily right after they graduate and make connections that can get them into higher positions without the trouble of wasting 4 years in college.

Ending Education Subsidies First off, any books cited by Pro cannot be taken seriously. I don't have the books available and without an online reference, that can be checked by the voters, voter are not to consider Pro's books a reliable source. Every source that Pro cites, I am contesting as invalid. Therefore, voters please only consider Pro's sources valid if you have personally gone to the library and verified Pro's sources.CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successPro concedes that college is required for success. He says that it should not. He argues for an ideal scenario rather than the actual one. The essence of the debate is the Pro is saying that the government should end subsidies in education. He has the burden of proof to show why. How does he show this? By saying that college should not result in higher incomes. It doesn't matter if Pro thinks that. It is not true. He admits that it is not true. Ending educational subsidies will not make it so. I am not arguing about whether college should or should not result in higher incomes but rather that it does.C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsCollege, which my opponent admits is a path to success and higher income cannot be afforded by the majority of students. My opponent concedes this point as well.C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needPro does not address this contention. A dropped contention in a debate is considered to be conceded. Conclusion: Education should be subsidized.With all the premises true, the conclusion holds true as well.Summary of my casePro has conceded my entire case. The rebuttal that he provides merely voices his opinion that college should not lead to higher income and a successful career which is not the case. Pro's only standing argument now is that there should be less college education because it costs a lot and doesn't increase productivity. I agree that it costs a lot but argue that college is in fact beneficial. This is the reason I am defending subsidies. So, now the only point of disagreement is whether college is beneficial. If I can prove that it is, then I win the debate since my opponent has agreed with every other point that I made. My rebuttal to Pro's case below will prove this point.PRO'S CASER1) Human CapitalI must admit that Pro had an unorthodox way of arguing the resolution. His main argument for why education should not be subsidized is that education is not beneficial at all. So, let's get to the arguments that Pro makes in order to back up his claim.Pro's main argument seems to be that there is no transfer of skills, i.e. Calculus won't help you in a job that has nothing to do with Calculus. However, if your job does involve Calculus, then it will help you in your job. That part is fairly straightforward. Pro's entire argument on this point comes down to the point that college students should not take breadth courses since it doesn't "teach them how to think" and they won't use those skills in their job. I don't claim that a sociology major taking classes in Algebra "teaches them how to think." It merely provides them with knowledge of Algebra so that after graduation, the college students ends up well-rounded and knowledgeable in a wide variety of fields. In the future, if their job requires Algebra, they would be able to perform it. If they want to change careers or decide after graduation to persue a career that does require a fundamental knowledge of Math, it benefits them that way too. This is the reason why schools and to some extent colleges have basic requirements for graduation which often involve taking breadth classes. Pro is essentially arguing for vocational education which is not beneficial precisely because of the points I mentioned above: lack of options if you change your mind.Pro's next argument here is that classes that aren't exactly the same as your job are useless to your job. To back this up, he cites a study where students were made to do word problems. When the word was changed, Pro claims there was no evidence of transfer. This is completely unrelated to college classes. Classes are intended to provide knowledge of the subject matter, not specific transferable skills. This knowledge is used on the job. For example, someone who wants to be a Sociologist or psychologist must learn how to interact with people and understand human nature. This makes them more knowledgeable about the subject and better able to use this knowledge on the job. They don't need to do exact problems that they are doing on the job but need to learn the general content.Here is another example. If a student wants to be a web designer, they need to learn how to write HTML. They can learn this in college. After they graduate, the pages they might have to design may not be the exact same pages that they did for homework in college. However, without a fundamental understanding of HTML, they can't design web pages. Pro's source is absolutely irrelevant and have flawed methodology. I read the link he provided in round 1 (Detterman). In page 2, the author gives examples of how skills are not transferred. Essentially, the people conducting the study taught a mentally retarded women to give the correct amount of change to a cashier when she bought something. They then made her try it in the real world where she failed. From there they jumped to the conclusion that skills are not transferable.R2) SignallingPro's first paragraph argues that college students are smarter than high school students. I argued that college students are smarter and harder working because they go to college so obviously, we agree that college students are smarter and harder working, the question is why.In his second paragraph, Pro argues that this is not the case since general transfer of learning doesn't exist. However, all Pro has argued for so far was an isolated word problem which did not affect how students responded to different word problems. My argument is that college makes students more knowledgeable (has nothing to do with Pro's study) and it helps them meet deadlines and promotes hard work. Pro would have students working right away but if a job requires a degree in Sociology, how will the students get the required knowledge that is gained by a degree in Sociology?R3) Useful Education Pro says that for degrees like Sociology, investing money in it is not worth the cost. However, as I pointed out, the ideal scenario is that everyone goes to college. The government should be encouraging this. The way to do that is by offering subsidies.Comments on Voting:I usually don't make comments on voting but in this case, it is imperative that I make these comments while Pro still has the chance to respond to them.Conduct: If Pro wanted to argue that skills are not transferable, he should have made a resolution as such. I may or may not have accepted. However, he makes a resolution that educational subsidies should end. This while technically correct wastes his opponent's time debating something that may not be what they intended to debate. My intention for instance was to debate the benefits of subsidies, not argue about transferability of skills. However, I did take the time to argue it and negated Pro's arguments while providing better ones. Sources: Pro cites books. So, the reader is left wondering which page the studies are mentioned. The fact that Pro cited books should be enough to penalize him for sources since books cannot be verified. Only one of the claims he made is backed up by a study that can be accessed online.

College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. "Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.

University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical We live in a very 'status' society where a university degree is considered 'top of the line' and a college diploma is considered 'a step down.' It has been noted that a four year university graduate make $250,000 or more than their college counterparts. However, this has been disproved by April Norhanian, a former college recruiter. She wrote a book called "College Is for Suckers –The FIRST College Guide You Should Read." She states how despite ones credentials, it doesn't necessarily guarantee oneself a career or even a job. Furthermore, she asserts that university bound students don't necessarily even need to go to university because without a four year degree they would still make the same amount of money and be as successful because they have already developed a strong work ethic and other related traits. She states that if a student is in the bottom forty percent of his or her high school class, they will have a very difficult time in graduating university even if they are given eight and half years. To conclude, does one really need to spend $30,000 for a four year BA degree. My answer is no. http://collegeisforsuckers.com...

University education helps society Free education enables everyone to have the opportunity to study. This means there would be more people going to universities. The outcome of this would be that in our society, more people will have higher degrees which means would be more people who are doctors, lawyers, nonprofit workers, teachers, business leaders etc. This has positive benefits. More doctors means more people who treat those who are sick. More teachers means, better quality of education for students. More nonprofit workers means more people who are trying to help and raise money for those who need it. When the number of people who get an education rises, the number of people who benefit from that persons education also rises. Therefore, free education will benefit our society because there will be more highly educated individuals who have the education and ability to help others.

studying is not the only way to get rich My main point in this round will be rebutting your arguments, and possibly adding a few more of my own. First, I would just like to say that while your sources do relate to the argument and are useful for our side, I believe you may have misinterpreted some of them, not read them fully, or used sources that are unreliable and possibly inaccurate. And, as another point, your grammar and syntax is poor to the point where at some points I cannot understand your intent. I'm not saying this as a personal attack at all, but I would like the voters to keep this in mind as they read. I'm going to approach this by going through each paragraph and each point you make one by one. "studying is one of the way [sic] to make money but not the only way." This is what the whole debate is based upon, but you don't seem to list any way to make money other than studying and having a good degree. You also state that education is not as assuring nowadays, which is clearly true. This is because our current economy is in a bad position, with high unemployment rates for everyone, not just a single group. Student loans are mentioned, which are unavoidable, so I can't really challenge that. There will be debt if someone decides to be educated. Your paragraph ends with saying that students can get desperate and eventually commit suicide. This is outrageous. You have no source for this, yet you try to say that there is a correlation between student loans and suicide rate. This is a completely invalid argument. There are high schoolers that commit suicide; there are post-war vets that commit suicide; there are parents from stable middle-class families that commit suicide. Everyone gets overwhelmed in their life at least once, and all that matters is how you deal with it. "'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts'" Major problem here. Don't quote me if it's not a real quote. I never said this in my argument. You go on to say that my argument is "not true" (I can quote this because you actually said it). Your argument to back this up is only based on people aged 20-24. I was arguing for the general population. Who do you trust more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or a poll of around 2,000 people? Also, you saying that 40% of the group polled are unemployed is an example of misreading the source. The article (not the incorrect title) says that 40% are underemployed, not unemployed. In fact, the article even says that 68% of these graduates are employed full time. The next sentence is blatantly plagiarized and not changed at all. I don't know if this was intentional, but cite your sources if you're going to quote them. You then state that "this figure remains at staggering [sic] 60 percent!" What figure? Where is this from? I don't even know what the next statement about China is trying to say, so I'll discard that. "despite studying for (4-10) years most of these graduates..." Not most, according to the nydailynews poll. Not even a plurality, as the other 60% of people are employed comfortably. Unless you got this from another source, in which case you should have cited it. "so what is the point in studying" The point in studying is to get a better education, and ultimately a better-paying job. That is the point of this debate. Your decision that going to college gives you a job that is "literally no different" is inaccurate, as this is only the case for less than half of the population. "on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success." Really? Because according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (once again), you are wrong. Those with either some college experience but no degree or no college experience at all are below average in median earnings and have an above average unemployment rate. Then, you decide that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are two good examples. They both dropped out of college - after they had already started companies that were completely successful. These are bad representations of high school and college dropouts. The average person with no degree has a lower salary than the average person with a college degree. You also have people in your community who "barely read and write but are super rich." This is most likely inheritance money or some other form of income, but not a salary from a job. Because this debate is about salary (from your opening argument, not the title), then this is an invalid point. Your lists at the end just reiterate the points that I have already, for the most part, disproved. I don't feel like I need to prove anything else as you have not challenged my main point whatsoever. You have not stated any way to get rich other than a college degree. Sources: No new sources, just the BLS chart.

We regret the emphasis on college education Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate so effectively. Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational schools and apprenticeships specifically, so extend my analyses there. Also extend my points regarding why college is not for everyone. Con then proceeds to outline the very reasons for my concern. The situation is South Korea is, in my opinion, net harmful. College shouldn't be a "prerequisite for entering into society," partly because it completely excludes those who cannot succeed in a college setting. One type of education should not be preferred over another, and Con has provided only limited reasons why college is specifically important, and none for why it is more beneficial than anything I've offered up. Con then proceeds to explain the benefits of such a system. He says that there would be more economic benefits. His warrants are here lacking. I don't see any actual link made between higher education and increased benefits to individuals or society, mainly just assertions that the link exists. Let's go through those assertions. 1) Higher education = deeper education Not necessarily true, but I'll grant this. 2) More civic awareness No reason for this given - Con assumes what is taught to everyone in college. 3) Higher efficiency Again, not supported. I'd argue the reverse - the lack of on-the-job experience makes them very inefficient. 4) Increased profit for company No reason to believe that someone coming from the insular academic environment will lead to increased profits. 5) Better inventions and technology Perhaps, but neither of these things require a college background to accomplish. 6) Better firms Not likely, given that college graduates aren't normally that capable of starting their own businesses since they don't have experience in this regard. Back to Con.

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.

Higher Education does not Create Jobs Thanks to my opponent for this great debate. I will use the wikipedia definition of higher education: Higher, post-secondary, or third level education refers to the stage of learning that occurs at academies, universities, colleges, seminaries and institutes of technology. Higher education also includes certain collegiate-level institutions, such as vocational schools, trade schools, and career colleges, that award academic degrees or professional certifications.[1] It is my opponents BOP to show that in a world without higher education, assuming ceteris paribus, unemployment rates would be less than or equal to modern times. It is my BOP to show that higher education has created jobs. That is all. It is not my burden to show that current higher education is efficient, that everyone should have higher education, how politicians should change higher education or anything else. I will prove to you that this is true. I theorize that higher education creates jobs mainly through the following principles: (a) Jobs are created by increasing aggregated demand. Education creates jobs that increase aggregate demand. (b) The greater the average productivity of an employees, the greater the amount of employees hired. The more employees hired, the lower the unemployment rate. I will also provide empirical evidence to support my claims. Contentions: 1)Engineers, entrepreneurs and scientist create new businesses and products that increase aggregate demand Lack of aggregated demand causes unemployment. Simply speaking, if consumers do not want to buy products, then businesses will have to lay off workers due to lack of demand for these products. This causes unemployment. New products must be made that people want in order to increase aggregate demand. I cannot want an mp3 player, unless an mp3 player actually exists. Once there is a demand for the mp3 player, people can will be hired for the production, distribution, and selling of this product. Engineers and scientist design new products that consumers want. Many products such as health-care, laptops, cell-phones, mp3-players, video games pharmaceutical drugs, and many others products would not exist without the innovation of scientist and engineers. Scientist and engineers must learn their trade through higher education. Also entrepreneurs create new businesses that create goods and services people want. Entrepreneurs meet people that help their business succeed and learn how to run successful businesses through higher education. Steve Jobs created a company that has thousands of employees. Juggle, the owner of Debate.org, hires many people to keep their company running. 2)The fastest growing occupations require at least an associate's degree If one takes a look at the fastest growing occupations, 2/3 of them require at least an associate's degree, and ï¿½ of them require at least a bachelor's degree. [1] 3)Empirical Evidence shows that those with higher education are less likely to be unemployed According to the following graph, those with a higher education are less likely to be unemployed[2]. 4)Many jobs would not exist without higher education Engineers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, scientists, architectures, teachers, dentists, accountants, and actuaries are all required to have a bachelor's degree or higher in order to practice in these fields. If higher education did not exist, then these jobs, that employ millions of Americans, would not exist. 5)In order to be employed, you must have skills an employer or consumer wants Employers will only hire you, if he/she believes that you will be productive. If you are looking for a job as a financial adviser, but no nothing about finance, you are not going to get the job. Even "blue-collar" jobs like electricians and mechanics often need training at a vocational school in order to be hired. Higher education teaches skills that employers and consumers want, and therefore employment increases. 6) A fall in GDP causes unemployment According to Okun's law, as GDP falls, so does unemployment.[3] Since those entering STEM careers (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) create innovation and technology that improve GDP, then unemployment will decrease as well. REBUTTAL: 1) Education is just a piece of paper that signals that you are a productive worker. This is false. As I stated, education teaches people skills that improves ones productivity in the workplace. It is the skills learned in higher education that causes a person to be hired. 2) Over-saturation of skilled workers This is again false. If this were true, then college graduate would just as likely to be unemployed as those without an education. This is not the case. Also, if there were an over-saturation of skilled workers, then based on the law of supply and demand, then skilled occupations would have low pay. After all, as supply of skilled workers increased, then wages go down. However, there appears to be no "market saturation" of skilled workers.[2] 3) College graduates having difficulty finding a job Those without a college degree and high school drops have it much worse. Since we are in a recession, unemployment is unnaturally low. Since the youth have little or no job experience, they are the least likely to get hired. Fannie Mae's government-backed mortgages and the Fed setting the interest rate to low, created a housing bubble which caused the recession. 4) If everyone had a bachelor degree it would be meaningless It is true that there are jobs that do not require higher education, and these unskilled workers are necessary in society. However, my opponent's argument is both affirming the consequence and using a composition fallacy. His argument reads as so (A = education): If A is good, then A is good for the whole. (composition fallacy) A is not good for the whole. Therefore A is not good. (affirming the consequence) The positive effects of higher education would be exemplified the more people are educated. The positive effect were explained above. Of course there is a limit to this effect. However, I do not have to prove that everyone should have a higher education. Thank you and I look forward to your rebuttal.

We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one... We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one fine morning someone comes and says that this is not required for success. When asked for proof, they say 'look at Bill Gates!' But success isn’t a just matter of building a huge firm from scratch and making billions of dollars – by that definition, only a tiny number of people in the world could be considered successful. No, success is about making the most of your talents and abilities, and that requires dedication and study in academic institutions that will stretch you intellectually.

College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second "rebuttal" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: "I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says "studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So

College is a Necessity to be Successful College should not be your time to figure out what you're good at, it should not be your time to establish what you're passionate about. If you don't know what you want to do for the rest of your life, how is wasting 4 years and THOUSANDS of dollars helping you? There is no harm in taking a gap year. Also, if you know what career you would like to pursue and it doesn't 100% require a degree (i.e. doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.), why would you waste your money on one? College is, in my opinion, the most costly & stupid "trial-run" you could ever go through. And the crazy thing is, is that there IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING AFTER YOU GRADUATE. ESPECIALLY if you have a butt-load of student loans.

studying is not the only way to get rich I want to first say hello to my opponent. I never thought somebody would accept this debate that is why I didn't lay down the rules. I think my opponent has already made every thing clear so I wont repeat myself. first of all, studying is one of the way to make money but not the only way. Education has become a less assuring and promising way for a prosperous life than it used to be. back in the days, there was more demand for educated workforce and less pull of graduates to meet those demands. but that image has changed . these days,we are facing a large pool of graduates with less jobs to accommodate them. not only that, education has also become very expensive, and in dealing with this rising tuitions fees students often find themselves at the mercy of student loans. out of necessity and cornered by financial problems ,they are forced to take out student loans often with high interest rates. what happens is that this debts gets accumulated over the course of whatever years it takes for the students to graduate. and when students are graduated ,they find themselves without a job an a ballooned debt to clear. some of these students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide. and about the opposition argument that "uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts," that is not true. In 2013, for young adults ages 20"24, there was no measurable difference in the unemployment rate between males and females among those whose highest level of education was less than high school completion, those with some college education, and those with at least a bachelor's degree not only that, based on a poll carried out by (www.nydailynews.com)More than 40% of graduates are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions()The online survey of 1,050 workers who finished school in the past two years and 1,010 who will receive their degree in 2013 also found that many graduates, some heavily in debt because of the cost of their education, say they are in jobs that do not require a college degree. still this figure remains at staggering 60 percent! on global scale with Asians countries like china having the most unemployed in their graduates workforce. the bitter part is that despite studying for (4-10) years most of these graduates frustrated at finding a job end up working low paying jobs that need no degree for it like working as waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food-service helpers ,manual workers ,cleaners ....sending all those years off efforts and spending's down the drain. so what is the point in studying for (4-10) years then ending up doing something that you could have already started doing without spending all those money and wasting those time ! you are literally no different than those without a collage degree except now you have a big ballooned debt to clear and (4-10) years to look back on in regret. on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems to have a higher rating of success. two of the most important ones, are Steve jobs and bill gates. of course these two are exceptions , but not impossible to duplicate. there are so many countless other people who made it big without following their path like a 30-year old college dropout Elizabeth Holmes who is now on the front page of Forbes newspaper for being worth 4 billion dollars! she spent her tuition to finance her self made company. yet you don't have to be that rich to be considered a success. I know people in my community who barely read and write but are super rich. also, people who are non graduate , have a more organized and planned lifestyle. they start a family sooner ,don't have to look for jobs like graduates, don't have to be worried about paying debt and have four to ten years to change their life around. so education is no longer a safe investment for a prosperous life: 1. huge pool of graduates and less demand and jobs to accommodate them. 2. very expensive(student loan) 3. takes a long time to accomplish(4-10) and yet can guarantee no success. 4.collage level jobs too competitive .with sharply reduced wages 5.you cant be a hundred percent sure about securing the job with desired salary and might instead end up working alongside a non-graduate with low salary doing basic task like cleaning toilets, working as manual labor, a restaurant waitress/waiter, bartender, babysitter, striper.......you name it people who are holding jobs with no degree are more ahead with their life than their graduates counterpart 1. start a family sooner and have a more relaxed organized life style than graduates who are desperate and nervous to find a job to pay back their student loan. 2, don't have to pay debt(student loan) 3, have more time(4-10) years more to change their life around, sources: 1:http://nces.ed.gov... 2:http://www.nydailynews.com...) 3:(http://www.theatlantic.com...) 4:http://www.economist.com... 5:http://www.universityworldnews.com... 6:http://money.cnn.com... hope this information helps change your mind!

Does tradition formal education have a value in today's society. The resolution is: Traditional education has value in today's society. I affirm the resolution.Con makes a fundamental error in logic. He asserts that university graduates are often disappointed at the job prospects in today's economy. That;s true. However, that does not imply that they would have been as well off skipping traditional education and instead attempting careers in athletics or entertainment or anything else. Some would succeed, but a foolish strategy of buying lottery tickets would also produce somee successes. 1. Financial valueThe Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that having more years of traditional education both increases earnings and decreases the chances of being unemployed. In 2010, those with a 2-year Associates degree had 10% lower unemployment and 15% more pay, on average, than those with a high school diploma. The trend continue with re traditional education until, at the highest education, the unemployment rate is 80% less and pay over 250% higher. [1. http://www.bls.gov...].Recounting the relative situation of those with and without traditional education in the current recession, Leonhardt, writing in the NY Times, says,"College graduates have definitely been hurt by the current recession. Thousands find themselves out of work, and many of those newly unemployed will struggle to find a job that paid as well as their last one. Still, on a relative basis, a college education has never been more valuable." [2. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...]2. Quality of lifeCon wrongly supposes that value equates to financial success. Even if a traditional education brought no financial advantage, it still has substantial value. Hansen cites [3. http://www.quintcareers.com...] statistics showing traditional education leads to, among other things: longer life spans better access to health carebetter dietary and health practices greater participation in leisure and artistic activities more book purchases higher voting rates greater knowledge of government greater community service and leadership more volunteer work more self-confidence An educator in Pakistan summarizes the traditional philosophical value of education, with references, "Education is an essential human value. Without it, man is a slave, or reasoning savage. Education humanizes us. Man becomes more human as a result education. We are what education makes us. Education plays a vital role in human life and is always guided by certain rules in harmony with certain ideals, values and standard of life." [4. http://pakphilosophy.blogspot.com...]3. Networking Finally, "Many college graduates feel that the greatest benefit of their college years is the expansion of their social horizons. Meeting new people, making new friends, companionship, and sharing new experiences lead to personal growth." [5. http://militaryfinance.umuc.edu...]

college tuition too expensive The cost of college is becoming a big problem in the U.S. But that is not the fault of the universities. If the economy and other main factors where not in such a hole, there would be no reason to raise tuition. However, there are many options for students out there to find help with college tuition. For example, the state of Georgia will pay for a students college tuition if he or she graduates with a GPA of 3.5 or better. Now that is just Georgia but that is an example of how the there are options out there. The Pell grant system also though, not everybody gets this opportunity it is money given with out being expected to be paid back. The point I want to get across is that college tuition being raise a crossed the nation is not the result of a greedy chancellor or a football team that is not selling out the stadium. There are also different routes students are able to take to get to a university. There are many students who attend a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a university to complete there degree. I also agree that college is worth every penny because of its life experiences and how it builds you into a better person. Creating better payback systems only creates loans and loans equal debt.

Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Once more, quotes from my opponent will be italicized. I'm going to make this round very short, as I barely have time to answer before I need to go. I tried answering before, but ddo had an issue and crashed on me, making me lose my progress on this round, right when I was almost done with this round and about to post it. Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime. That depends on who they just saved the life of. If it was the next Bill Gates, then that doctor had tremendous effect on society. doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses)And most of those positions require a college degree, with the exception being managers. You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impactYes, but it is a means to be able to do so, and a route through which the millennial generation can do it. What about electricity? Or education? Or government?Nearly everyone in our government has, not only a college degree, but a post-graduate degree. And to be a teacher, you need a college degree. 37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree.I consider these statistics to be helpful to my case, because that means majority of millennials did find going to college useful, didn't regret it, and accept that they couldn't get where they are now without a college degree. This should be used as a reason to vote for pro. Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about. Though each of the examples you brought up, except one(electricity) requires a college degree. A large chunk of jobs that influence society require a college degree. Re: government-funded higher education, con said I personally don't believe this is possible in America. and continued on with points.Yes, I don't think we will get this to happen with the current congress or current president, but it could be possible in the future when and if we get a more progressive president and congress. In addition, we already have education up to high school government funded, and I don't see why most people would be opposed to the idea of extending it to college. Re: Statistics argument:Actually, I do know the sample size for one of the studies;, the one for anxiety was 9282 adults, which was found by going to my source above, and looking up the source they linked to for the number they used. That is a sample size that is much more than enough needed to be a reliable sample size. The second one, which was the percentage of adults with depression, I am having difficulty finding the sample size they used. I'm not sure if there's reason to question the results though, because 6.7% of the adult population having depression seems believable. If anything, that sounds too low. Sources:[8] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...

The High Tuition Rates of Universities in the United States are Unjustifiable Value is subjective. I might think a Starbucks peppermint mocha latte is worth $5, and my opponent might not. To me, the cost might be justified; my opponent might think differently - it depends on our values and what utility we think the product provides either to us as individuals, or to the community/globe as part of a larger transaction. In this debate, I will explain why the tuition rate of college is on the rise, and why that's justifiable to people (in general). First, let's take a look at supply and demand. I think we all know that if something is in high supply and low demand, the cost will be lower, and if something is in low supply but high demand, the cost will be higher. Henry suggests we look at the tuition hike between 1980 and now. In 1980, only 17% of the American population over 25 had earned a degree [2]. Today, 40% of people 25-34 (not including people over 34!) have earned a degree [3]. That's more than double, and doesn't even count a significant portion of the population. Moreover, postbaccalaureate enrollment has risen about 80% between 1985 and now [4]. With such a growing demand and a supply that is simply not on pace, price hikes can be expected. Next, we should consider why so many more people are seeking a degree than in the past. In addition to a shift in the job market, we also need to acknowledge that politicians (and society) have encouraged this notion that everyone deserves and should have access to a college education. The government has made it significantly easier for people to obtain loans and other funding for college, private, federal or otherwise. As such, colleges know they can increase the cost of tuition and not have to worry about inhibiting demand. Even if people can't afford to pay for it, they know the government will assist them either directly (FAFSA, loans, etc.) or via legislation that makes it easier to obtain loans from private banks. If everyone had to figure out a way to pay for college themselves, tuition would go down to facilitate competition and remain a lucrative investment for students. On that note, my opponent suggests that attending college is about accessing the "database" of knowledge regarding the accomplishments of the human race. I beg to differ. Everyone has different aspirations and goals for their college experience, but overall attendance is about an investment in your career. Learning is super awesome, but in an age of information, ignorance is a choice and we do not need to attend a 4 year higher learning institution in order to expand our knowledge. I've learned more from engaging on this website than I have in my 4 years in college. We have access to the internet, books, and an institutionalized education at least until grade 12. Some people don't learn anything in college at all. What college provides (and one reason why the cost is so high) is a piece of paper upon completion of a certain amount of time/credits that demonstrates you have successfully finished a curriculum that some employers feel make you more qualified to hold certain positions. If I want to be a doctor, does it matter that I cannot recite Shakespearean sonnets? No, even though knowing those sonnets might make me more cultured and well-read. I can learn those sonnets on my own. What people want to know is that if I intend on being a doctor, that I was trained in a particular area of study and demonstrated a certain level of competence in a particular field. That's essentially the purpose of college, technically speaking (and the life lessons, bong rips, chugging funnels, etc. is just a bonus). Another thing to note is that like employers, colleges are now competing for talent. Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education notes, "Now we're competing in a global economy, so if you want to get the best scientists, the best engineers, you're literally competing with universities and employers from around the globe." Professors are not always people in Education, but experienced professionals who lend their expertise to universities... for a price. Depending on the skill and value of their staff, universities have to compensate their educators accordingly. It's about which school will offer the best teachers the most lucrative monetary incentives, and students will have to pay for that. I'd also like to point out that tuition is not by any means limited to covering the expense of attending class. For one thing, most colleges provide health insurance plans to their students - and we all know how expensive health insurance can be. They also provide counseling services, tutoring services, career opportunity services, advisers of all kinds (academic and otherwise) and more. In addition, colleges now compete by bragging about their state-of-the-art recreational facilities and other amenities, such as innumerable WiFi hot spots, access to computer labs and all of the technology within (not to mention the employees who help run those labs and make repairs), gourmet food and dining services, and more! Colleges also pay for landscaping, have massive bills for electricity, water and other necessities, janitorial services, and basically a massive staff. As the size and population of colleges increase, so do the number of people that have to be employed to accommodate that growth. Colleges keep expanding. It's imperative to take into account while we consider paying for all of these goods and services that we cannot compare dollar for dollar the cost of tuition in the past vs. the cost today. In addition to the factors I have already mentioned, inflation is a given. A few closing points... For high-knowledge careers that require an extensive education (doctors, lawyers, businessmen, scientists, etc.), it makes sense to invest in college. The return they will get in salary will make it favorable on a cost-benefit analysis compared with not attending college and choosing a low-skill job instead, which won't pay as much. Therefore, for many people the cost of college is justified. Postsecondary education opens the door to higher-paying jobs that are not available to people with fewer skills [5]. Finally, perhaps the tuition hike is not as mind boggling as my opponent implies. Even as sticker prices climb, student aid has gone up dramatically. For students in private schools, the aid increases just about cancel out tuition increases of the past five years [6]. We also need to consider that people's income has also increased (as a whole) since the 1980s, going back to the inflation point. The most important factor to note here is that despite what I think or my opponent thinks, it's what overall consumers (attendees) think about the cost of tuition. Apparently with all factors considered: the return on investment, the luxuries and amenities, the value of a collegiate education and the college experience in general make the tuition cost worthwhile. As such, it is justified. To re-cap... 1. College is in high demand while the supply remains limited 2. Government backs access to college, so tuition hikes don't inhibit demand 3. Universities have to compete for talent to make their college more reputable 4. The cost of amenities and other services is high; tuition covers more than your time in class 5. Inflation dramatizes the cost 6. The return on investment for attending college still makes it a worthwhile endeavor for many [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://education.stateuniversity.com... [3] http://finance.yahoo.com... [4] http://nces.ed.gov... [5] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.npr.org...

Should All Students go to college Yes all students should go to college because everyone deserves to have a great education which will lead to many positive choices in life. A student will have a variety of good opportunities to choose from, instead of having to take a job just to have a paycheck.

An academic education gives people a rounded experience of life, with opportunities to meet people f... An academic education gives people a rounded experience of life, with opportunities to meet people from a wide range of backgrounds and to consider the importance in life of values and culture. These are necessary things required to label a person successful in all aspects of life. More broadly, widespread further education makes us a civilized nation. It uplifts our morals and ethics by exposing us to the great thinkers of the past. It makes us aware of our rights and liberties, and helps entrench a liberal democracy with active citizens and a lively media.

A university degree has far less worth than it once did Distinctions can be still be made between those who entered university simply for a more ‘rounded’ education or as a stop gap before working full-time, and those who attended university for the sole purpose of furthering their career. It is beneficial that a crowded marketplace means that people are having to stay on at university longer in order to gain more unique qualifications – this means that those in the top jobs have far more knowledge and education than they would have 50 years ago when further qualifications were not needed for distinction.

More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has be... More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers. The impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end - that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old.

College/University and formal tertiary education is not necessary Yes, sure it can provide for those who do not get A+ as a back up, but generally is it still worth the time and money when you can get training and experience at the workforce. " We should also keep in mind that the grades students get in high school is only an initial stage and that things can be very different in College or University, as those who don"t do as well in High school can go on to do much better in college and the A+ students in High school can end up realising that their potential is limited once they are in college or University. So presuming that High School A+ students should have the opportunity to work before the students who are not up to that level, YET, is very unfair." even if it is an initial stage there are all stages anyway, taking college and uni out of the picture can still provide for those who didn't get A grades, it can be an open system. "Yet, is very unfair" If they are somewhat disadvantaged it's alright as there are disadvantages and advantages to certain people anyway like scholarships, uni fees, course prerequisites. " There is a fine line between education and qualification and a University degree is the proof of both. Colleges and Universities will not only deal with the subject you are training for but they will also educate you further on morals and ethics and build you up with discipline and knowledge which High school and jobs alone can"t do. And as for employers, why would they put their effort, time and possibly money to train and qualify employees to work for them, especially while the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive. Wouldn"t they rather have employees with University degrees that show that they are full on ready for work? Some employees maybe willing but most would probably not be so willing." Education and qualification can be gained by the individual and proof of both can be tested when applying for a job. You have no sources or proof that university does educate you further on morals and ethics maybe the workplace does an even better job of that. "discipline and knowledge which high school and jobs alone can't do" still no proof i don't see why paying for a few extra years in a government scheme is any better than the workforce. Many who have dropped out of university or never even attended ended up being successful and somewhat knowledgable and ethical so i'm sorry but being educated and having dignity does not rely on University it can be developed by the individual if he attends or not. Just with the letter 'A' 'a' to 'l' S. Daniel Abraham, billionaire founder of Slim-Fast. Joined the Army at the age of 18 and fought in Europe during World War II. Did not attend college. Roman Abramovich, richest man in Russia, billionaire. Dropped out of college. He studied at the Moscow State Auto Transport Institute before taking a leave of absence from academics to go into business. He later earned a correspondence degree from the Moscow State Law Academy. Abigail Adams, U.S. first lady. Home schooled. Ansel Adams, photographer. Dropped out of high school. Bryan Adams, singer, songwriter. High school dropout. Calpernia Adams, transsexual showgirl. Never attended college. As she noted, "My parents thought that college leads you away from God, so they hadn't saved any money." Sandy Adams, U.S. congressperson. Dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to join the Air Force. Later got her GED and attended the police academy before being hired as a deputy sheriff. William Adams, aka Will.i.am, singer, songwriter, music producer, founder of the Black Eyed Peas, actor, entrepreneur. He formed his first group in high school. Never attended college. Gautam Adani, commodities billionaire from India. Dropped out of college. Adele, aka Adele Laurie Blue Adkins, singer and songwriter. Intended to go to college but got signed to a recording deal just after her high school graduation. Sheldon Adelson, billionaire casino owner. Dropped out of City College of New York to become a court reporter. He made his first fortune doing trade shows. Trace Adkins, country music singer and songwriter, actor. Studied at Louisiana Tech University but never officially graduated. Went to work on an oil rig instead. Mortimer Adler, author, educator, editor. Left high school at the age of 15 to work. Later received his high school equivalency degree and attended Columbia University. Ferran Adria, chef. Has been called the world's greatest chef. Did not finish high school. Miguel Adrover, fashion designer. High school dropout. Ben Affleck, actor, screenwriter. Left the University of Vermont after one semester; then dropped out of Occidental College to pursue acting. Andre Agassi, tennis player, winner of 8 Grand Slam titles. Quit school in the ninth grade and turned tennis pro at the age of 16. His father would drive the kids to school but, instead, actually took them to local tennis courts to practice. Dianna Agron, singer, dancer, actress. "I didn't take the typical path and go to college after high school. Instead, I saved up money from teaching dance classes and moved to L.A." Christina Aguilera, singer, songwriter. Never finished high school. Danny Aiello, actor. Dropped out of high school at the age of 16 to join the army. Later received a high school equivalency degree. Troy Aikman, Superbowl-winning football quarterback, TV sports commentator. In 2009, he finally graduated from UCLA, 20 years after leaving college to play in the National Football League. Aikman had promised his mother, when he left school just two courses shy of a degree, that he would return and finish. In 2009, at the age of 42, he finally fulfilled that commitment, earning A's in his last two courses, thus earning a bachelor's degree in sociology. Malin Akerman, model, actress. Enrolled in York University (Toronto) but left after about a year to see what else was out there. She moved to Los Angeles to become an actress. Dennis Albaugh, billionaire founder of pesticide company Albaugh Inc. Earned a 2-year agriculture business degree from Des Moines Community College. Did not continue on to a 4-year degree. Edward Albee, playwright. Dropped out of Trinity College after three semesters. Jack Albertson, Oscar-winning actor. High school dropout. http://sharevdo.com... - and those who not only never dropped out but never attended, incredible While it can be useful to many my point is that it shouldn't be 'necessary' that's the point of the argument In reply to your last few points, it may be the government's interest to educate and build a strong nation but that's the whole trap you just said it. Trying to pay off a loan for a few years sounds like a farmer, farm animal situation. We are slaves into make a "stronger nation" i think we deserve more liberty and the government should be using taxes more wisely. "where there is an assurance that learning is taking place" you can't assure that, i see more people enjoying online ways of learning like khan academy rather than the classroom, and i already stated that the sense of 'community' can be formed online but that alone shouldn't require that much money "-Because an exam for a job only limits your knowledge to that one profession and does not show that you are educated, may show that you are qualified, but not educated. Whereas a degree shows a wider range of skills and knowledge." how so? you didn't justify, a degree doesn't show someone's overall educational status either it just limits the knowledge to the one degree like you stated. Yeah social democracy is the increase of liberty for the nation and looks like the best step to take in regards to 'indirect slavery' as I like to call it