Question: Is a college education worth it?

Title: Going to college is worth Content: Extend.

Title: College is worth it Content: 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

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: Oh no...

Title: College is worth it Content: 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.

Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: 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.

Title: College is worth it Content: No round as agreed

Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: 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.

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: 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.

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

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: 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...

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: 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.

Title: This house believes that college is redundant for further studies Content: As you all know, college is an important milestone in life. Personally, I think that a college degree is worth pursuing regardless of an individual's career goals. First off, Candidates can explore new specialisation fields and experiment around to find their passion. This can actually help students to save money as well- If they are aware of their specialisations in a field of their choice, there is no need to take multiple courses in university. Instead, they can just directly choose to study in their field of choice. Which leads us to the next point. It serves an advantage. When students go to college, they may be unsure of what field to specialise in. however, as students grow older, they may develop sudden interests in medicine, law, economics and etc. When they finally decide what do they want to specialise in, they have a college degree to help them get into schools of their choice. Thirdly, college gives second chances. for those students who didn't do very well in high school, college is a perfect opportunity to earn back the grades they think they deserve. For all education levels above college, they tend to weigh your college degree higher than your high school degree. My fourth point is that college helps us build a strong foundation for future studies. It gives you the basic knowledge you will need for future studies. Students can gain advanced knowledge in the fields that they are interested in and can have a general understanding of the other subjects. It also helps students to exercise their critical thinking skills and make sensible choices as well as help them to express themselves through writing and speech. Another point I would like to use to oppose to the opinion that college is redundant for further studies is that it helps students increase their chance of admission into schools of their choice. Imagine that you are checking 2 resumes from 2 applicants. They both have the same amount of experience, but one applicant gained a higher college degree that the other. Which one would you choose as a new intake? I believe that all of us will choose the student with the higher education background. However, in real life, students are compared with thousands os applicants, so they must have some academic achievements that make them appeal to the university that they are applying for so that they will choose the student as their intake. Last but not least, college prepares students for university life. Students learn to deal with the hardships in life in college. It makes the student strong and practical enough to deal with the hardships that they are going to face in the future. Students learn to adapt to new situations and new environments in college just as they would do in graduate school or university. Overall, I would like to conclude that college is in fact not redundant for further studies but it plays an important role in a student's education. Thank you.

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: 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.

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

Title: Going to college is worth Content: Vote 4 me.

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: 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

Title: Going to college is worth Content: 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

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: 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.

Title: College is worth it Content: 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...

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: 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.

Title: Going to college is worth Content: 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...

Title: College/University and formal tertiary education is not necessary Content: 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

Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: 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...

Title: College is worth it Content: 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.

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: 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.

Title: Public vs Private Education Content: Public education is, overall, not worth it to a wealthier person. To a person who doesn't have the wealth it is much smarter to put his or her child into public education rather than private education because of the main fact that they cant pay for the private education. This means that any education is good enough for his or her child and if this means public is better choice for the family because they cant afford the private education. Even though one must obtain a higher gpa to get into a preferred school under public education just means that you can get a lower gpa in Private education because realistically you are paying in advance for a college degree.

Title: Free Education Lowering Poor Rates Content: Some households face discrimination by landlords who are unwilling to rent to voucher holders. They do this as an economic advantage because the poor people may fail to pay rent. The main cause of this issue is that people put so much value on money and use money as a way to determine people"s worth. The rich continually have many opportunities to make more money because they use the money they already have to help them, while the poor can"t really do much because they don"t have much money. The poor have many disadvantages while the rich can make sure they get to have advantages. Even if the poor want to start working at a better paying job, the employers , before even looking at their resumes, might judge them for the way they look. They might not have as good of an education as the rich because they couldn"t afford to pay for the college fees. Since they couldn"t get a better education, they can"t get the better paying job. They continue to stay poor. Since people put so much value on money, they think the more money you have, the better you are. It gives the people a feeling of superiority and makes them think that they have to right to look down on the people making less money than them. People with money also tend to have much more power than those who don"t. The ones who don"t want to make sure that they are in favor of the ones that hold the power, so they would also look down on those who make less money than them to show the rich that they are thinking in the same way as them; that the rich are more superior.

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: 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.

Title: Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child) Content: As far as I understand:My opponetnt is trying to argue the point that parents "live through" thier child's life by teaching them the philosophy of entering college after teaching them to follow their dream. My opponet feels that this is wrong and asks "is your life worth it when your parents live through you? "So my question to my opponent is this: Is your life worth it without your parents trying to push you to succeed? Many orphans wish they had a parent to do this to them. It only makjes sense that your parent would try to get you to go to college and earn degrees. Yes, it is true that they want you to "follow our dream" and college might not be your dream; but can you follow your dream without further education? No. (unless you want minimum wage). You must work for your dream. Parents are not trying to live through their child's life. They are trying to help you develop the life they might not have.

Title: college tuition too expensive Content: The cost of college is becoming an issue all across America. With the current state of the economy, the percent of unemployed workers and the cost of college can seem like a far fetched goal. Many people who may not receive a scholarship or enough government funding may not be able to attend college. This is a big issue because having a college background is becoming an important factor in the business world today but, the cost makes many look for other options. The idea of having to pay back thousands of dollars makes people question is it actually worth it? From my stand point it is. You may not leave college doing the same thing you began with but the life experiences are endless. College gives you not only knowledge but builds you into a better person by taking you through life experiences. With the cost of college increasing it may hurt generations to come because they will not be able to experience, learn and grow into a better individual. Without future doctors, lawyers,athletes etc where will the world be in the future. Who will run the country, perform surgeries and close business deals? All of these questions will be as questions unanswered if people are not able to afford college. There should be more options better payback systems to make the cost of college more affordable.

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: 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.

Title: Is education necessary for people's future lives Content: 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.

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: 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.

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: Hi. My name is Dillon and education has always been an important thing for me. With our downfalling economy, I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available, therefore stimulating the economy for us. With more and more people getting better jobs, a larger amount of money the will have to pay for Social Security, which would possibly help decrease the deficit the U.S. economy is in right now. Also, a college education would allow for more innovative technologies to be developed in the future, as well as a generally smarter public, which is always beneficial. I am sorry I do not have any sources cited, but it is 10:15 P:M where I live and I still have work to do. Also, not many sources are available, as this debate isn't exactly the largest thing to be arguing about.

Title: Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed Content: When the accepted age of adulthood was set at 18, most jobs in America did not require anything more than a high school diploma. In essence, the government provided young adults with the necessary education to succeed in their world by ensuring that they could obtain the education to get them into the careers they need. Colleges, back then, were extras, for overachievers who wanted more. Thus, colleges were attended by those who had the financial means to afford it and the intelligence to perform at a high enough level to obtain a degree and become integral parts of society in its more important positions. In America today, however, most non-poverty wage jobs require post-secondary education. In today's society, the secondary school diploma is worth as much as a primary school diploma, and a bachelor's degree is worth as much as a secondary school diploma was worth a few generations ago Because of this, most young Americans need to attend college so as to be able to be a part of the middle class. The government, however, does very little if anything at all to help young adults attain college, and therefore, forcing young adults to fend for themselves, causing them to accrue large debts, and forcing college-bound students to work exorbitant hours in jobs where they only can earn poverty wages, because they don't have the degree that would afford them the opportunity to work in jobs that would pay decent wages. In short, the American government does not afford its young citizens the necessary education to succeed in today's world anymore, instead asking them to take the burden of getting their own education by themselves. The sad truth of the current state of American society is that the Millennial generation constantly gets blamed for acting entitled, when we only act that way because we are the first generation that hasn't had the basics afforded to us by older generations. We have actually had to work and pay to get the bare minimum. While individual parents have been pockets of hope, not everyone has a good set of parents. It is for this reason the free public education exists, and with the age of adulthood being pushed back a few years, free public education could be raised to include underclass post-secondary education.

Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: 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.

Title: Free college education Content: I accept

Title: University education is an investment. Content: Education of this higher level should be seen as investment, not just of time but also of money. A person who gets a University education can expect to earn more in their life time than someone with just A levels. If we stopped making excuses and put the effort in, we could all afford to go to university, even if we did have to take out personal loans and credit cards. We just have to acknowledge that the three years of living on the breadline is worth it for the future profits that the degree shall reap. Such an investment is not one that the government should have to make on our behalf. It is for our benefit, therefore we should stump the costs. The amount of students leaving university and struggling to get a graduate level job is increasing, therefore why should the government fund free university education when the amount of jobs for graduates are running low?

Title: Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. Content: 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...

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: College atheletes should be paid Content: Students already get paid from scholarships. Scholarships are worth a ton of money.

Title: The costs of college outweigh the benefits Content: 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.

Title: College should be entirely government funded. Content: A vibrant modern economy requires a well educated work force and a college education is essential to function as a part of the modern labor force. If the ability to pursue a college education depends solely on one's wherewithal, then a large part of the potential labor force is shut out. Government support for college education is essential to allow wide spread access for many of the poor. This initial investment by the government will be repaid once they become productive and tax payers.

Title: Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US Content: 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?

Title: If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing Content: Not every University is taking students with 3 D's and an E. Especially if a student wants to study a difficult subject. But many students, who have the ability to learn, willing to learn and gain everything, just can't afford it. Wouldn't the Government benefit from having more successful people, who pay taxes? I think that uni should be free, but the "taking in" rules should be harder.

Title: The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition Content: In the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people. 1 BBC News, "Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011 improve this

Title: Should All Students go to college Content: 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.

Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: Rebuttal 1: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) - lighth0us3This is true, though there are also many opportunities to be able to obtain a degree for a career that helps society out. For example, one can't become a nurse without a nursing degree, and not only is higher education necessary for doctors and specialists, who also help society, but post-higher education is as well. With a high school diploma, one is very limited in what they can do, so a college degree opens up many ways in which millennials will be able to help the community in some way. Also, if college education is truly outdated for millennials, why are there more millennials than any other generation going to colllege or who have a college education?[7] They must be getting a college degree for some reason, and it would be logical, that since the millennial generation is more interested in doing a job that is helpful to the community, that they go to college for a meaningful degree that will lead them to a career with which they can do much for the community. Rebuttal 2: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. - lighth0us3Well, this isn't the only reason to get a college degree. There are plenty of other reasons, which I gave a few others already. If this was the only reason to get a college degree, then yes, college would be outdated. Agreement 1: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 is why I think, perhaps, I misunderstood what con was supposed to be arguing for, because I agree that college education should be reformed to be available to everyone regardless of income. This isn't a concession, because I believed this before I began the debate, so I'm not sure that this should be a reason why voters should vote against me, since I simply may have misunderstood what con was arguing for. Again, I was thinking along the lines of that con was arguing that college education in general(and not how it necessarily is currently) is not outdated for the millennial generation. It wasn't clear upfront (to me at least) that con would be arguing that how college education is currently executed is not outdated for the millennial generation. I would agree that how college education is currently executed is outdated, and I agreed with that before the debate began, so again, I'm not sure if we should continue this debate or not. Either I misunderstood still, or this point is irrelevant because it can be solved by making higher education tax-payer funded.Rebuttal 3There 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. -lighth0us3 But I don't believe it works that way for every field. To become a doctor, for example, I don't think you can just do something similar: Pass examinations and sit with a practicing doctor for a few years. Maybe one can do this, and I don't know that one can. Even if it does also work that way for doctors, there are so many fields out there and I doubt all of them work that way. Not to mention, if we did make college tax-payer funded, then either route is just as viable as the other as neither cost money for the student.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). -lighth0us3 Yes, but it's often the case that one doesn't obtain the skills needed unless they have a college degree. Not every employer will give you an examination to see if you're qualified and have the skills for the job, so a college degree is necessary to indicate to them you have the skills needed.Rebuttal 4/Agreement 2Additionally, 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. -lighth0us3 The only thing I have to rebut here is the cost wasted you brought up. No matter how you go about getting experience within a field, it will cost money. There's nothing that can be done about that some people will waste money. Whether you waste it on paying for classes that are going to be useless because you changed career paths, or do it by paying for some sort of career workshop or really any alternative to education but later change your career path, you're still spending money and it costs money to teach people in a specific field or give them experience. I agree that there should be something done to change the pressure to decide a career path immediately, or at least some sort of class or something that will give people experience in a given career field. I also agree with what you said in the following paragraph that reform is needed. Again, this might be due to that I wasn't clear on what con is arguing for. I absolutely agree, and would have from the beginning before accepting this debate, that education should be reformed. Rebuttal 5This 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) -lighth0us3 Well, yes, the statistic I used was a survey of adults 18+, but if teenagers were included it would likely only lower the percent a little. Either way, the point was that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. Really, the problem with my statistic is that it includes university students(those who are 18 or older). That would lower the percentage since the percent of university students with depression or anxiety is lower than for adults out of college. 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.Those numbers cannot be combined though, as they represent two completely different populations. The 13% statistic is those who are in undergratuate education with depression or anxiety, and 15.6% is those in graduate school with depression or anxiety. It's not 28.6% of college students(of both grads and undergrads) that have depression and anxiety, rather, it's the average of the two numbers(though it's a little more complicated than that because the number of undergraduates outnumber the number of graduate students in education). First, we need to take into account how many graduates there are in post-graduate school, then add it to the number of undergraduates. That's the total number of college students in either undergratuate education or post-graduate education. Now that we have that, you take the number of graduate students who have depression or anxiety(15.6% of the total number of graduate students), add it to the number of undergradute students with depression or anxiety(13% of the total number of undergraduate students), and then divide that by the total number of graduate and undergraduate students. Adding the percentages does not work, and the actual percentage of college students(including both graduate students and undergraduate students) with depression or anxiety is somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%; it would be closer to 13% than 15.6% since undergrads outnumber graduate students(I don't think I need a source for that undergrads outnumber graduate students right? That should be common knowledge that most people stop after 4 years of college education) Source:[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...

Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: Actually, you can find this information at college; go to your dorm, turn on your laptop, connect to the college wifi. I think it is safe to stay that in America, almost all colleges will have wifi. My last point was colleges allow students to socially interact. Going to college is much like high school, in the sense that you will have to adapt to your new surroundings, and make new friends. It is also said that in college you are more likely to find other students with similar interests and ideas, and thus better able to connect with them. Going through college will be a struggle at times, but the experience and people are well worth it.

Title: More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has be... Content: 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.

Title: A degree will become more valuable. Content: A rise in tuition fees making higher education itself more valuable, combined with the reduced number of students that will attend university owing to the increase, will make a degree a more valuable and sought-after qualification. At the moment more and more people seem to be heading off to university and if this keeps up, before long a degree will be worth practically nothing since the majority of the country will have one. Perhaps an increase in tuition fees is needed to prevent this concern and to ensure that a degree keeps its value.

Title: College Textbooks Are Way Too Expensive Content: I would like to begin by stating that this topic is completely opinionated, and thus it must be debated in a subjective manner, as opposed to objective. On to the case for textbook prices: 1. Manufacturers need to make money, otherwise there would be nobody to write, edit, or produce them. 2. Students need to know the value of things. If for no other purpose, having expensive books will make students take care of them. The value in this is that students realize WHAT they are spending all of that money on: education. Something well worth the price. 3. The point introduced by the pro side in round 1 is a fallacy. The price of books is not tied to the tuition fees. The costs are introduced by third-party book sellers, and cannot be seen as an attachment to the what the college is bringing in, especially since the best book prices are not found in the campus book sellers. That would be like buying a house, and complaining that you have to pay for furniture on top of the mortgage.

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: 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.

Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: 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 .

Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: 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.

Title: Education Reform Content: While money cannot buy you happiness, its the only dough that can buy a house, pay your bills, and support a family. My opponent quoted me as saying that life skills are useless in the modern world. This was neither stated nor implied in the pertaining passage [I run a corporation, and life skills aren't worth the oxygen in business. No, respect doesn't even earn you a smile.] I am not averse to the idea of life skills. My revulsion is their over-emphasis. As my opponent stated in contention #1, I am focusing on the financial side of life (intentionally), and will proceed to broaden the scope of my arguments. Perhaps this discussion is to be more fruitful if we speak from a perspective in consideration of a larger picture. You are endowed with elective (optional) and highly specialized classes, which are not the model in the elementary educational environment. However, several fallacies are apparent in the beginning education of children. Without further ado, allow me to certify that I am not an oldie. I experienced electives in my time, and my opponent has thus far crafted a description that runs parallel to the educational environment of the 70s that I was taught in, excepting for segregation. Regarding once again to education, allow me to relate my points by the means of narrating the life of Jill, an aspiring economist. NOTE:fictional From about age 12, Jill knew what she wanted to be: "one of those market people". In the absence of relevant teaching in the curriculum, Jill found books and web sites to instigate a foundation of business knowledge. At age 19, Jill entered Harvard University and was well-prepared for a rigorous course on advanced business science. Let us now take the example of Fred, an unsuccessful ex-economist. Fred, with the same intentions as Jill, yet a more conventional mind, started off fresh with the same course, having gained no prior knowledge, and was ill-prepared. After his failed career, Fred's income was grounded, and he ended up on the streets. Thus, a potentially great mind fails to flourish in the absence of a relevant class at the elementary level. As shown by these examples, the current educational system lacks curriculum ties to the real world. My opponents response to tie off this round should accomplish the following: 1. find flaw in the stories of Jill and Fred 2. illuminate changes in the educational system since the 70s 3. reflect a reason for the over-emphasis of lifeskillsl

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: Please feel free to ask any questions that you might have abut the resolution/debate in the comments section or by messageing me. I look forward to debateing!

Title: Education should be funded by vouchers granted to individual families, not public schools. Content: The point of providing a "voucher" instead of cash is that the voucher can only be spent in a certain way. Education vouchers could only be spent on education. If there are to be no standards on what qualifies as education, as you're suggesting, then there is absolutely no point in providing vouchers -- cash could be used instead. If there are some kind of standards to be applied to who can receive the vouchers, then this means the government will be setting the standards, thus regulating and controlling schools and turning all private schools into public schools -- just as has happened with colleges. The above is irrefutable. Your "free market" argument is laughable. The free market is what I'm arguing for -- you're arguing for wealth redistribution. Someone who has ten children would receive ten vouchers' worth of subsidies, while someone who has one child would only receive one voucher's worth of subsidies. If the vouchers can be spent on anything, then this is just a crude wealth redistribution plan -- and you're saying, yes, despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense to provide vouchers that can be spent on anything (defeating the entire purpose of a voucher vs. cash), the vouchers in your system would be able to be spent on ANYTHING. It's doubly ridiculous to suggest that parents wouldn't make poor choices, such as sending their children to the Video Arcade Academy. Do parents not make poor choices now with their own money? Of course they do! Although a true free market would provide better quality education and more choices, there would still be parents who made poor choices. WHAT ABOUT HOMESCHOOLING? Would homeschoolers not be eligible for the vouchers? Would their taxes pay for them either way? If they would be eligible for the vouchers, to be paid to themselves, then isn't this obviously open to massive fraud and abuse? Unscrupulous parents could have ten or twelve children and collect $8,000 to $10,000 per year, PER CHILD, for "educating" them, whether they actually educated them or not! And if homeschoolers are not able to receive the vouchers, then is this not an outright assault on the freedom to homeschool? You are arguing for tyranny and cloaking your words in the parlance of freedom. It is truly Orwellian. It is downright blasphemous to use the "invisible hand" metaphor when you're talking about a big-government, wealth-redistribution program. Do you honestly believe your own rhetoric? Vouchers are a neoconservative transfer-payment apparatus. That conservatives and libertarians have fallen for this charade is one thing, but to disingeuously use "free market" rhetoric in order to justify the case for the socialization of education is downright insulting to people's intelligence. Your understanding of the Constitution and Original Intent is horrid. If the First Amendment's "separation of church and state" applied to the states, then why did official state churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut endure until 1833, and why were they abolished through state legislative process, not the federal government's enforcement of the First Amendment? You have a very liberal, big-government understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly says "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." That's what it says, and it doesn't matter what FDR's judges have said since. Of course, the above has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but it merely shows your lack of constitutional logic, and the Rooseveltian liberalism that informs your supposedly "libertarian" stand for wealth redistribution and state-sponsored education camps. A voucher system would take the partially monopolized education system and make the monopoly complete. There are only two colleges that refuse federal money. There are many more private schools at the K-12 level. If your system were adopted, then truly private schools would become as rare as truly private colleges, thus effectively abolishing the private alternative to public education. AND AGAIN, WHAT ABOUT HOMESCHOOLING? Every worthwhile argument you've made for a voucher system can also be made for a truly free market in education. You've done nothing to show why vouchers are better than a true free market. I have shown why a true free market is better than vouchers -- which are NOT a "free market" (PLEASE!). I will go further to say even the status quo is better, because at least now, parents are able to send their children to truly private schools. Under your system, that would cease to be the case.

Title: We should follow the example of Finland's education system. Content: I'm sure many Americans and Finns would agree you don't have swag yourself, and that Finns know English better than you.The whole world's having a hard time. It's time we, whichever nation we come from, started thinking on the long term. Of course, this is easier to say, as money doesn't come easy or at least not to the right places nor to the right people. But maybe education is something worth investing in. I think it' something we'll come to regret very soon if we don't make it much better today, or even in the next generation.I won't bother repeating myself, as Con's not making the effort to produce anything useful. I'll put my trust in the voters' common sense.

Title: federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more Content: college doesn't make everyone earn more, it makes some earn more. it doesn't really combat poverty, it might if you are the lucky ones to be gainfully employed. the free market determines how much people make, and educating more doesn't mean more money being earned. it just means there's a more educated populace. why is college the magic point of being a right? everyone gets good education in high school, and for the most part, college is just an inefficient continuation of high school, teaching humanities and redundancies and making classes out of things that can be condensed into one class. i might agree a trade school can be a right, but not college. if people are making more from education they can afford to pay back loans. why should we take money from other people effectively at gun point through taxes to pay for them?

Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: OK.

Title: Education transcends international boundaries Content: Yes, I don't really believe that this point was used to justify high tuition fee - "We are preveliged to had our predecessors ruled forein countries and made the all the wealth." - "As a famous dicoverer of human genetic material said, we are superior human beings in this world." Counter-arguement - "About ruling foreign countries, Most of the times English people took undue advantage of hospitality by citizens of colonies. In some eastern countries where a Guest is considered next to God, English people came and started ruling. People showed hospitality and in return they got slavery from UK. - " Superior race' I hope you meet me in person so that you can explain me how you became superior race. I believed that origin of human being is from Africa and theory of evolution says that the we all came from Africa. But I am not sure if there is any chance that some people in Uk believe that they evolved separately in an Island compared to rest of the people. And based on these idiotic ideas if high tuition fees are justified then I dont believe that the education is worth taking. kind regadrs How do you then explain my situation. Born in England, parents took me to Canada when I was 11. returned to England at 18. I am being charged full International fees and despite not being able to pay I am unable to have my status changed. Scholarships are for non British. Who am I and where was I born?

Title: America's current education system is a gateway for classism Content: Unfounded ClaimsSo pro makes the claim that "Americas current education system caters to the needs of a wealthy minority and leaves the majority of Americans cannot afford the education that they need to survive in the real world." This is an unfounded and fallacious argument as basic school education is free and actually mandatory up to a certain age (16 in most states). This type of schooling provides all that is needed to "survive" in the real world. While college is very costly and does help get higher paying jobs this does not necessitate it's type of education for survivial. The initial claim that is caters to the needs of a wealthy minority doesn't actually outline what those needs are or HOW it actually caters to them so it's really not worth responding to. http://c2.com...https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov...This next sentence doesn't actually make sense because of how poorly it's written. I'm sure theres a point in here somewhere but until it's actually apparent I don't think I can even respond to it. Again I've addressed that there actually is no cost for getting a quality education and considering you've done nothing to define quality I can just discredit this as a subjective argument. The Education System Inherently Leads to Nothing More Than KnowledgeSo on to my own personal arguments. Classism: A biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Well by this definition and pros assertion then the school system must be teaching them things to have them form a discriminatory attitude towards those in other classes (Keep in mind that this does not mean LOWER classes this means DIFFERENCES in class so by definition poor people could be classist of higher class people.) right? This is plainly false. School does nothing more than to provide knowledge to students in areas such as English, math, science, social studies, art, and technology. Just take a look at required cirriculums for all these states. Nowhere in here is the class that teaches "Poor People Suck" or "Rich People are Awful 101". http://www.education.state.pa.us...http://www.michigan.gov...http://www.usg.edu...;School doesn't inherintly lead to anything other than the gaining of knowledge. Does going to school help in getting a job and becomming sucessful? Of course! But this does not mean that going to school GUARENTEES you a job. The converse is true also, does NOT going to school hurt your chances of getting a job? Yes but it also doesn't GUARENTEE you won't get one.

Title: College is better than high school. Content: Well from the lack of response I'll take it that this debate is over. It was truly a good time. I shall leave you with just a few parting words. High school is a better time for all. College is a level of education that is not for many, as well as a hole in your wallet. High school was a safer time where you took what was given to and you complained. .. High school allows time for people to grow and mature and unfortunately many in college have yet to mature. As I complete my freshman year of college I can say I enjoyed myself, but I can't help but picture where I would be if I were still in high school. Thank you for your time of this debate.

Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: Whilst it cannot be disputed that most universities guarantee an outstanding education, it would definitely not be worth £20,000 per year! That amount of money could considerably add to an "average" salary making it worth the same as a "high" salary but without obtaining a degree and wasting 3/4 years of your life! Furthermore, although the quality of education may be worth paying for, the quantity of education does not justify such an increase. Many students are given less than 15 hours of lectures per week so should they really be paying such a huge amount for an education that they rarely receive?

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: As I have Proved COLLEGE should not required my opponents forfeit and nontopicality ought to be impetus enough for the observers to vote for me. Thank You.

Title: Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. Content: I hope this response will suffice. as for my opponents request the reason I believe this is because first for the reason of debate and second because I and most college students go to college for the purpose of making more money after graduation. But this has little to do wit this debate. Pro goes on to say that education referees to high school as well as college, and it should be free, what he does not see is that goes beyond what you pay and also refers to opportunity costs. the added cost of using resources (as for production or speculative investment) that is the difference between the actual value resulting from such use and that of an alternative (as another use of the same resources or an investment of equal risk but greater return. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... this shows that regardless of what you pay there are still cost to education. Back to the resolution educations main purpose is to gain a better job than you could gain without it. The result of this could be mental and logical growth but this is not its main purpose.

Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: 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.

Title: A university degree has far less worth than it once did Content: 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.

Title: The U.S. should make collegiate education free Content: I think it will be a good learning experience for both me and my opponent, and we will both be better off because of it. @zeromeansnothing, I also apologize for the minor misunderstanding in the comments, and that will in no way affect my argument. Without further ado, let us begin. Framework: The full resolution is, “The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. ” In order to fulfill my obligation to the burden of proof, I must prove why colleges should make their education free for all constituents of America. In order for my opponent to receive points and effectively present his burden of proof, he must argue why colleges should not make education free for all constituents of America. Failure on my part or my opponent’s will result in a deduction of points in the voting period. The values on which I will be basing my arguments on represent core problems within today’s educational system on the collegiate level. Equality in education, Egalitarianism as a principle, social and upward progress being impeded, and the fairness/justness of the system itself. Argument 1: The Virtue of Education; Social Advancement Education, in all forms, should be free to the public because of its value to society. John Adams once stated that, “[T]he whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people, and must be willing to bear the expense of it. ” (1) The government should take college costs into their hands, as an investment in the future of its citizens. Egalitarianism is defined as, “An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. ” Even in our current form of government, egalitarianism is an ideal at which we follow in the systemic level. Equality as a principle was and still is an important advocate of the American government today. Making students pay for education and learning is against this philosophy. Everyone in the country should be entitled to free education because they are equal to their peers, and they are equal to all constituents of this country. More money poured into education should not affect the quality of education that is obtainable. Argument 2: Government; The Guiding Hand Education, in its current respect, is cracked at the seams. A major problem in today’s system is that the government is not holding colleges accountable for their failure to provide students with quality education and a fair system. Increased government control at the foundations of collegiate education can make principles that are so desperately needed right now cemented. Almost all collegiate institutions rely on federal aid to fund their operations, yet costs have managed to rise, and quality of education has managed to stay the same or decrease in quality. This is often because federal grants to universities usually focus on funding research, instead of trying to improve the quality of education or addressing instruction (36% of students failed to demonstrate meaningful gains over four years) (2). With increased government involvement, or total involvement, universities can begin a rehabilitation process in which costs can be cut and focused towards the instruction and quality of learning. The resulting outcome is that more and more students are prepared to enter the job market, and will aid the United States economically in the long run. Another shortcoming in the educational system is finance based attendance. Scholarships and fellowships allow students to attend universities, but there are not enough grants to go around that don’t leave students in thousands of dollars of student loans debt. More often than not, two results are present; students cannot attend universities because of tremendously steep costs, or they go into deep debt to acquire and obtain a degree (25% of people who graduate will end up with $30,000< of debt accumulated) (2). One tactic by students is to work while continuing their education, but this most always proves to be stressful to students. Colleges often favor those who can accommodate for the cost of education. In this current scenario, admissions are then based upon economic status, not the meritocratic foundations on which college admissions should be based. This only reinforces my claim that government funding can not only eliminate the wealth status factor, but it can also return college admissions to its rightful state. Graduating free of debt and economic impediments, citizens are able to immediately start contributing to the growth of America as a whole by obtaining jobs, buying houses, and paying taxes. Conclusion: This argument has been funded by the National Tea Party Patriots. Thank you @Hayd and @zeromeansnothing. This will be a fun debate, and I look forward to our following rounds. I have supplied my burden of proof by suggesting that government control of education will be beneficial, our current system is not a working one, and that free education will benefit the American economy as a whole. Now it is your job to supply your burden of proof. Thanks! Sources: . http://blogs.berkeley.edu... . http://www.thirdway.org...

Title: Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education. Content: I come down on the "children should foot the bill" part of the divide. Parents paying for college is a wonderful privilege, but, at the end of the day, I find it reprehensible to suggest that it's some sort of enormous burden that a child shoulder the load for his/her own choice. If a kid chooses an outrageously pricey school - *cough*like I did*cough* - then that's on the child. I would have loved for my parents to even cover the Expected Family Contribution portion of my financial aid package from UChicago, but it didn't happen. So what? It's my education. If I wasn't willing to invest in it, then I had no business there. Two years later, I don't feel like my $200 a month loan payments are any huge boulder weighing me down. The education was well-worth it. You are an adult once you reach 18, it's your responsibility to take care of yourself!

Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: 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.

Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: 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...

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: I extend all of my original arguments and following arguments as my opponent has forfeited the round.

Title: college should be entierly government funded Content: There are many colleges and I don't believe that the government has that much money. Even if they did, that means anyone can get into any college. Education wouldn't really matter anymore. A student who has lower grades than a highly academic student may be able to go to a great college and their effort won't matter. Those who want to get into a good college work hard for it, but if students are just going to have a college handed to them because it's already paid for then it gives them no reason for any work or effort at all.

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: 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.

Title: Should colleges be free Content: 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

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: 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.

Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: 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?

Title: College football playoff system Content: --"As you say, a triple-elimination 256 team playoff system would be way to long" I never said that. A triple-elimination 256 team playoff would be just long enough. --"if they played that many games, they would retire long before the average age now of 34" So we continue to have young, fresh players. This is a good thing. --"education is very important" To quote my opponent: "I do not prefer education over football." He also drops all 3 of my arguments about education. --"That would be to long and to many players would get hurt, and ruin their chances to go to the NFL." The average college football player spends about 45 hours per week practicing[1] to play for, at most, one hour per game. The extra hours spent in the playoffs would amount to about 2 days worth of practice. This is no significant increase in the probability of a player being hurt. ======== =Summary= ======== CON never rebutted any of my arguments, gave multiple new (unwarranted) arguments in the final rebuttal, and never even used the word 'BCS' in his last speech. [1] http://www.mindingthecampus.com...

Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: I accept.

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: I accept the resolution.

Title: University education helps society Content: I'll begin by saying that not everybody wants a university degree, therefore not everybody needs a university degree. Granted that if the state did not educate its people then we would have some serious problems, however with education up to college level being free, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that someone over the age of 18 should have to pay for an extension on their education. In order for a society to function properly, you need more than every man, woman and child being trained to be the next Tony Blair, the next hot shot lawyer or the next 'Topgun' doctor. You need people with vocational qualifications and trade skills, of which someone would not attain at a university or learn in a university course. It is also important to note that by making university free, you increase the amount of people attending university devaluing the worth of the actual degree. In order for a state to fund free degrees for all would be to rise tax, because free education is never free, and someone needs to foot the bill. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland etc have very high taxation at around 40-50% per year per income. Raising taxes in the UK during a time of recession would be damaging and counter-productive and ultimately would not help society.

Title: Resolved:the Ivy League has lost its prestige and allure as many non-Ivy schools have exceeded them. Content: I'm glad that you've conceded that the Ivy Leagues have not lost their appeal...you stated that "the Ivy League is still highly desirable". As far as the Ivy Leagues schools not being worth the cost, I guess that would be a matter of opinion to the students that go there. If they don't think it is worth the money then they do have the choice to go elsewhere, yet they still choose to go there. Your statement may have some truth to it as far as exclusivity is coupled with ignorance. Yes, some of the reasons these students choose these schools are for the prestige and exclusiveness, and that may seem shallow and stupid to others...but they apparently are willing to pay for this. Your argument in the beginning however was geared toward the loss of appeal and prestige and I just proved to you that they had in fact not lost either. However, your point about high cost of education is important and perhaps you should start another debate and word your argument a little differently. Thanks for presenting this topic to debate. Happy Holidays!

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: 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

Title: kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education Content: 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.

Title: Is Indian Education System Is Justified Content: Now, since I am Pro, I will define the topic that we will be debating. I am stating that the Indian Education System in question is the American system and that we will not be debating the Canadian system. Also, by justified, we will be debating whether the resources put into the system is worth the outcome. As well, since there is no such system, we will be talking about Natives IN the American Education system. Thank you and good luck. Now, I will begin my statements by saying my stance on the subject, then talking to you about my points. I strongly believe that the Indian Education System is justified, for the following reasons: By teaching the Natives we are giving them the tools to get into a post-secondary school of their choice, which the tuition fees help pay for better schooling for everyone. While we can get a lot of sustenance from just people of a European background, many natives have been attending college, giving our schools even more funding. Next, I am not trying to be rude, but Americans are not viewed as treating the First Nations very well. But, when we teach the Natives it sheds a better light on America. This gives them a better chance to have shipping and trading with other countries. If a country is willing to pay top dollar for some oil, but values it's native peoples very much, they are more likely to buy from another country if America looks like it treats its natives poorly. Finally, there have been some very successful Native Americans, such as Philip Martin and Joe Shirley. If these men had not received a proper education, they would surely have not been as successful. There are some Natives that have the potential to be great politicians and diplomats, but will never get the chance to if they have no or little education. This is why I believe that the Native Education System is justified.

Title: college tuition too expensive Content: 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.

Title: Free education Content: Now I will immediately respond to his case points.1. Education is the most important thing you can have, therefore we should make it available to everyone. Your argument is based on nothingness. Is education really the most important thing you can have? Is education necessary to do manual labor? No. Education is not the most important thing in this life. The most important thing in this life is your life itself. You can still lead a good one without education. Look at people like Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates. Did they go to college? No. Yet they are still near universally looked up to as heroes of the uneducated world.2. Everybody needs a higher education. You basically just reiterated what you said earlier, ignoring my refutation. Not valid.3. A lot of people can't go to college because it isn't free. To begin with, I'd like to say that my opponent's statistics are heavily exaggerated. 71.3% of students do not drop out of college. I'd like to see his source for this. Secondly, people can still get quality higher education for a cheap price. Hundreds to thousands of community colleges exist across the country that are extremely cheap. Cost is in fact, not a large factor in getting higher education, as community colleges fall under the title of higher education and are readily available to the public.4. "More people would be smarter. They would all have better jobs. "Not everyone can be a CEO, or an executive at AIG, or a pharmaceutical rep, etc. Manual labor is what runs the country. If all people had access to education, then to an extent you'd need an even HIGHER level of education to get a good job. All of a sudden, higher education would become thouroughly unimpressive. Yes. More people would be smart if they had higher education. They're already available to you at a convenient price. Look for your local community college.5. Without education some people will be denied basic education. I already refuted this. Please see my arguments above. She only reiterated what she had already said. Now, since my disadvantages of Free Education were completely ignored, I will simply extend them by copying and pasting them.1. SpendingDo you honestly think, that as our government is struggling to finance by CouponDropDown" href="#">high schools and middle schools they will be able to perhaps buy up all private universities, create their own, and manage them? No. We're already in a huge deficit and we need to cut back on spending, especially on things not necessary, like this. or we could have a communist revolution. Jk.2. Crowds out the private market. For hundreds of year reputable by CouponDropDown" href="#">colleges and universities have given the highest education to those daring enough to walk their halls. If we were to implement a free form of higher education, people would stop going to these private colleges, who will without a doubt provide a higher quality of education than public colleges, and start going to a lesser college simply because its cheaper. This already happens in the private scale in terms of higher education, but making college free would make this issue skyrocket. Not only is this a violation against the individual, but is in fact a means of providing insufficient higher education to those who would generally go to somewhere like Yale or Stanford. To summarize this debate so far: My opponent has provided a few advantages of free education, all of which I have refuted. While she says that people are denied access to higher education because of cost, I defined higher education as a college or university. This means that community colleges are readily available to any enterprising young adult who wishes for a better future. She ignored all of my disadvantages. I refuted all of her advantages. Con is winning. I look forward to my opponent's next argument.

Title: The U.S. should make collegiate education free Content: I think it will be a fun learning experience for the beginners, and it will allow us to learn the ropes. Secondly, I would like to thank my opponent, zeromeansnothing, for taking on this debate with me. I have no doubt that you will provide an intelligent and lengthy discourse, and I look forward to our contentions. Lastly, I would like to thank both of our mentors for agreeing to be our guides through this tournament. You have no idea how much that helps us in the learning process. Full and Clear Resolution:The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. Burden of Proof:In this debate, and from the resolution, the burden of proof is shared. I, as Pro, must argue in favor of the U. S. putting into place a free collegiate education system. The job of Con is to provide ample reasoning as to why free collegiate education is not good. Violation of the previously stated guidelines could result in voting out of your favor. Structure:Round 1: Pro presents the framework and rules of the debate, and Con Accepts. Round 2: Pro presents his case, Con presents his case. Round 3: Pro rebuts Con's case, and Con rebuts Pro's case. Round 4: Pro defends his arguments, Con defends his arguments. Rules: 1. No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided.2. The burden of proof is shared. (More in-depth above)3. Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting.4. Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else.5. No forfeiting of any rounds, unless approved by both parties (Pro and Con)6. No new arguments in the final round.7. Maintain a civil and calm discourse.8. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks)9. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate.11. Failure to meet any of these specified rules will be taken into account during the voting period. Definitions:Free: without cost or payment. Collegiate: of or relating to a collegeEducation: adegree,level,orkindofschooling. Constituents: servingtocomposeormakeupathing;component. In this case, it represents the people of America. In conclusion. .. . thank you for accepting this debate, and let's make this a memorable experience for both of us to learn from. May the best debater win!

Title: college should be entierly government funded Content: the government makes alot of money. just look at all the millions of people that take public transportation and that pay for tolls, thats millions of dollars everyday. plus theres alot of money that they spend that are on things less important than education. they need to get their priorities straight and spend money on things that are going to make the economy improve. by paying for college and us getting better jobs, the economy will improve.

Title: The purpose of education is development of the person. Content: Dorinda, when you say most college students want to better themselves by getting education are you not saying the same thing I am saying or affirming to what I said? If you get education to better yourself as you saying then is it not the same as development for yourself. I understand when you say some teachers teach as if they are robots and they do not ask questions and do not involve their students in their teaching; but that does not mean they cannot influence their student in a positive way. And more over my argument is based and focused specifically on personal development not to say the influence part is been ignored. Dorinda, if you will have the time to sit and look around, most of the people holding top positions in this nation have been educated one way or the other. I don"t think Hirsch will bother to point out his view about education if it wasn"t that important. He said and I Quote "Illiteracy and semiliterate Americans are condemned not only to poverty, but also powerless of incomprehension. Knowing they do not understand the issues.

Title: More People Should be Helped by the Government into College Content: Since the more education a person has in this competative job market the more money a person makes. Now, if everybody was able to go to college then more people would be making more money thus boosting the economy. This would also lead to a rise in scientists and thus more discoveries in all fields. Since this has no downside that is visible to me I eagerly await my opponents rebutle.

Title: why colleges Content: extending

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: 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.

Title: Anything more than basic math is unnecessary for many college majors Content: Following the same logic you present every time, every college major is worthless. English isn't much use in getting a maths degree. Art isn't going to help you get a degree in Science. Maths is no more guilty of not helping in other classes than any other subject (with the possible exception of English, which is fundamental in many classes.) So by your logic, college should consist of English lessons, and absolutely nothing else. If most maths degrees were all about basic maths, we wouldn't know half the mathematical theorems we know today. If a PhD is just a matter of understanding the basics well, it would be ludicrously simple to have a doctorate, which makes the people who actually earned their degree will suddenly have a degree that's common as dirt. They will have written up thousands of words in an original thesis- it's like taking someone's life work and making it suddenly worthless. It's just wrong to think that stopping a few people having to do a little maths here and there is worth losing the value of millions of people's life works. In response to your point upon how understanding of stats in depth is not vital- you'd be surprised. The deeper the understanding, the better the whole report becomes- and it shows. As such, employers try to get people who not only can manipulate the English language well, but can also understand properly how stats work- both at the basic levels and at the advanced levels. As well as this in response to what you say on the negating sides opinions on the fields- I don't believe that has any relevance whatsoever, as I see little to no opinions in any of my arguments. I note what you say about office jobs- thank you for informing me that I was repeating the same argument. I will mention some of the countless jobs outside office jobs where you need more than the basics. 1. Statistician- be this for sport, for tallying votes, statisticians need to properly understand statistics. A basic understanding can be enough, at times- but knowing more about it helps. 2. Scientist- and here is in fact an example of where maths does help in other areas. Science and maths are intricately linked. Science is at it's core, pure mathematics. To be a decent scientist, you need to know maths well. 3. Youtuber- now this may come as quite a surprise to some. But Youtubers have viewer statistics. They have to understand it, so they can manipulate it to maximize views. Can you manage without this? Probably. Does it help? Certainly. There are countless other examples. The fact of the matter is that the surprising use of Youtube says a lot- that practically any job requires a lot more mathematic knowledge than actual classes for it show. Musicians need maths to understand the patterns that work- Artists need maths to understand the angles that look best. Kinesiologists have to understand how movement works, which is science. And science, I repeat, is intricately related to maths. So maths may in fact help you a lot more than you think. Are one or two of the subjects borderline useful? Probably. But to say that just basic maths is all that should be important is sickening, even if it only applies to a handful of degrees.

Title: college should be entierly government funded Content: Yes, the government may have to give us something in return if education really is that special to them, but the amount of money the government has is not enough to pay for colleges. Not everyone pays taxes and so the government doesn't have that much money. Tuition goes into paying for the professors, lunch, and other facilities. We have to rely on ourselves too, not just the government. We can't be sure that the government has enough to pay for all the expenses of college.