The Instigator
Mel23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,333 times Debate No: 20754
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Mel23

Pro

Almost every young adult today is expected to have a college degree. It is a social norm in todays society. Many people have a lot to consider when applying to colleges. Things such as location, size of the school, its reputaion and its majors are things that will decide whether you will attend or not. But the most important thing that people have to consider is the cost. Whether a community college, private college or state college, this educational expense can affect families and students. Even State colleges can cost up to about $30,000 a year. This leaves students coming out of college with extreme debt. This is causing a major issue in today's society. After college, young adults are expected to live on thier own and fend for themselves. After leaving school, students realize that they will not be able to afford the expensies of living on thier own and they soon find themselves moving back at home with their parents. College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent. This is not going to be happening if they are forced to move back home as soon as they are finished getting their degree. With an average cost of $30,000 per year for college tuition, a four year degree will cost the student $120,000. This is a tremdous debt for anyone to burden, much less a young adult who has just graduated college. Adults purchasing a house take on this level of debt and then arrange for it to be paid back over twenty to thirty years. Many of the loans afforded to students are required to be paid back in much less time. How, with little to no experience to speak of, can a new graduate get a job paying enough to both support themselves and pay back this enormous debt. They cannot. So, the student ends up living at home with their parents to speed up the process of paying back their loans. If the former student gets a job paying $40,000 per year, their take home pay will be about sixty percent or about $25,000. Now if you take all of these earnings and put them towards the outstanding college loans, it will take about five years to pay back the loans. However, this is not reality so it will take much longer. Most likely, the pay back of the loans will be more like $10,000 per year. With this pay schedule, the payback is now up to twelve years. I'm also assuming that these loans carry no interest. Not likely! How can you even think of going to a bank to obtain a credit rating or another loan with this much debt on you? Other countries don't put this burden on their young adults. If education is a priority to get our economy running again the way we need it to, then the education of our youth is a top priority. That being said, how can the education of youth be a priority if the cost prohibits so many students from attending and getting a college education. In this economy, a college education is not an option, it is a requirement. By making state colleges free for students living in that state, we will make college education available to anyone who wants this education.
imabench

Con

My main points of why I am against State colleges being free for students within that state
1) College is not meant to teach students to be independent
2) Most colleges recruit in their own state
3) Students dont always pull through in college
4) "If education is a priority to get our economy running again the way we need it to, then the education of our youth is a top priority"- If true, making state colleges give out free tuition might not be the best approach
5) Outsourcing
6) Where would schools get funding?

- 1 - The Pro claims that college is meant to teach students to be independent. This may or may not be slightly true, but college is designed to help students and adults alike specialize in a particular career field to become more competitive on the job market. The resources needed to specialize an individual in a specific field of work is rather large. You need teachers who are experts in the field, modern technology to teach the material effectively, materials to experiment in the subject you are studying, books, food, dorms, etc. All of this costs money, and it costs a sh*tload of money too. If state colleges were forced to give out free tuition to students, then the quality of education those students would recieve would decline due to a vast drop in funds available to provide the best education.

- 2 - The argument here is that colleges should give free tuition to students in the same state as the college, however most colleges recruit or accept students from the state they are situated in, meaning that if colleges were to give free tuition to in state students, most colleges would lose close to 50% of its funding, other smaller colleges though would lose all of their money sicne small colleges rely almost exclusively on in state recruiting. San Jose State University for example is made up of 93% in state students, meaning that if in state students were granted free tuition, than colleges like SJSU would lose over 90% of its funding. The same would happen to other colleges including as well, meaning that only the largest and most massive colleges could potentially survive the financial burden placed on them by free instate tuition, but smaller colleges would not fare so well.

- 3 - College is not a right, it is a priviledge.
College is a privilege, not a right that each and every person deserves. College is a tool to anyone who wants to work hard at what they do and work well at it to succeed. It is not something that should be given out to those who dont want it or are not motivated to go for college, college is a goal in life, it is not a guarantee. Every year, both schools and the government alike spend a combined billions of dollars in aid to students who end up failing or dropping out. College is not just a tool to use for accomplishing something, COLLEGE IS WORK. College is work, work, work, and more work than some people can ever be prepared to handle, and many of them cant.

If college tuition were free, then the government would have to pay for tuition of students, many of whom would end up dropping out or flunking out which would cost the government billions, every year.
http://insight.mprnews.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

- 4 - Education as an economical priority.
The Pro claims that education and its success reflects the economic progress this nation could achieve. That is true. The Pro believes that the best way to boost education performance is to eliminate tuition from students within that state going to that college. That is a catastrophic way of solving the problem.

Its no secret that the US is lagging behind other countries education wise (but we are in the top 10% in brains compared to all other countries at all times) however the US education problems does not lie within the colleges, it lies partially in high schools and middle schools, something the government also funds and does a rather poor job of doing so. Another problem with education here in America is the immigration integration problems that cause schools to lag behind to help them integrate. A third issue is that there may be environmental or social behaviors at play causing students to lose work ethic or become less interested in academics.

My point is there are many ways we can improve the education of American students, but making college free for a large chunk of the population doesnt solve the answer, may only have limited success, and would place a massive financial burden on the taxpayers whose funds might be given to a college kid who ends up dropping out or flunking out. There are other ways to solve the educational system here in the US, free tuition is certainly not a realistic answer.
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

- 5 - Inequality among students.
Take an Asian student who lives in Alaska who has a 3.3 GPA, he wants to attend Stanford University in California and has the financial means to do so.
Now take a white student in California who has a 3.3 GPA, he wants to attend Stanford also and has the financial means of doing so, but because of free tuition, he doesnt have to pay a dime to get in.

Stanford only accepts 7%, meaning they have a huge amount of power in deciding who they get to accept into their school...... So if you were running Stanford who would you choose, the student who will pay you the $50,000+ in tuition, or the student who wouldnt pay at all?

What Im getting at is that free tuition to in state students may backfire on them as colleges with very low acceptance rates could discriminate against those who would not pay in favor of those who would pay. This scenario would make it considerably harder for students in one state to go to a college in the same state since colleges can simply recruit harder for students outside state lines, leaving those within the state out of luck. Money drives everything in colleges and unless the government just subsidized all tuition payments in the US (which would be suicide for the budget), then colleges could make location outside the state a huge priority in evaluating who is accepted and who does not.

7 - Where would schools get funding?
If all tuition payments to in state students were eliminated, the financial meltdown would affect the quality of education one would otherwise receive at even the most prestigious of universities. Therefore if in state tuition was eliminated, but colleges were still required to provide the same standard of education to those students, then the money that would have been supplied by tuition would now have to be replaced by money from somewhere else, and there is only one other candidate for funding all of this, taxpayers.

If education tuition's were removed but colleges needed to still give the same quality of education, then it would be taxpayers shelling out billions and billions of dollars to finance students to major in stuff such as liberal arts, music, art, theater, or other things which the taxpayers might not care for. There is also the fact that many of the dead-beat students who do receive all this money end up dropping out or flunking out of college, and now that person's tuition paid for by taxpayers just went down the drain.

State colleges should not give free tuition to in state students. If they did the quality of education would deteriorate unless the government paid for everything, and if that happened then taxpayers would now be paying billions for people to major in arguably useless majors, that is if they even pass the class at all....
Debate Round No. 1
Mel23

Pro

You have some very good arguments, but I still believe that making state college free for those who live in the state could work.

1) I have to disagree with your point about college not teaching student independence. College does not only prepare you in your career choice. Many students go into college not even knowing what they want to do with their lives. Most of the college experience is adjusting your lifestyle and becoming an adult. And the adjustment of living away from home usually has a major effect on a student's grades and performance. College is supposed to teach one to be a well-rounded adult in society. In college, you have to make your own choices. Your parents are not around to tell you when to do your homework or when to eat dinner. These are things you learn to do on your own. Therefore, you learn independence throughout the course of your college experience. This does not take away from the fact that college is preparing you for your career. College is more than just classes. It is an all-around experience that everyone should get to have.

2) I understand that colleges recruit students from their state. But if students were granted free tuition to attend college, the money to fund the school would be coming from a state or federal program that would fund these schools. Therefore, they would not be losing their funding but be getting from somewhere else. Also, I stated that only the tuition would be free. There are many other expenses that go into college other than just the tuition. There is the price of books, dorming expenses, and meal plan expenses all that the students have to pay for themselves. With all of these expenses put together, the schools would have enough funding to be run properly.

3) You are right college is work but not everyone has the financial ability to afford to attend college. Everyone does have the right to go to college if they want and get a higher education. Just because someone doesn't have the money to go to college does not mean they are not hard workers. If someone had the chance to go to college for free and get a degree and make a better life for themselves, they would defiantly work hard for it. For some people, yes college is too hard and they end up dropping out. And if this be the case, that person would pay the government the money that the tuition was for the time they spent at college. This would give the person a reason to keep their grades up and work hard. Even today when students are on scholarships, they are expected to keep their grades at certain point to remain getting funding. This would be just the same except the government would be funding it.

4) Education has a very prominent effect on the economic progression. If more people go to college because it is free, we will have more educated people making decisions for the country, inventing new things, and getting us further ahead of other countries like China. We want to have as many highly educated people in the United States as possible. Getting an education should not be so out of reach for so many people.

5) Just because the college tuition is free, it does not mean that everyone can go. There will still be a lot of competition. In the example you gave, both students had the same gpa. No two students are ever completely equal. Colleges must look at not only the gpa, but the SAT scores, class rank, sports and clubs they participated in, and any volunteer work they did. There is always something that makes one student a better candidate than another. And once again, even if the student that was chosen was from in state, the school would not be losing funding because the money would be coming from a state or federal program.

6) Yes the taxes would be increased. What one pays for an education does not have a bearing on the quality of it. One gets out of an education as much as they put into it. You might to go the most prestigious school in the country, and not work hard enough to keep up with the work. These schools would still have highly qualified professors that will give their students the greatest education possible. Once again you make the point that if a student drops out of school, the tax payers would have wasted their money. If this be the case the student would then pay the government back for the money that they used while trying to get a degree.

College may not be for everyone and it is very hard work, but one should not be discouraged from going to college just because they do not have the financial means to do so.
imabench

Con

1) Teaching Independence
Im not denying that colleges dont teach independence, I was challenging your statement that "College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent" by arguing the main purpose of college is to teach people careers, not to be a 4 hour sleep-away camp....

"It is an all-around experience that everyone should get to have."
College isn't a ride at Disney, its a privilege! College is a decision that an individual makes to undergo 4 more years of school to specialize in a career of your choice. College is an investment and a commitment, its not a right that everyone deserves and should be given a free shot at.

2) In State Recruiting
" I stated that only the tuition would be free"
Um, Bullsh*t, This whole debate has been about free education, free college, no expenses, free free free....

"With all of these expenses put together, the schools would have enough funding to be run properly."
A) Tuition still makes up the bulk of most college expenses so if you make that free then you still are putting a massive financial burden on schools, oh wait, on taxpayers...
B) Cutting Tuition and nothing else would still prevent people from being able to apply to college since it wouldnt be "free" anymore
C) So the one thing you want to cut from colleges to help people afford an education........... Is the cost to finance the education........... Do you see how that might be a little counter productive?

That being said, the massive number of primarily in-state recruiting among schools would place a massive burden on college's quality of bettering individuals. So under free college, or free tuition (whichever the Pro is going for now) both the taxpayers and the students would be taking a hit.

3) Students dont always make it.
The Pro admits that many people would not be able to make it through college through separation anxiety, poor work ethic, bad grades, etc. but the Pro tries to show this isnt a problem is by saying that

"For some people, yes college is too hard and they end up dropping out. And if this be the case, that person would pay the government the money that the tuition was for the time they spent at college"

So college tuition would be completely free, but if they fail they have to PAY FOR IT? That would send families of unfortunate souls straight into debt they would never be able to get out of! Imagine if honest kids just couldnt make ends meet and now he had to live the rest of his life knowing he single handedly put his entire family into debt because of his mistakes.....

"This would give the person a reason to keep their grades up and work hard" Its also a good reason to kill themselves or their whole families if they fail. Threatening to throw people under a guillotine doesnt guarantee performance, it sparks fear in them that they would have their whole lives in college. imagine if you knew that one bad grade could determine if your family gets to stay in the middle class or becomes part of a statistic for poverty level that you yourself caused....

4) Education and the Economy
The Pro keeps saying how if college is free it will give us an edge over China, and rather than tear into that argument Ill re-state my point that there are other ways we can improve education that does not involve forcing tax payers to spend an enormous amount of money on taxes on something that is a privilege, not a right.

- 1 - Increasing funding into high schools, which are already paid for by taxpayers, would be a good start because the reason education is lagging isnt just from students not having a chance, Americans are flat out dumber than most other students, and so the problem of increasing brains may lie in high school, not college.
- 2 - One of the biggest problems American education has is that it has to integrate more than other European or Asian school programs do. America has a hell of an immigration issue where people from all over the WORLD with different backgrounds and different native tongues have to be integrated into the school system.
- 3 - We should be looking how to make education more effective and get a better result for the same cost instead of just through money at the problem like a buffoon...

It could even cause problems in the system
- 4 - Colleges might not strive to get better if now they only have to raise acceptance rates to get oodles of government/taxpayer funds
- 5 - Tuition rates are always rising, and if the government is funding ALL of it, then tuition rates might keep increasing and it would affect taxpayers and the government debt alike, its not guaranteed that tuition rates would stay at a fixed rate, and if the government tried to make it that way there would be war between colleges and the government over funding, something that we simply could not afford, literally.
- 6 - Lets face it, taxpayers would be PISSED

There are healthier alternatives to raising education without recklessly pumping billions of dollars into the already flawed system, education should be made more effective not just bigger.

5) Unequal opportunity
The point of the example was that schools may give out-of-state applications a bigger value than in-state applications if funding was suddenly cut off. The out of state applicant would pay money directly to the school, whereas the in school applicant would have money go through the government first, and that could raise a boatload of issues if the government decided to use those funds for other programs....

With out of state applicants, money is guaranteed, for in state applications, that is not the case, and that could give colleges a hell of a reason to focus on out of state recruiting and forgo in state recruiting..

6) Taxes
Hell yea taxes would be increased, it could be argued that taxes would have to be raised to over 60% and american families already fight tooth and nail to keep taxes low there is no telling what people would do if their tax rate doubled or tripled to fund education for someone who might not even make it. Even if the college was prestigious or not the cost of adding up all the current tuitions from every university and every college and every community college and every prep school and everything else in between divided by the number of people who actually pay taxes would drive the middle class into the ground.

State colleges (or state tuition, i dont even know what it is anymore) should not be made free. It will raise taxes to extortionate levels, its a really poorly conceived way to gain an edge over other countries, there are far better ways we could be improving education, PEOPLE OFTEN DONT MAKE IT, Colleges may be forced to give lower qualities of education to cope with the loss of funding, the government may end up using the funds designated for colleges on other programs, students may major in stuff that isnt even useful,

And most importantly......

College isnt a right, it is a privilege, and American families shouldnt be forced to pay 60% to give high school graduates a chance at college if its not even guaranteed that those same people will make it or if the government or even if colleges, people, and the government alike are fighting constantly over who gets how much funding and who has to pay for it...
Debate Round No. 2
Mel23

Pro

Okay, let's take this by the numbers.

1) You are correct, college is a privilege. A privilege that only the upper middle class and the wealthy can afford. Four years of college can easily top $140,000 (that's $35,000 / year for four years). An average family has two children. So if both will attend similar colleges, that cost will double to $280,000. Where does the average upper middle class family making $75,000 (that's gross salary not take home pay which is 30% less) get this kind of money? You can buy another house for this amount.
So, unless you have outstanding grades, meet the government's definition to be eligible for grants or are wealthy, college is not easily obtainable for most Americans. The average graduating high school student who wants to attend a college to further their education may not have the financial means to do so. Oh, financial aid you say? Have you seen what is offered these days? These are no more than loans at higher rates than you pay for purchasing a car. Sure, let's take out $280,000 worth of loans at 6% - 9% interest. If each student in my example graduated and was fortunate enough to get a job making $45,000 per year, it would take each graduate just under five years to pay back the loan. And this is not realistic because I did not take the interest rate into account nor did I allow them to spend any of their earnings at all. They both remained in their parent's home for five years taking all of their earnings and paying off the monster loans incurred from their college education.
There are countless potential college students who don't get the opportunity to go and get this higher education because of the outrageous costs. The government provides oil companies with billions of dollars to explore for oil, why can't we shift that money towards college tuition?

2) Financial burdens to taxpayers. Yes, we are taxed too much. There are very few people who would disagree. But much of our tax burden goes to fund unemployment, welfare and other programs to assist the unemployed. One reason for unemployment is because most of the businesses are looking for employees with specific skills and talents, most of which can only be obtained through an college education. So in my opinion, it is in the taxpayers best interest to get as many young adults, and older ones for that matter, into college to gain this knowledge.
3) Students don't always graduate is no reason not to try and change how a college education is funded. There are not guarantees in life especially in business. When you get a job, you are not guaranteed to keep it or be as successful as you would like. College is the same. When you start, you don't always stay with your first chosen line of study. Likewise, you may not have what it takes to get through a college curriculum. So allow students to try and fail. Colleges also offer vocational courses for plumbing, welding, electrical, etc. This is a perfect alternative for those people who are better working with their hands than sitting behind a computer screen. Government funding of colleges allows students to gain knowledge and skills they would not have been able to afford otherwise. So maybe paying back the cost is not a good idea, but not being able to afford to get an education at all or putting your financial future in question because of excessive tuition costs are equally as bad. The specifics need to be worked out.
Although I don't have the specifics on how to get this funding from the Federal and/or State governments, it still makes the most sense to me to have the American society assist in making higher education affordable and available to everyone. Education should not be for the "privileged" few who can afford it, but to the masses who need it.
imabench

Con

1) "There are countless potential college students who don't get the opportunity to go and get this higher education because of the outrageous costs"
Um, not all colleges cost $140,000 for four years, in fact according to the US department of education the average cost for colleges are slightly less than $90,000 which is about $22500 a year or $11250 a semester...

Now does not being able to easily pay off loans mean that students dont get to go to college at all? Nope... Close to 70% of high school graduates are currently enrolled in college, so the picture the Pro is painting saying that there are "countless" people being denied college is a sorely overdramatic description of reality. 70% of high school graduates get into a college or a university even though many of them cant afford it.

Just because college is expensive, it doesnt flat out deny people from going to college, it only scares away a couple of very low income families. High school graduates can easily get into a college these days, and the numbers reflect that. Want to know something interesting? recent trends actually show that more and more american high school graduates are making their way into college
http://www.bls.gov...
http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...-
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

So at this point let me emphasize 2 points
1) 70% of all high school graduates have already gotten into college implying that financial costs is not a big setback to attendance rates
2) The percentage of high schoolers getting into college despite growing tuition costs has steadily GROWN for years now

"The government provides oil companies with billions of dollars to explore for oil, why can't we shift that money towards college tuition?"
???? Where the hell did oil companies come from?

2) "But much of our tax burden goes to fund unemployment, welfare and other programs to assist the unemployed"
does 17% count as "much"? You can see by the graph below that only about 16% of all US taxes go to funding unemployment benefits and welfare



This means that a fraction of our taxes go towards unemployment benefits.....

"One reason for unemployment is because most of the businesses are looking for employees with specific skills and talents, most of which can only be obtained through an college education."
Maybe you havent noticed, but another reason that unemployment happens is because at one point the economy was really sh*tty and jobs started disappearing and people who had college educations are getting fired.....

"it is in the taxpayers best interest to get as many young adults, and older ones for that matter, into college to gain this knowledge"
So you think that Americans who 1) Already pay too much taxes should double or triple their tax rates so that 2) the measly 16% of expenses that the government does spend on welfare and unemployment benefits would be expanded 3) To let only another 30% of the population get a CHANCE at a college degree 4) in an environment where jobs were being lost not because of favoritism for college graduates, but because of a bad economy in the hopes that 5) It might fix it when instead we could be 6) making our tax dollars more efficient or try to address more concerning education problems.....

3) Pro agrees that not everything in life is guaranteed and that graduating college is one of those, other than that...
"you may not have what it takes to get through a college curriculum" - Thank you
"So allow students to try and fail" - Thats what I want to do, the Pro wants to take taxpayer funds to make people go to college and try or fail for free, and if they fail than they have to repay EVERYTHING
"Colleges also offer vocational courses for plumbing, welding, electrical, etc. " - And taxpayers would be pretty pissed paying a 60% tax rate so that a few people could go to plumbing school
"So maybe paying back the cost is not a good idea" - But you want people who end up failing college to pay for something they dont even have anymore that they were promised would be free....
"Although I don't have the specifics on how to get this funding from the Federal and/or State governments" - Oh we all know where they will get the funding, from our wallets.....

"it still makes the most sense to me to have the American society assist in making higher education affordable and available to everyone" Higher and affordable education is a good idea, what I am questioning is your idea that taxpayers should endure 60% taxes to try do that when other solutions are available

"Education should not be for the "privileged" few who can afford it, but to the masses who need it."
When did 70% of all high school graduates who are going on and becoming enrolled in college count as "the few?"

Number of dropped arguments,
1) College is not a right
2) Colleges may recruit out of state more than in state for guaranteed funding which could lead to acceptance discrimination among college applicants.
3) That cutting costs may impact the quality of education one would otherwise receive
4) That college kids dont always succeed in getting a degree
5) That threatening kids to pay back an enormous cost of college should they fail could be seen as extreme
6) That there are other alternatives to improving education if the goal is to out-compete other nations
7) That taxpayers already pay too much in taxes and that if college were free, this tax rate would double or triple
8) That colleges would stop focusing on perfecting education and focus more on accepting people to get oodles of government funds
9) That disagreement could arise over how much taxpayers should pay, how much the government should give to schools, and how much the schools really need
10) That colleges, the government, and taxpayers would viciously fight for what they think is right
11) That the government may not provide the funding colleges want
12) That some college majors arent very useful economically
Debate Round No. 3
Mel23

Pro


“70% of high school graduates get into a college or a university even though many of them cant afford it.” So then according to you, 30% of high school students who cannot attend college because of the costs is acceptable? For me, it is not. Also, your 70% of high school graduates getting into college is skewed. As is indicated from the National Center for Educational Statistics in 2011, it is the higher income families that are able to afford to send their children to college. “Most recently, in 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate of high school completers from low-income families was 55 percent, 29 percentage points lower than the rate of high school completers from high-income families (84 percent).” http://nces.ed.gov... So, lower-middle to lower- income families are much less likely to be able to get into college. As this is based on income, it is a logical conclusion that the cost of a college education is a major factor in the decision to attend. The idea is to increase the number of students attending college by spreading out the costs among the many.


I made the point "One reason for unemployment is because most of the businesses are looking for employees with specific skills and talents, most of which can only be obtained through an college education." To which you countered that another reason that unemployment happens is because at one point the economy was really sh*tty and jobs started disappearing and people who had college educations are getting fired” Well those without college degrees are not getting hired as demonstrated by the unemployment rates from January, 2012 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for those without a college education is 9.5% while the unemployment rate for college educated workers is 4.4%. This clearly demonstrates that businesses are looking for potential employees with college degrees. There clearly is a “favoritism” for those with college degrees. In this economy and moving into the future, a college education is not a luxury, but a necessity. As such, it should not be out of reach to 30% of our graduating high school students. http://www.bls.gov...


My comment regarding the billions of dollars given to oil companies stems from the fact that government is not managing our tax money as well as can be done. This is one example of money that can be made available to fund a college tuition program. Yes there would be tax increases of some sort, but far from the 60% rate Con suggested. Again, I don’t have the specifics of a program to fund this. My argument is that the current system denies a college education to potential students because of the cost. A fair process to generate the necessary funding can be developed and implemented providing the lower income students with the opportunity to attend. The current system is not working as it should and needs to be adjusted to open the opportunities of higher education to those who currently cannot afford it.



imabench

Con

1) 70% - 30% argument
The Pro thinks that since 70% of all high school students get into college, then 30% must not get into college ONLY because it is too expensive, and that is not true.............. Students dont get into college for all kinds of reasons
1 - Criminal record prevented him from getting accepted
2 - moved out of the country
3 - no interest in going to college
4 - Immediately went into the public or private sector
5 - Poor planning (applying to only one college and getting rejected while having no back up options)
6 - other circumstances that may prevent a high school graduate from going to college.

So the 30% number the Pro is trying to hide behind is far lower than what it really is.

"your 70% of high school graduates getting into college is skewed. “Most recently, in 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate of high school completers from low-income families was 55 percent, 29 percentage points lower than the rate of high school completers from high-income families (84 percent).”....

How is my data skewed? I showed four different sources showing how well over half of high school students get into college and how that number is rising, you took one article from 2009 to show how even low income families can send their kids to college half the time....

The Pro argued that " Education should not be for the "privileged" few who can afford it" and I showed how over 2/3rds of the US can send their kids to college and that percentage is growing.

2) Economy related to college degree
Yes there is favoritism for college degrees when companies are HIRING people. When people get FIRED though people who have college degrees or not get fired just the same. That being said trying to boost college degree graduates to improve the economy might be a bad idea if during recessions they get fired just as much as non-college graduates do.

3) Oil companies? What?
"My comment regarding the billions of dollars given to oil companies stems from the fact that the government is not managing our tax money as well as can be done"
So even though you admit the government cant spend our tax dollars wisely you still want to create an ungodly tax burden to give the government billions of dollars in the HOPE that they spend it on education.......

"Yes there would be tax increases of some sort, but far from the 60% rate Con suggested."
Do you have any evidence to suggest what the tax rate is?
" I don’t have the specifics of a program to fund this"
So then you dont.... Allow me to explain how much taxes would rise. >:)

The number of people entering and are already in college is 18.2 Million people.... The average cost of college is $25,000 a year (as shown in round 3)

So lets do some math,
$25,000 average tuition for a year (and rising) X 18,200,000 Million people in college a year (and rising) = How much money?
$455,000,000,000!!!!!!!!!! 455 BILLION (and rising)

A little more number crunching and we're almost done
90,000,000 taxed at a rate of 35% yields a total tax income of 1,200,000,000,000 (1% yields 34,000,000,000)
http://gregdekspeaks.wordpress.com...
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...

So to cover the additional 455 billion (and rising), taxes would have to be raised from 35% to how much?
increasing taxes 1% yields an additional 34 Billion, 455 (and rising)/ 34 = 13.4 (and rising)

For Americans to foot the additional burden taxes would have to raised 13.4% from 35%
SO NEW TAX RATE WOULD BE ABOUT 48.5% AS A START

So its not 60 like i feared it would be, but its pretty close at 48% (which is like 50%)

But Wait There's More

College rates are rising, number of students going to college is rising, meaning that 455 Billion number is only going to grow larger, meaning that 48% would be the STARTING POINT for taxes to be raised (its gonna go up year after year).

Another scary thought, if colleges were free, more people would attend bith now and in the future, so that number isnt going to go up slowly, it will haul a** up to 60% sooner or later.

"The current system is not working as it should and needs to be adjusted to open the opportunities of higher education to those who currently cannot afford it."
Which system sounds better, the one where 70% get in and people pay taxes at 35%, or the one where a little more than 70% gets in at a tax rate of 48% which would rise?

"A fair process to generate the necessary funding can be developed and implemented providing the lower income students with the opportunity to attend"
I dont think raising taxes by 15% counts as fair to the 90,000,000 taxpayers to help less than 8 million people TRY to go to college....

(70% got in, which is 18.2 million, the percentage who didnt get in is 18.2 million / 0.7 = 26 million - 18.2 million = 7.8 million.)
(Keep in mind that 7.8 million that didnt get in might not have gotten in for many reasons, high tuition being only one option, so the true number must be less than 7.8 million)

If you skipped my entire argument and you are only reading this part allow me to summarize
1) Funding this program would cause taxes to be at 50% and would rise quickly
2) Even the Pro believes that the government used the income it makes unwisely, so all these taxes might not even go into education
3) the Pro thinks its fair to make 90,000,000 pay a sh*t ton of money to help < 8 million people try to go to college

Ill end here
Debate Round No. 4
Mel23

Pro


1) 70% - 30% argument


“The Pro thinks that since 70% of all high school students get into college, then 30% must not get into college ONLY because it is too expensive” If you read my argument, I stated that the expense is a “major” factor in students not attending college, not the only factor. And the statistics for the lower income households indicates this to be true. If upper income households have an 84% enrollment rate and lower income is 55%, then affordability is a significant factor.


In addition, the 70% of those who enroll in college don’t all graduate. The United States has only a 38% graduation rate. Do you know what the most common reason for not graduating is? Money. “ Nearly two-thirds of those who enroll at a community or for-profit college ultimately do not earn a degree within six years, he said, adding that about one-third of students at public and private four-year universities do not earn a degree. He attributed these graduation rates to a number of factors, emphasizing that finances often determine whether or not somebody graduates.” So you can get into college, but cannot afford to stay in to graduate. A financial problem. http://dukechronicle.com...


2) Economy related to college degree


During a recession companies do fire a lot of people, but not haphazardly. Companies carefully choose who they keep and who they let go. Those who bring less value to the company are first to go because when the economy turns around, they are the easiest to replace. According to an article in The Huffington Post on 2/7/2012, “job seekers without a college degree are having serious difficulty finding work in the current market, and the unemployment rate for high school graduates is more than twice that of college gradshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com... “Yes there is favoritism for college degrees when companies are HIRING people” Take a look around in this slow recovery, more people are being hired that have college degrees than not. So, it is important that you have a college education to either maintain your current job or get hired following a layoff or firing due to the economy.


3) Costs


Granted, $455 billion is a large number. However, I never said I would fund all colleges and students around the country, just state schools. This amounts to about 7.7 million students ~ 1/3 of the 18.2 million total. http://nces.ed.gov... Thus, Con’s $455 billion would be cut to about $152 billion. Nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but not nearly the original figure. Taking this further, the tax increase would also be cut to 1/3 its original estimate or about 4.5%. This would take the 35% tax rate to 40%.


In conclusion, the cost of a college education has grown to the point that even if you are among the lucky 70% that get enrolled, you have a best a 50-50 chance of graduating simply due to financial reasons. This needs to change, and one way to do this is to fund state colleges to make them free.


imabench

Con

1) 70% - 30%
In this argument the Con brought up concerning evidence about how even those who get into college cannot finish because of financial issues. The con also brought up how in lower income families this issue becomes far more common...

This sounds pretty bad, but let me bring to light some of the other facts in the Con's sources.
"There are about 13 other countries with more degrees per capita than in the United States, he said."
http://dukechronicle.com...

So #14 overall out of a total of 196 places the US in the top 8% of the world in terms of college graduates per capita
http://geography.about.com...

This debate is centered around state colleges, which 99% of the time are public and private 4 year universities.
" about one-third of students at public and private four-year universities do not earn a degree"

So now those who do attend state colleges graduate about 66% of the time.

If this debate is limited to State Colleges, than the number the Con gave regarding graduation rates is far lower then the reality. 38% is the graduate rate of all colleges and universities, but the state colleges the Con is only focusing on has a graduation rate of 66%, which is comparable to many other countries also given in the Con's article.
http://dukechronicle.com...

2) Economy and degrees
There is a relation between college degree and employment. However having a college degree is not a fail safe job protection tool that guarantees one will not get fired, nor is it guaranteed that one is guaranteed to get hired because of a college degree.

College degrees are not guarantees to economic success, they are only a boost, and Americans should not have to suffer 5% tax raises to give a few million more people a chance to get a boost.

3) Costs
Taxes would be raised to around 40%, I agree to that. However, since tuition costs keep rising and the number of people going to college is increasing, that number will go up over time, and the Con has not addressed this issue.

So let me summarize this entire debate
- 1 - The Con only wants to make college free for state schools, all other schools dont qualify and wont benefit
- 2 - Only 7.7 Million of 18.2 million college students go to state schools, so only 1/3 of college students would benefit from the Con's plan
- 3 - Under the Con's plan, 90 million taxpayers would have to pay 5% more taxes to help less than 10 million college students, at the beginning
- 4 - Those who do exploit the new system still might not pass which would then cause the tax dollars of 90 million tax payers to go to waste.
- 5 - Those who do graduate might get degrees in plumbing or liberal arts which may not help them get a job economy wise
- 6 - Taxpayers would be furious at this idea
- 7 - College is not a right
- 8 - College is not a fool-proof plan to get a job or not lose a job
- 9 - Colleges may still recruit out of state to get guaranteed funds which would discriminate against in state students
- 10 - Forcing the government to fund state schools may decrease the quality of education you would otherwise get
- 11 - College students are not guaranteed to get a degree
- 12 - The Con's plan requires students who do fail college to pay back ALL the funds they wasted
- 13 - #12 could single handedly put middle class families into poverty all because one member of the family messed up
- 14 - #13 would put severe emotional pressure on students the whole time as they are in college
- 15 - Con already agreed that taxpayers pay too much in taxes
- 16 - The government does not handle its finances well, and the con admits that, therefore making the government fund education is not a guarantee
- 17 - With tuition costs rising, schools and the government and tax payers would have a massive tug of war over how much money taxpayers pay, how much actually goes to the schools, and how the government might take some of that take for other programs.
- 18 - Compared to the rest of the world, State colleges in the US have a great graduation rate
- 19 - State colleges would be the only ones effected by this, and their graduation rate is better than other types of colleges that could actually really benefit from this program.
- 20 - With tuition costs rising, the tax required to fund this plan would increase over time, further incensing tax payers.

These are the reasons why State Colleges should not be for students that live in the same state. It is too expensive, only helps a fraction of the population, it wont work for everyone, its almost unfair to those who do fail, the education system in the US is already pretty good, the quality of education under this plan would deteriorate, and this plan would ignite a massive tug of war between the government, schools, and taxpayers over funding this whole thing.

I thank the Con for a very fun debate and I thank the voters for reading :)
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RONaldoB 9 months ago
RONaldoB
imabench said that a college would rather take the one that is paying instead of one that isn't paying, it sounds like an alright argument, but if the government pays the tuition with taxes, then they technically are both paying, making them equal in chances of getting in.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
It's probably more than 120,000 because of interest with a full loan (most people do not take out full loans anyway). Besides who is paying for the upkeep and the tuition of the student if it is free for the student? I mean teachers are not going to work for free and buildings need to be kept up to date.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Mel23imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall, a good job on both sides. I think CON won, because he proved that making the privilege of college free would be too much of a burden on the government, and be mostly, ineffective.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Mel23imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A good debate with arguments continuing back-and-forth. I think Con had the better arguments on most of the issues. con erred in only considering Federal costs related unemployment and welfare, when most of the costs are with the states. Pro wasn't convincing that free college would substantially improve that. Overall, Con won the cost issue, with the most compelling argument being that "free" education removes any incentive to cut costs. con skated close to losing conduct, but escaped.