The Instigator
sarahshumate
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
kortni
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

State University should provide no cost education for qualifying students?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
sarahshumate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 61914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

sarahshumate

Pro

State Universities should provide no cost undergraduate education for qualifying interested applicants who meet ACT, SAT standards and have at least a 3.25 GPA . It is mandatory, once in college, to have and maintain a 3.2 GPA average and be a US citizen to continue receiving no cost education. (Not free, no cost education). To stop immigrants from coming to America just to get a no cost education we can encourage them to get no cost education, in exchange of them becoming an US citizen and joining our workforce to better the nation of the United States of America. Also most of America"s population are middle class families. Most middle class families barely have enough to support themselves, notwithstanding enough to pay for college. According to http://quickfacts.census.gov... the Median household Income in America from 2008 to 2012 is $53,046. http://www.collegedata.com... states that, "in the most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a "moderate" college budget for an in-state public college for the 2013"2014 academic year averaged $22,826". If the average family survives on $53,046 than it would be hard for them to raise that $22,826 and support their family at the same time.
kortni

Con

State university prices should be lowered, but not completely free due to the detrimental effects it could have on other schools. Not only would it affect other schools, it would cause controversy when it comes to people from different social, racial, and sexual backgrounds. Taxes would be raised and private schools would be forced to raise their price to three times the price. Scholarships are attainable for those who can not afford to pay for college. These scholarships are available for those with GPA"s of as low as 3.0 according to gwu.edu. Only 40% of young adults feel like they are in the middle class. Financial aid is available in most states for universities.
Debate Round No. 1
sarahshumate

Pro

I negate the resolution, http://sites.psu.edu... states that if there was a no cost college, in order to make private schools more appealing, they would be forced to lower their tuition. The cost of private schools can be twice the cost of Public Universities, so if people are going to go to a more expensive college in the first place, then they will not change their opinion just because a public college is offering no cost education. They are going to choose a more prestigious school for the name. Also to address the scholarships, according to debt.org, about 60% of the nations full time students graduate with student loans, which means over half of college students needed to borrow money to pay for college and that they are still paying for college after they graduate. No cost education would fix that problem. The same source states that over the past 2 decades, costs of college and universities has increased at more than twice the rate of inflation. Between 2008-2010 the average tuition at a four year public university rose by 15%. From 2011 to 2012 alone, prices rose 4.8%. Also income has declined every year between 2007-2011 for 80% of US families, which could make it harder for some families to help their children pay for their college education.
kortni

Con

If private schools were forced to lower their tuition, their income would be decreased drastically. In the process of making the school no-cost to the students, the cost for the school itself would be increased tenfold. Students would not be required to pay back their loans, but in neglecting the chance to do so, they miss out on a great opportunity. In paying back their student loan, students have the opportunity to build their credit score up, or to start one. According to http://osfa.uga.edu..., books alone can cost anywhere from $800 to thousands of dollars. Without students to pay for the cost of these books, the school would go into debt trying to afford books for the students. The quality of education wouldn't be as great as it could be if education were free. http://goo.gl... NYTimes states that students who are in debt, are more likely to choose a higher paying job than those that don"t have any debt at all.
Debate Round No. 2
sarahshumate

Pro

No cost universities would benefit families and students all over the US. Money.cnn.com says that the average family goes in debt about $35,200 for college. No cost education would relieve the weight of massive debt that a lot of families and students have. In order for colleges to not go into debt with books, they can be reused. According to awesome.good.its public state universities rely on the state for 24.99% and 13.26% on federal, which is a majority of what they get in revenue. That is a total of 38.25%. Money.cnn.com says that the average family goes in debt about $35,200 to pay for tutiution. If everyone had an equal opportunity to get a college education, the workforce would be much more productive and efficient. Also, we could have more job specialization, creating higher paying jobs and a more diverse human resources.
kortni

Con

kortni forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Patricii 3 years ago
Patricii
I think that the cost should be either lowered or stayed the same...
Posted by rd159967 3 years ago
rd159967
I agree that the price should be lowered.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
sarahshumatekortniTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeit definitely doesn't help, which is the reason for the conduct. As far arguments, much of Con's best comes up in R2. I buy that there's an effect on school funding, that it's an opportunity for students to build a credit score, and that quality may decrease. The remainder of the points are either responded to pretty well, or aren't that well-articulated. The reason why Pro's still winning is because his major impacts - access and less debt - are better articulated and weighed within the debate. Con's points might have been stronger if they'd received any comparable weight, but lacking that, they're just assertions of harm without any impact factor worth mentioning.