The Instigator
Andreww
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ziang
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Should the government invest in education?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ziang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 91173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Andreww

Pro

A factor of having well educated people is it can potentially produce less crime rates and construct a healthier environment. All business related factors stems from the The Us. environment and its impaction on the people.

What do you think?
Ziang

Con

When the government is in the business of handing out money, interest groups lobby to get it " or advocate to receive more than they are already getting.

So it is with spending on higher education.

As the Michigan Legislature debates the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year, more money for preschool, college and everything in between is being proposed. Over the long-term, the funding for those areas has increased dramatically. Taxpayers should be sceptical of the current reasons for subsidizing universities further.

Requests for more higher education funding is reported willingly in the media: It"s the "most important investment" people can make. It sees "$17 in economic benefits" per dollar invested by the state. It results in "lifetime earning power."

But the central arguments are dubious for three main reasons which will be elaborated later on:

1. There is no link between higher education subsidies and economic growth, and none between college degrees and job creation.

2. When comparing earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, correlation is not causation, and the actual cost of college matters.

3. Ensuring that everyone has college schooling would not enhance the labour market " it would dilute a university degree.

Therefore, the government should not invest in education
Debate Round No. 1
Andreww

Pro

Andreww forfeited this round.
Ziang

Con

First of all, There is no link between higher education subsidies and economic growth, and none between college degrees and job creation.

Since 1980, Michigan has spent a much higher proportion of personal income on state government support for higher education than nearby states like Illinois and Ohio. According to Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, by the year 2000, the Mitten State was spending the sixth most in the country (2.34 percent of its personal income), double what Illinois was spending and much more than Ohio. This did not lead to higher growth as Michigan"s economy performed among the worst in the country during that time period.

And states with a higher proportion of college graduates do not necessarily grow by adding more college degrees. A comparison of the number of state residents with a college degree with per capital income growth from 2000-2008 yields no correlation.

Secondly, when comparing earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, correlation is not causation, and the actual cost of college matters.

Proponents of more funding for higher education almost always cite the same statistic as their main point: Overall, college graduates tend to make more money in their lifetime than those without a degree.

But this assumes that the degree caused the higher earnings, rather than the fact that those who complete college are already more likely to be financially successful whether they attend university or not.

The common figure cited is that a college degree is worth $1 million over the lifetime of a worker. Besides ignoring the point above, this is a poor exercise in statistics. The number is arrived at by taking the difference between the average pay of a college graduate and the average pay of a non-college graduate and multiplying it over a 40-year career.

First, that only tells us what the average is today, not what the actual future earnings are.

Second, this assumes that all college degrees have the same value. For example, it assumes that a Bachelor of Arts in art history is the same as a Bachelor of Science in quantum physics. Most significantly, it ignores many important factors: taxes, the real salary data of today"s graduates, the opportunity cost of going to college (how much someone would earn during those years in school), the fact that a large proportion of students start school and do not finish, and, most importantly, student loan debt.

Furthermore, ensuring that everyone has college schooling would not enhance the labour market " it would dilute a university degree.

The assumption among many is that every career should require a college education. This belief leads to subsidies for subjects with little practicality in the workforce and areas where a student may be better off doing an apprenticeship or working for four years than attending more school. Pushing for everyone to go to college does not automatically make those students university-ready, it lowers the overall standards of higher education. This has lead to a high dropout rate, more repeated classes for those in school and an explosion of marginal subjects in which many degree-holders are forced to work outside that field because of a lack of demand. In short, incentivizing degrees students do not ever use.
Debate Round No. 2
Andreww

Pro

Andreww forfeited this round.
Ziang

Con

Therefore, I have proven to you in this debate, without a shadow of doubt, that the government should not invest in education. This is shown by the following points:
1. There is no link between higher education subsidies and economic growth, and none between college degrees and job creation.
2. When comparing earning power between college graduates and non-graduates, correlation is not causation, and the actual cost of college matters.
3. Ensuring that everyone has college schooling would not enhance the labour market " it would dilute a university degree.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sunny12 1 year ago
Sunny12
i think yes they should. I don't know about yall but i go school in an area that is highly known for all the really good schools and that makes it harder for parents to send their child to a certain school. In my county we have specialty centers and what those are, are schools that have a certain specialty. I'm not saying only kids with that specialty can go there but it is part of the normal school system but offers a more focused setting for that area. So like the high school I go to ours is the performing and visual arts. So dance, band, orchestra, choir, photography, art (like paintings and drawings) we receive funding from the county and that is starting to get cut back to fund other things. Another high school that has a specialty center is Monacan they have two they are the Governor's Academy For Health and Physical Therapy and they have to Humanities center as well, they to are getting budget cuts in fundings. Every school should get the same funding and if they need more then they should do i don't know a bake sale or something. Something of that sort so then the students feel like they are also trying to help the school and putting there mark down.
Posted by Contra 1 year ago
Contra
If you change the resolution to something like "The government should invest/ spend more on K12 education", I could accept this debate.
Posted by Slifer893 1 year ago
Slifer893
Which government? The federal or state?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
AndrewwZiangTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 2 out of 3 rounds.