The Instigator
lighth0us3
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation

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 1 vote the winner is...
Capitalistslave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 98590
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

lighth0us3

Pro

BOP lies with pro. First round for acceptance only. No new arguments in last round.

Hey Capitalistslave!
I'm so sorry but I set the debating character limit to 2000, incorrectly believing it would mean the limit was 2000 words without looking properly (I know its pretty dumb). Hence I'm restarting the debate with a 10 000 character limit.
I hope that's ok with you!

Also to clarify:
Higher Education: education beyond secondary level/education provided by a college/university.
Outdated: No longer current. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Millennial generation: A person reaching young adulthood in the early 21st century. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

Further clarification:

When I say, higher education is outdated - I’m not talking about the experience of university, but rather the actual education that we receive from university itself. Hence arguments arguing that the friends that you make/parties you go to/clubs you join/connections you build is worthwhile etc. is irrelevant.

Capitalistslave

Con

Yeah, I prefer the 10,000 character limit anyways. Since you also didn't provide an argument in this round, I'll wait for you to do it next round
Debate Round No. 1
lighth0us3

Pro

I thank Capitalistslave for accepting my challenge. I will now proceed with the debate by stating my arguments. Also happy new year and sorry abt the confusion earlier.

Technology & globalisation has made knowledge taught at higher education increasingly redundant

P1) Technology has created access and opportunity. It allows humans to communicate and collaborate with each other. Teachers are in many ways no longer the primary sources of information. It has become increasingly flexible to reach out to information and consume it, allowing us to be eager participants in lifelong learning. [1] [2] When we have the internet, college degrees are increasingly redundant as the content we learn can easily be learnt online.

P2) University curriculums rarely change. [3] Colleges are too slow to reinvent themselves [6]. An example of this is accounting where graduates struggle in practical situations that are not visited in their classes. Technology has revolutionised accounting so much that much of the content that taught in accounting are also automated and do not need to be learnt. [4] Essentially it becomes clear that most students are attending university for the degree, and not education.

P3) Jobs and knowledge are transforming too rapidly in today’s world to validate the worth of a single/double rigid university major. We are constantly multitasking, we are time poor and we are predicted to have 7 career changes in our lifetime. [5] What is the point of studying for a job with a curriculum that was written decades ago when said job did not exist?

University education is no longer worth it

P1) Unlike previously thought, a four-year college degree has no guarantee for decent wage growth due to wage stagnation [6] Figure 5. Hence the argument that college is an investment as it helps you become a high-income earner is not true. Hourly wages for young college graduates were lower than they were in the 1990s [6] Figure 5. This further reinforces my point that higher education is not a worthy investment.

P2) Higher education is a money consuming machine - in 2014 college tuition has effectively risen to 1125% of 1978 figures. Compared to the 279% increase of the consumer price index, this is massive. In an increasingly tougher labour market, to have a huge sum of tuition fees to repay is an additional burden. [7] The costs that are incurred in higher education are uncorrelated to market trends, making it difficult for students to support themselves after.

University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life.

P1) Evidence suggests that mental health issues are increasing amongst students in higher education. In 2005 alone, 10% of undergraduates seriously considered attempting suicide. In 2007, 13.8% of undergraduates and 15.6% of postgraduates were screen tested positive for depression. Students facing financial struggles because of university and those who spend more hours working face a higher risk of mental health problems. [8] University students are four times more likely to be depressed/anxious than others their age. [9]

‘Most lifetime mental disorders have first onset during or shortly before the typical college age (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005), and these problems may be precipitated or exacerbated by the variety of stressors in college life, including irregular sleep patterns, flux in personal relationships, and academic pressures.’ [8] If long term mental disorders are mostly developed during or just before higher education – we must seriously consider the benefits to cost ratio of putting oneself in a high stress situation, and the costs may be permanent & long lasting.

Students nowadays go to university for the degree (appearance), and not the education (depth).

P1) There is a lack of intellectual curiosity and creativity in universities. An indifferent culture is a dangerous culture that has its youth disengaged and complacent. If this is the culture in uni today, there is not much reason to go.
Now I’m not claiming that it is specifically the fault of universities, but still the rigid structure of university courses perpetuates ancient dogma (that is no longer relevant) about what you can get out of university. (e.g. a job, a successful life etc.)
Under the guidance of ‘helicopter parents’, students were less open to new ideas/actions and instead was stressed, anxious and self-conscious. Today they are pushed for academic achievement, ‘completely uninterested in the items in their resumes’ etc. Many college students think that they must study a specific area and their paths have already been set out for them. (like engineering, law, accounting etc.) [10] A combination of old beliefs about having a straightforward path to success with the inflexibility of university courses results in students being prevented from fully discovering their interests etc. This creates a generation that is disillusioned, trapped and dissatisfied.

Additionally, when acknowledging world famous institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge, a former student is not surprised when increasingly seeing unaccomplished graduates from these places. This is because a ‘sense of entitlement, elitism and false idea that one is somehow better for having attended Oxbridge can prepare a person for a frankly unimpressive life. One characterised by complacency and security rather than by the ability to make genuine contributions to society.’ This is where graduates aim for a privileged life instead of a meaningful one. [11] This is yet another example where passion is no longer present in higher education, and how many turn to it to create illusions of success and accomplishment in correlation with our increasingly superficial world.

Concluding remarks

I’d like to add once again that I’m not against university. But I do believe in terms of the material/content that is taught much reform is needed for university to truly be worthwhile.

Sources:
[1] http://online.purdue.edu...
[2] http://www.sanfordbrown.edu...
[3] https://www.ft.com...
[4]https://books.google.com.au...
[5] http://www.wsj.com...
[6] http://www.epi.org...
[7] https://www.bloomberg.com...
[8]https://www.researchgate.net...
[9] http://www.smh.com.au...
[10]http://www.slate.com...
[11] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Capitalistslave

Con

I would actually agree that higher education is outdated for the millennial generation, but I believe it is still necessary.



The first point I shall make is that, while I agree that there is probably not much to gain from a college education since we have access to all of the information at our fingertips through the internet(though, I would argue that in many ways the internet has made us dumber; however if you're smart, you know how to find high quality articles on matters, such as using google scholar instead of plain google) the formality of going through a college education does have a lot of bonuses to it.

1) What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn.

While what my opponent said that a college degree earns you less than it did in the past, it still is a fact that a college degree earns you more than a high school degree does today.

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:

  • High school drop outs: $18,734
  • High school graduates: $27,915
  • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
  • Advanced degree holders: $74,602" [1]
Now, while a high school graduate will be able to earn more money upfront, whereas a college student will be spending a lot of time on college, probably after a few years of a college graduate being in the workforce will ballance out to the money that the high school grad earned. If you take these numbers(which are not what the person makes first out of college or first out of high school, so these numbers would be lower for that, but I'll use them anyways).

Suppose you have person A who is going to college before doing any kind of work, and Person B who started working full time right out of high school. Person A is not earning anything while Person B is earning money. Person B, in 4 years(the amount of time the average college degree takes to earn) would earn $111,660. At this point, the college grad would then be able to start working in the work force, and they would be getting $51,206 a year. After another 6 years the college grad will have earned 307,236, while the high school graduate, in 10 years(4 years of working while person A was in school, and 6 years while both were working) of working will have earned 279,150. So, in the long-run, a college education will earn you much more. And that's not taking into account that as a college student, you can easily have a part-time job while going to school full-time. I did this myself and still retained excellent grades.

I suppose Person A, however, may have a lot of college debt, which my opponent mentioned that higher education is very expensive. However, this is not true for every college graduate. Some had such good grades that they earned scholarships, others came from a family that was well off enough to afford to put them into college, and others went to a community college(which are much more affordable than 4 year universities) and then transfered to a 4 year university and saved a lot of money going that route. In addition, this is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.

However, now that I looked into the average debt a college student has when coming out of college, it's $30,100[6]. This amount can be paid for by less than two years of work, since the average college student makes $24,000 more per year than a high school student. Sure, for the first year and half, they would in reality be making the same as a high school graduate since they have to pay off their debt, but after that they will catch up to the high school graduate in less than 10 years and surpass them in the amount of money they gained over the years.

Here's another example where a college education would greatly benefit a person. Depending on what field a person goes into, they will earn a lot more than others too. So, people could easily choose the higher-paying careers. For example, I'm currently going to school to become a psychiatrist. This takes an addiitonal 4 years after a bachelor's degree to complete, usually. The average annual salary a psychiatrist has is $193,680.[2] A psychiatrist earns more than double the amount the average wage for advanced degrees, and doctors and other specialists are in the same boat. If more people were to consider going into the medical field, they would earn a lot more and it would definitely be worth it. There are also other fields which pay well as well.

2) College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified.

Now, if you take a high school graduate who learned everything online, there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in. Unless employers started giving some sort of examination on their field of work instead of requiring a bachelor's degree, a high school graduate who learned all of the necessary things for that career via online with no degree is at a disadvantage for getting that job, and probably will earn around the average a high school graduate makes.

So, in order to make what my opponent proposes come true, where people could just self-educate themselves via the internet instead of a formal education, we would have to force employers to stop looking for college degrees from people and have them hand out some sort of examination to test if the person is qualified for the job. There's no guarantee employers would do this either, unless we forced them to.

3) College education helps you go into a career you really want
As mentioned in the previous point, to get a specific career, it's often the case you need a college degree. Even if it's not earning enough to ballance out the fact that maybe you have some debt and that you weren't earning more money while you were going to college, it still means you got to go into a career you enjoy which you may not have been able to if you didn't have a college degree.


RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life.
As for my opponent's argument that university causes depression and anxiety disorders, I would like to point out that the study they linked to says " The estimated prevalence of any depressive or anxiety disorder was 15.6% for undergraduates and 13.0% for graduate students" [3] while my opponent was slightly off for the numbers, that's not what my point is going to be about. Let's compare that to the anxiety and depression rates of the general population. In the general population 18.1% of adults have an anxiety disorder[4] while 6.7% of all adults have depression[5] for a combined total of 24.8% of the general population with either. In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. This is a good thing that the rate of depression and anxiety is lower amongst college students than the general population. It indicates that college is not as big of a stressor on people than events later on in life.


Sources:
[1] http://howtoedu.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
lighth0us3

Pro

RE: What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn.

I don’t doubt these statistics and agree that it is probably true one with a college degree earns more than the amount a high school graduate can earn. It is beneficial for society as a whole to earn a college degree rather than without. However, in the context of this debate it is important not only to ensure that millennials are not being exploited by college degrees, but that they are using them in alignment with their core values/ ambitions, for higher education to be worth it for them. Therefore, the fact that one can earn more than a high school graduate is only a good thing for millennials given that:

P1: Millennials aim to utilise university to generate the most income

The millennial generation can be characterised as being ‘interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns’, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that ‘money is the best measure of success’, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2). Hence, if most the millennial generation are not pursuing high income earnings directly this point is not enough alone to argue the worth of a college degree for millennials.


RE: College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified.

there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in.’

P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education.

P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3)

‘this (college debt) is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.’

I agree with the latter, but disagree in the former as I believe the fact that con agrees this issue can be solved by making college tuition free reinforces my point that college education needs reform (I would say the total eradication of fees is considered serious reform)

P3: There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don’t even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. Abraham Lincoln himself says ‘if you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done…it is a small matter whether you read with any one or not; I did not read with anyone...Always bear in mind your own resolution to succeed is more important than anything’ (4)

P4: A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance).

RE: College education helps you go into a career you really want

I admire those who know what they want in a career and go after it. I agree that a college education may help you reach there – having a college education is perfectly fine here. Especially if you know you want to be a teacher, doctor, engineer etc.

What I have a problem with is many young people do not know what they truly want. We are characterised as the ‘indecisive generation’ because we have so many more options than previous generations available to us. By 2010 nearly 60% of employed millennials had already switched their career at least once. Whilst the possibility exists that some people equated a ‘career change’ with a ‘job change’, it could also mean that millennials are considering alternatives and many options when it comes to finding a career pathway either due to personal preferences or societal pressures (rapidly transforming jobs etc. as elaborated in A1, P3). (3)

Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like.

Hence, reform is necessary to allow students to experiment and experience practical work culture etc. instead of allowing vulnerable youth to pursue something they are not interested in/do not know much about under the pressure from their parents etc.


RE: RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life.

‘In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.’

There is a simple observational error. My opponent has compared a statistic I used (anxiety or depression affection 13% U/G and 15.6% P/G) (6) that was recorded in 2005 with results that were measured in 2015 (6.7% of the general population affected by depression). Additionally, whilst the statistic used in regards to anxiety affecting the general population being 18.1% is verified,

1) This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America)

2) There is a problem with the method of calculation. According to con’s calculations, an accurate representation would be 18.1% of the general population in 2005 have an anxiety disorder + 5.4% of general population in 2005 with a depressive disorder(7)=23.5% affected. Therefore as 23.5% is greater than 13% and 15.6%, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.

The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected. This is higher than the average anxiety or depression disorders existent in the general population, and hence you can argue that anxiety or depression is higher among college students than the general population. This is an example of why this form of comparison is not very good. It is better to quote research involving direct comparison between college students and non-college students.

Final Remarks

I’m sorry I could not add additional arguments to this debate. Although the bit about college education increasing inequality might be considered one, I’ve mostly only included rebuttals this round due to time constraints as I’m currently travelling. Thanks for your response con, I look forward to continuing this debate!

Sources:

1) https://www.brookings.edu...

2) https://www.brookings.edu...

3) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

4) https://priceonomics.com...

5) http://www.nbcnews.com...

6) https://www.researchgate.net......

7) https://www.cdc.gov...

Capitalistslave

Con

Rebuttal 1:
The millennial generation can be characterised as being ‘interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns’, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that ‘money is the best measure of success’, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2) - lighth0us3
This is true, though there are also many opportunities to be able to obtain a degree for a career that helps society out. For example, one can't become a nurse without a nursing degree, and not only is higher education necessary for doctors and specialists, who also help society, but post-higher education is as well.

With a high school diploma, one is very limited in what they can do, so a college degree opens up many ways in which millennials will be able to help the community in some way. Also, if college education is truly outdated for millennials, why are there more millennials than any other generation going to colllege or who have a college education?[7] They must be getting a college degree for some reason, and it would be logical, that since the millennial generation is more interested in doing a job that is helpful to the community, that they go to college for a meaningful degree that will lead them to a career with which they can do much for the community.

Rebuttal 2:
P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college – so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. - lighth0us3
Well, this isn't the only reason to get a college degree. There are plenty of other reasons, which I gave a few others already. If this was the only reason to get a college degree, then yes, college would be outdated.

Agreement 1:
P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3)
This is why I think, perhaps, I misunderstood what con was supposed to be arguing for, because I agree that college education should be reformed to be available to everyone regardless of income. This isn't a concession, because I believed this before I began the debate, so I'm not sure that this should be a reason why voters should vote against me, since I simply may have misunderstood what con was arguing for. Again, I was thinking along the lines of that con was arguing that college education in general(and not how it necessarily is currently) is not outdated for the millennial generation. It wasn't clear upfront (to me at least) that con would be arguing that how college education is currently executed is not outdated for the millennial generation.
I would agree that how college education is currently executed is outdated, and I agreed with that before the debate began, so again, I'm not sure if we should continue this debate or not. Either I misunderstood still, or this point is irrelevant because it can be solved by making higher education tax-payer funded.

Rebuttal 3
There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don’t even have to go to law school – you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years – you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. -lighth0us3
But I don't believe it works that way for every field. To become a doctor, for example, I don't think you can just do something similar: Pass examinations and sit with a practicing doctor for a few years. Maybe one can do this, and I don't know that one can. Even if it does also work that way for doctors, there are so many fields out there and I doubt all of them work that way. Not to mention, if we did make college tax-payer funded, then either route is just as viable as the other as neither cost money for the student.
A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified – experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). -lighth0us3
Yes, but it's often the case that one doesn't obtain the skills needed unless they have a college degree. Not every employer will give you an examination to see if you're qualified and have the skills for the job, so a college degree is necessary to indicate to them you have the skills needed.

Rebuttal 4/Agreement 2
Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. -lighth0us3

The only thing I have to rebut here is the cost wasted you brought up. No matter how you go about getting experience within a field, it will cost money. There's nothing that can be done about that some people will waste money. Whether you waste it on paying for classes that are going to be useless because you changed career paths, or do it by paying for some sort of career workshop or really any alternative to education but later change your career path, you're still spending money and it costs money to teach people in a specific field or give them experience.

I agree that there should be something done to change the pressure to decide a career path immediately, or at least some sort of class or something that will give people experience in a given career field. I also agree with what you said in the following paragraph that reform is needed. Again, this might be due to that I wasn't clear on what con is arguing for. I absolutely agree, and would have from the beginning before accepting this debate, that education should be reformed.

Rebuttal 5
This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) -lighth0us3
Well, yes, the statistic I used was a survey of adults 18+, but if teenagers were included it would likely only lower the percent a little. Either way, the point was that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. Really, the problem with my statistic is that it includes university students(those who are 18 or older). That would lower the percentage since the percent of university students with depression or anxiety is lower than for adults out of college.

The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected.
Those numbers cannot be combined though, as they represent two completely different populations. The 13% statistic is those who are in undergratuate education with depression or anxiety, and 15.6% is those in graduate school with depression or anxiety. It's not 28.6% of college students(of both grads and undergrads) that have depression and anxiety, rather, it's the average of the two numbers(though it's a little more complicated than that because the number of undergraduates outnumber the number of graduate students in education). First, we need to take into account how many graduates there are in post-graduate school, then add it to the number of undergraduates. That's the total number of college students in either undergratuate education or post-graduate education. Now that we have that, you take the number of graduate students who have depression or anxiety(15.6% of the total number of graduate students), add it to the number of undergradute students with depression or anxiety(13% of the total number of undergraduate students), and then divide that by the total number of graduate and undergraduate students. Adding the percentages does not work, and the actual percentage of college students(including both graduate students and undergraduate students) with depression or anxiety is somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%; it would be closer to 13% than 15.6% since undergrads outnumber graduate students(I don't think I need a source for that undergrads outnumber graduate students right? That should be common knowledge that most people stop after 4 years of college education)

Source:
[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
lighth0us3

Pro

I'm typing this on my phone so sorry in advance for any typos/terrible sources.
Thus debate has been quite problematic as...
1) whilst the premise 'higher education is outdated for the millennial generration' is clear enough, I wasn't clear on what my argument would be on - that higher education is outdated and needs serious reform whilst being maintained.
2) con accepted the debate believing that higher education was indeed, outdated for the millennial generation, and accepted anyway believing that he would argue for 'pro education' (if my interpretation is correct)
3) this confusion was found out after my first argument as shown in the comments. Hence I suggested and we agreed to compromise so that my argument would be 'higher education is outdated, and therefore not worth it to everyone'. Sadly I later found myself arguing for a position I did not personally believe in, but I will maintain this position for the sake of this debate.

CON RE: millennials care more about contributing to society, and college education opens up more doors to help society that High school cannot. (E.g. Nursing, doctors)

1- Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime. Medicine has extended everyone's quality of life for 7 years. Yet, 1) the amount of good medicine has done is overestimated 2) increase in age is not mutually exclusive to increase in disabled life - hence a full quality life is not completely true.
3) doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses)
In the end, we can save 6 times the amount of lives a doctor saves by simply donating 10% of our income wisely to a worthy foundation.

2- You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impact (the idea that these are mutually exclusive is false) examples : Stephen Spielberg, Mark zuckerverg, Bill Gates

3-Medicine is not the only way you can solve world problems it is sometimes not even the best way. What about electricity? Or education? Or government?

CON RE: if college is not worth it, why are more millennials going to college than any other generation? They must be going for a meaningful degree that can help society.

Millennials are going to college more than any other generation because they have the most opportunity to go, because they are pushed (45%) by their parents to go, perhaps because they believe it can lead them where they want to be also. However millennials are also expected to only be able to repay their debts in the next 11 years, 37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree. (2)

RE: there exists alternative pathways to college education - Con argues some fields do not have alternatives, and alternatives are not needed if college education becomes tax funded.

1- yes some fields do not have alternatives, but it is increasingly clear today that college is not necessary for everyone and not worth it for everyone. Commerce, arts and in some cases even in science. Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about. Additionally one field of practise is not enough to validate the value of higher education for the entire pool of millennials as a whole. Only 0.27% of the population are doctors, for example. (2)

2-Con suggests that tax payer money be used to fully fund college education. Whilst that is the case for Germany today, and even Australia in the past, I personally don't believe this is possible in America. It is a strong liberal democracy that values it's small government. It also strongly advocates for the freedom of the people from 'corrupt officials' etc. To believe a call for such a huge reform with such major repercussions on the people to become successful would be too idealistic. One would have to convince the president-trump, Congress (which I imaging would be near impossible) and the judiciary to even consider this. Not to mention the inequality that exists in the US today already - to ask for more tax paying money would be difficult.

RE: Skill can be better used as a qualifier for job performance - Con argues you often develop your skills from college and not every employee will give you an examination, and hence college is necessary to indicate your skills.

Yes many develop skills from college but this is only because it forces people to keep working. Your own resolution to succeed is what is important. Hence, you do not need a college degree to develop your skills. No, usually a career in these fields do not require an examination, but rather an example of their work (e.g. A photograph, a piece of writing, a translation, a conversation in French etc.) which I believe speaks louder than certifications of a degree.

RE: statistic argument
Sorry as you didn't exemplify that you averaged the two statistics I only guessed that you compared each statistic with the general statistic of 23.5%.
Yes I admit my calculation was wrong but I didn't really trust that addition of the two percentages anyway and it was used more of an example as to why comparing 2 independent means together is unreliable.

As to why your calculation is unreliable - I don't have my computer here but it seems to be that you don't know the sample size of any of the statistics that you used (undergraduates with anxiety or depression, postgraduates with anxiety or depression, adults with anxiety, adults with depression) and hence am unable to make a reliable statistical comparison between any of the figures. You don't know if these population sample figures are normally distributed either, or independent from each other. Hence you cannot come up with a reasonable T statistic to accept or reject the null hypothesis which is - are the means of postgraduates with anxiety or depression the same with the means of adults with anxiety or depression? (Or likewise with undergraduates) not to mention that adults with anxiety or depression have two different sample sizes being from different sources. I have also taken statistics as a unit this year (3)

Also, Thanks for this debate con! I enjoyed it despite our confusions haha. I have developed a lot more insight about millennials, about the past, and about college and higher education in general.

1) https://80000hours.org...
2)http://www.forbes.com...
3) https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu...
Capitalistslave

Con

Once more, quotes from my opponent will be italicized. I'm going to make this round very short, as I barely have time to answer before I need to go. I tried answering before, but ddo had an issue and crashed on me, making me lose my progress on this round, right when I was almost done with this round and about to post it.

Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime.
That depends on who they just saved the life of. If it was the next Bill Gates, then that doctor had tremendous effect on society.

doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses)
And most of those positions require a college degree, with the exception being managers.

You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impact
Yes, but it is a means to be able to do so, and a route through which the millennial generation can do it.

What about electricity? Or education? Or government?
Nearly everyone in our government has, not only a college degree, but a post-graduate degree. And to be a teacher, you need a college degree.

37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree.
I consider these statistics to be helpful to my case, because that means majority of millennials did find going to college useful, didn't regret it, and accept that they couldn't get where they are now without a college degree. This should be used as a reason to vote for pro.

Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about.
Though each of the examples you brought up, except one(electricity) requires a college degree. A large chunk of jobs that influence society require a college degree.

Re: government-funded higher education, con said I personally don't believe this is possible in America. and continued on with points.
Yes, I don't think we will get this to happen with the current congress or current president, but it could be possible in the future when and if we get a more progressive president and congress. In addition, we already have education up to high school government funded, and I don't see why most people would be opposed to the idea of extending it to college.

Re: Statistics argument:
Actually, I do know the sample size for one of the studies;, the one for anxiety was 9282 adults, which was found by going to my source above, and looking up the source they linked to for the number they used. That is a sample size that is much more than enough needed to be a reliable sample size. The second one, which was the percentage of adults with depression, I am having difficulty finding the sample size they used. I'm not sure if there's reason to question the results though, because 6.7% of the adult population having depression seems believable. If anything, that sounds too low.
Sources:
[8] https://www.nimh.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I should say that I would provide that source in round 4 if pro challenges it.

The reason why when I combined the percentages together for my statistics that I offered earlier that I could do that, is because it's talking about the same population in both of my statistics(the adult population). My opponent's statistics are talking about two different populations(the undergraduate student population and the post-graduate student population) and thus cannot be combined without taking the averages of the two.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I'm not sure whether I would need a source for the reason why two different population percentages can't be combined, but if I do and lighth0us3 challenges it, I can do that. I'm taking statistics currently in college, so this is something I would be knowledgeable about, as it's a basic rule of statistics.
Posted by lighth0us3 1 year ago
lighth0us3
Ignoring the fact that your comment is irrelevant to the debate and that you mocked my intelligence without any form of explanation except for 'not trusting you' If socialism with a little 's' means some benefits and welfare to the underprivileged then HELL YEAH as proven by states such as Germany, Australia, Canada etc.

Just because I'm in favor of some policies that are considered 'socialist' does not mean that I deny capitalist policies - nothing is ever as black and white as you say. :) But even if I were you could have challenged me to a debate instead of interfering here.
Posted by Doom-Guy-666-1993 1 year ago
Doom-Guy-666-1993
Good god you are stupid, capitalism makes us free, communism or as you call it "socialism" doesn't work, trust me.
Posted by lighth0us3 1 year ago
lighth0us3
Ohh after rereading this I think i know what you mean. So basically you agree with me that university is outdated.

You could agree with me that higher education is outdated but it's still necessary even though it is outdated. (that attending an ancient course is more beneficial than the other option - not attending university)
Posted by lighth0us3 1 year ago
lighth0us3
I'm not quite sure what you mean. But basically I'm saying that higher education is not worth it today. I'm saying that higher education is outdated for today's youth and therefore not worth it anymore (whereas in the past it was worthwhile). There's a reason why I wrote 'Higher education is outdated for the millennial generation' instead of saying 'Higher education is useless period'.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I think I may have misunderstood what you meant from the beginning. When you said higher education, I was thinking you meant higher education in general and that we shouldn't have higher education at all.

While you did say that you're not talking about the university experience, I still was thinking in terms of the education experience since the examples you gave that you weren't talking about were "friends that you make/parties you go to/clubs you join/connections you build is worthwhile etc", so I knew I wasn't arguing for that, but I was thinking I could argue that higher education is necessary, and not that the way higher education is done currently is still needed.

If you don't know what I mean with what I said, this should be clearer:
Basically, I would agree that the way higher education is handled currently is outdated, but I was under the impression we were talking about higher education in general(and not specifically the way it is handled currently).

Or are we talking about higher education in general? If so, then I don't necessarily need to argue in favor of how higher education is dealt with currently.

Let me know what you intended, thanks! I'll wait for you to respond before I post an argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AggressiveProgressive 1 year ago
AggressiveProgressive
lighth0us3CapitalistslaveTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Several of pro's points were based on if con was arguing that higher education, as it's dealt with currently, is outdated, which they agreed upon later that con could just argue that university education is necessary. So the argument pro used saying that college is currently too expensive doesn't apply here. Con argued that college brings opportunities to people to go into careers that are higher paying, as well as careers, such as doctoring, nursing, and pointed out that the careers pro pointed out also need a college degree: these careers are ones that millennials want to do in order to have an impact on society, so it resolved pro's issue that millennials want to impact society. Con also refuted pro's argument that college causes depression and anxiety that is significant, since con pointed out that the general population has a higher rate of both, so those in college have a lower rate of anxiety and depression.