School tuition fees should not be a burden to families but should be a joint investment by both government and by multinational companies or corporations?

Asked by: Angel220
School tuition fees should not be a burden to families but should be a joint investment by both government and by multinational companies or corporations?
  • Who truly benefit from the new batch of graduates every year? Is it the family? Or, The Government and the private corporations?

    Food, Shelter, Medical care are too much of a burden for middle class families, Why not let the government and the multinational companies shoulder the expenses for education since it is both the government and the companies who truly benefit when students graduate and end up becoming the asset of the government and the multinational companies.

  • It's not free.

    Sure, At the time it's free for the Student but the schools still get paid by others. If the government funds it then the tax payers are paying for that kid to earn more money. If corporations are funding it then this is money that could be spent on higher wages for their workers. Tax payers already fund public schools and to expect them to fund private schools or colleges as well is asking too much. Another factor you must consider is that if the government is flipping the bill, That gives them every right to control that school/college enforcing any rule they see fit.

    Giving our kids an advantage is why many parents strive for success. Parent often save up tons of money over the years in hopes their kid(s) will be accepted by a good college. Other parents who can't afford to save a ton urge their kids to study hard in hopes their kid will get a scholarship or grant.
    In the end, The child benefits from the degree they earn as it can be turned into higher wages. This would allow kids to pay back any student loans they took out while in college and afford them a better life after. Because parent want their child to succeed, It also benefits the parents. The need to earn more after leaving college is also incentive to try harder in college. If someone else is paying for it they may just go for the party scene or drop out when they are not making it.
    Thing is, How would it benefit the taxpayers if they are the ones flipping the bill? We would be spending our money so someone else's kid can succeed.

  • I will reluctantly say no, With one very important caveat, There are better ways to spend resources which will produce more advantageous results.

    Fundamentally I wholeheartedly support education funding via taxation and hence government funding, Philanthropic donations or industry support.

    I believe investment in education is a national good and every country should, I believe, Receive massive governmental support.

    With that said, University education costs at very least five digit's sums in Euro's/Dollars/Pound's; when something is so costly you need to think carefully about where you allocate funding.

    Is there any major demand for sociology graduates? Why should a tech or engineering firm fund that? What if by cutting half the funding of liberal arts courses would reduce public classroom sizes to 20?

    If you are funding math, Science, Engineering, Technology, Healthcare. . . The most durable and socially beneficial course, Certainly yes is the answer.

    I say this as a law grad.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.