All students should be forced to take a financial literacy cource in high school
Debate Rounds (3)
I feel that all students in high school shoud be required to take a financial literacy course, so they will have a clue what they are talking about when it comes time to join a bank, or take out a loan etc.
I would also like to add that even though I think this is actually a fantastic idea, my general argument will rest on the problems that would surely arise when attempting to implement it.
The problem with this is that I feel, and I'm sure lots more people would agree with me, that the current curriculum is already bursting at the seams. Is there really enough room to add extra elements to it, without neglecting other areas?
If not adding to the curriculum, the only other option is to delete some already existing area of it and supplement it with this one. If that's your idea, which is fair, what subject should be deleted? Also, can you please just imagine how much red tape and bureaucracy would be caused by such proposition? I can only imagine that you have initiated this debate in response to current global financial crisis (?), which in all likelihood will prove to be temporary. So I have to ask, isn't possible that by the time your Financial Literacy Course made it into the curriculum, the situation may have been resolved?
Another problem arises in the potential commercial interest this sort of teaching would create. Would schools use certain financial institutions as examples? Would those institutions then, in a sense, sponsor the schools? I really think that considering how much public backlash is targeted towards banks these days, this would provoke a huge public outcry against the school system, which is something no one wants to see. I would appreciate it if you would respond to this.
I would also like to ask the following -
Would students be required to take a test after the course?
What exactly would the course teach?
Would every school in the country have to hire extra staff to teach it?
By all means, schools could offer some additional support to teenagers who are eager to find out more, but I really think that adjusting the current curriculum is the wrong way to go.
1. Would students take a test after the course?
2. What exactly would the course teach?
3. Would every school in the country have to hire extra staff?
I still, maintain that overall, your idea is great. But perhaps you're aiming too young. Perhaps adding more to an existing financial college course would be the way to go. Or as I suggested, some after school class.
I'm sorry that I can't make a stronger argument, but as I said, it's a really great idea you've had and I doubt that anyone could really find any major flaws in it.
puzzler995 forfeited this round.
Is it really necessary to change the current curriculum, hire new staff and create vast numbers of new study material, all of which will be paid for by taxpayers, when all the information and financial help students may need is so readily available online. Students can easily find it as and when they require it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.