federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more
Debate Rounds (3)
some ways to restrict it include: making students pay back the money instead of so many grants, giving loans only for things like science and math, giving loans only to those in the top fifty percent or twenty percent of their class given half of students in college shouldn't even be there.
The Pell Grant program helps assist people to advance themselves while helping them not to go into too much debt. Life costs enough let alone college classes on top of that. Some people do not do so well in high school, but later settle down and become very serious students in college. We cannot punish them by not offering them assistance in the form of grant money just because they made a mistake in high school. Scholarships are earned, grants are for low income people.
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?
To answer the question over why college should be subsidized, it follows as such: as education becomes more necessary, the government subsidizes it to make it easier to attend. This precedence was set in the 1840s when the government started organizing and paying for school for students who attended, because an elementary education was necessary then (and those without the means to attend would only be able to if school was subsidized). As secondary education such as high school became necessary, the government funded this too. The argument for it is that schooling would improve citizenship and produce the leadership needed for modernization (Jurgen Herbst).
As a post-secondary education becomes more necessary as the nation develops further (I"ll get into that later), the government has (and will continue to) follow the precedent set. Students without the means to attend college through no fault of their own are able to attend by federal and state grant money. This allows them to both become better leaders and better citizens, as well as being able to get a decent paying job.
Now to get to the issue over whether college is necessary, since you obviously want to debate that, I"ll point to the brilliant Robert B. Reich. According to his article, "Why College Is Necessary But Gets You Nowhere", he notes that ""people with college degrees continue to earn far more than people without them." College not only allows people a higher paying job, but it gives higher job security and increases the chances that a person will have the tools necessary in today"s world to succeed. I need only point to the Bureau of Labor Statistics graph on http://ygraph.com... to prove this is true. While it is true that it is not as easy as it once was to get a job with a college degree, it"s still much easier to get employment with a degree than without.
Classes in college are both more condensed and more efficient than a high school education. My son is an engineer at a university, all of his classes are relevant to engineering, and he cannot get an engineering education at a trade school. Trade school and college both have their merits, but they are vastly different from each other. Some people cut out for college are not for trade school, and vice versa.
The reason college is able to combat poverty is only because of government subsidy. There is a cap on the amount of loans someone is able to take without a cosigner, and if one"s parents are in poverty, there may not be a cosigner to be found. Loans are both problematic and inefficient for this purpose, as some institutions are greedy, sell a student"s debt to a collector, or change the interest rates without warning.
I noticed that you"re arguing two arguments that are mutually exclusive. In the first round, you mentioned that you actually want to restrict the amount of LOANS given. This is counter to your argument in round two, where you state that college doesn"t combat poverty. By restricting loans to people only in the top bracket in their high school, you exclude people who cannot excel in high school due to issues at home. Furthermore, some people mature after high school and benefit from education then when they didn"t do so well in high school.
In closing for this round, I"d like to assert that college combats poverty and increases chances to be employed over just a high school education. I point to all my sources to make this assertion. Some people may go into debt after college, but subsidies such as grants help to alleviate this problem and reduce the scale of student debt. Welfare isn"t always the most glorious option for people who are working hard to earn their money, but student welfare is very useful in making productive members of society, and this has been proven time and time again.
Jurgen Herbst, The Once and Future School: Three Hundred and Fifty Years of American Secondary Education (1996)
Reich, Robert B. "Why College Is Necessary But Gets You Nowhere." Why College Is Neccessary but Gets You Nowhere. N.p., 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 June 2015.
College Education vs. High School Education Salary Comparison. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008. Web. 30 June 2015.
some people might not do good in high school and are late bloomers, but we can have ACT or SAT to compensate. not everyone is good at tests, but this is just life, as a far out general rule, those tests test what is needed.
the degree is dilluted because so many people attend. if we stopped people from attending, nothing would change much except whether they have a dilluted degree.
again we are curtailing federal spending and doing right by kids if we have trade schools for most people.
if college is as cracked up as you say it is, students again should be able to pay back their loans. this takes the responsiblity off other people to pay for your own needs and is thus fairer. the only ones who would be in poverty with loans are people at the bottom of their class if we did things as you argue for.
alllnc forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
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.