Should school be free ?

[junior]

Hello every one .I just thinked about some thing.I think that school should be set free that is , school fisses,books,readers etc should be free inorder to help people.My own agreement about it is it to be free because money can make some one an illetrate ,if some one wants to get a good jod in the future he needs money and money is scare and rare to find.Also if its was set free it will avoid some peoples to do jobs like :House girls,car washers,Baby siters,gateman etc.. .Write below and say if you agree with me or not and cast your vote.

 

[Gold]

Well, there are non-profit schools out there!

 

[King Of 3D]

Well, there are schools that are free but the government pays for it, right?

 

[3dsatackman]

Well in Canada and the USA highschool is kinda free, but there are private schools you have to pay for. Any thing higher is definitely payed for. I do think the price should go down a bit, but they still need some price to keep the facility going.

 

[Kakea]

Thanks for letting me have a chance to rant @junior :
YES IT SHOULD!!!! They CAN'T want people to work,
have better jobs or want america to "go forward if they:
Don't stop bullying, hiring people who HATE kids or pedophiles
and forcing parents to pay for the kid's!!! IF YOU MAKE IT HARDER TO LIVE,
HOW DO EXPECT THE FRICKING COUNTRY TO PROGRESS!!!?
IT NEEDS TO BE FREE, EVERTHING ELSE IS HARD ENOUGGH!!!

Thanks again!

 

[Ashkil]

It's not quite as simple as this. There are a few issues to making a school free.

• First it all comes from government money. Which means more taxes, and more spread out spending on a specific field. This hurts the economy and greatly slows it down on a short term scale, and there is a cap to how much funding leads to big changes in the school system, to the point where there might be a lot of money put into a system but very little output.
• Then there's the problem of teacher wages. Teachers are not paid enough. Especially in government schools and even more so in developing countries like my own. Without a high enough pay, the job numbers decline and less and less people want to teach. This leads to worse and worse teachers which hurts everyone.
• Private schools through their big funding allow amenities that could not be given without that kind of money. Providing more things to a child is always a good thing for that child.

A better system may be to provide easier loans, subsidization and schemes to pay for the economically challenged. Working towards equality rather than blanket benefits.

 

[Mykaelochi]

It's not quite as simple as this. There are a few issues to making a school free.

• First it all comes from government money. Which means more taxes, and more spread out spending on a specific field. This hurts the economy and greatly slows it down on a short term scale, and there is a cap to how much funding leads to big changes in the school system, to the point where there might be a lot of money put into a system but very little output.
• Then there's the problem of teacher wages. Teachers are not paid enough. Especially in government schools and even more so in developing countries like my own. Without a high enough pay, the job numbers decline and less and less people want to teach. This leads to worse and worse teachers which hurts everyone.
• Private schools through their big funding allow amenities that could not be given without that kind of money. Providing more things to a child is always a good thing for that child.

A better system may be to provide easier loans, subsidization and schemes to pay for the economically challenged. Working towards equality rather than blanket benefits.

Actually, over time, we may be able to have tuition-free public colleges and universities. Of course, the key worlds are tuition-free and public. Focusing on that aspect, where you should be placing taxes on is the upper-class or the very wealthy (or extremely rich companies) like the Koch Brothers or Goldman Sachs. Senator Sanders' has a plan called College for All Act. You can search for it on Google and read it there. Another thing is that United States spent, in 2015 alone, about 600 billion dollars on the military which was more than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined. Sanders' College for All Act would provide $47 billion per year to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities. All together, today, tuition costs $70 billion. So I don't understand how we can't take out at least $47 billion out of $600 billion.

 

[Ashkil]

Again this is a massive simplification of a complex issue.

• Key worlds (not sure what sure that is but I'm assuming you mean US/UK types) may have free and public tuition but they're neither of a high quality nor desirable. The top colleges in the US and UK are ridiculously expensive and extremely difficult to get into.
  
• Taxing the rich is a great idea in concept, and is in essence being done but it can't be done to the degree you seem to believe. You cannot punish someone for being rich, and a communist system of taking the wealth from the rich and distributing it has not worked in the past and will not work in the present. It kills the motivation to work hard and is fundamentally flawed in implementation.
  
• Looking at Senator Sanders' plan, it seems like a simple vote bank plan that is neither effective nor actually going to be implemented. It's an easy way to get votes with grandiose plans
• Quality tuition costs much more 70 billion, especially in a country like India with massive populations and very little infrastructure. Even in the US, LeBron just donated like 40 million and gave a good education to like a 1000 kids. That number is minuscule.
  
• Budgets aren't quite as simple as taking money out of one issue and putting it into another. There are specific reasons why money is allocated in a specific manner to specific areas. Perhaps it's not well allocated but there is always a reason behind it. The military for example could be funded for the simple reason of protection, especially with significant external threats to the US. Plus a large amount of it goes to R&D which historically has produced things of a far greater scope than the original intent, like the internet. Money needs to go everywhere - building new roads, wealth to the poor programs, obamacare and other health facilities and so on. Focussing on one issue without looking at the big picture is problematic.

 

[Mykaelochi]

Again this is a massive simplification of a complex issue.

• Key worlds (not sure what sure that is but I'm assuming you mean US/UK types) may have free and public tuition but they're neither of a high quality nor desirable. The top colleges in the US and UK are ridiculously expensive and extremely difficult to get into.
  
• Taxing the rich is a great idea in concept, and is in essence being done but it can't be done to the degree you seem to believe. You cannot punish someone for being rich, and a communist system of taking the wealth from the rich and distributing it has not worked in the past and will not work in the present. It kills the motivation to work hard and is fundamentally flawed in implementation.
  
• Looking at Senator Sanders' plan, it seems like a simple vote bank plan that is neither effective nor actually going to be implemented. It's an easy way to get votes with grandiose plans
• Quality tuition costs much more 70 billion, especially in a country like India with massive populations and very little infrastructure. Even in the US, LeBron just donated like 40 million and gave a good education to like a 1000 kids. That number is minuscule.
  
• Budgets aren't quite as simple as taking money out of one issue and putting it into another. There are specific reasons why money is allocated in a specific manner to specific areas. Perhaps it's not well allocated but there is always a reason behind it. The military for example could be funded for the simple reason of protection, especially with significant external threats to the US. Plus a large amount of it goes to R&D which historically has produced things of a far greater scope than the original intent, like the internet. Money needs to go everywhere - building new roads, wealth to the poor programs, obamacare and other health facilities and so on. Focussing on one issue without looking at the big picture is problematic.

Despite the disagreement over whether public colleges/universties should be tuition-free, I think that there is one aspect of school that must be emphasised. Quality. Teachers not only have to get students to learn and think critically, but also encourage them to be curious about the world around them and ask skeptical questions. It does not make much sense to have a society built on science and technology (Industrial Revolution, computers, nuclear power, etc.) and have a general public that is not adequately informed on these topics. To make a quick point on communism, the specific variant of communism I believe you may be referring to is something called Leninism. There is actually far more to communism than what meets the eye. There is a lot of misinformation regarding socialism, communism, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, etc. This is a very large and complex topic and there is probably a lot I don't know, so I'll refer you to several books: From Lenin to Stalin by Victor Serge (this is a written eyewitness account of the rise of Stalinism); The Marx-Engels Reader (this is a collection Marx and Engels' works); and Lenin's Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic and Socialist Revolutions by Neil Harding. Another point on the rich. Being rich is not necessarily a bad thing. Bill Gates is an example. But when millionaires and billionaires abuse their power for their own personal gains at the expense of the working class, that's when one runs into problems and something needs to be done, which I think most can agree on.

 

[Ashkil]

Going to break down what I'm saying into points again since it's easier to read

• While quality is something we all have to strive for it's very very difficult to attain. Educating people to the level required to teach is difficult and costly, both for the teacher and the university. Motivation to get people into the profession is difficult, especially when most teachers are paid peanuts. Making schools and universities tuition free makes this worse as you suddenly cut off the biggest funding for the institution and thus the teacher. When there is already a dearth of teachers, quality cannot jump in the standards of teaching until that dearth is solved. In most schools in my country alone, there is a shocking lack of teachers, especially in rural areas. In my own college, one of the best in the country, after we fired our economics professor due to low quality, we couldn't find a replacement because there were no teachers and had to rehire him. My college is funded by both the government and tuition, so is subsidised (I can explain my college's system fully if you want). Asking for better teachers and removal of tuition fees is almost contradictory, especially outside the United States. Better teachers is always good, but the focus should be on how to get enough teachers as well as improving their standard, something which requires money.
  
• This isn't entirely related to the discussion, just something I've been coming to terms with myself is exactly what my takeaway of school was. I was (I think at least) an above average student and I did well in tests/exams and paid attention in class. Yet if I was asked to explain Bernoulli's theorem, something I learned not that long ago, I would be completely lost. My school education did nothing for my knowledge of the Industrial Revolution or most other forms of history, except a very very basic knowledge of World History and Indian History, both of which I knew very little about in reality. Undoubtedly going to school is essential and important and does teach a lot, but perhaps striving for an 'adequate or better' level of education is the wrong approach to take. An understanding of fields of science and humanities is essential, as is a teaching of morality and ethics, but to the degree and complexity that it is being taught is perhaps unnecessary, particularly given that it rarely sticks in the student's head. Of course the counter to that is that unless this level of complexity is learned, the student won't know truly whether he likes or dislikes a field, which is a very valid point. I myself can't really say what level of knowledge should be gained from school. I know that the basics I learned, especially at the lower grades are essential and things I know and remember, yet the complexities at the later levels were perhaps unnecessary.
  
• What I feel must be emphasised more in schools is morality and ethics, learning that racism is bad, that all religions must be respected, that xenophobia is wrong, that men and women are equal. Clearly looking at Trump and Brexit this isn't prolific enough in the so called 'Western Liberal Developed Nations' and I think education can really help change this.
  
• To be fair what I spoke of was more socialist than communist, since I assumed the continued existence of the state but is distinctly different from Leninism. Leninism speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat - that is the complete control of the means of production and distribution of wealth in the working class, essentially a form of revolutionary action against the capitalists and bourgeoisie. Socialism is the collective ownership of wealth and resources as well as a democratic control of the means of production - this is done by the State which is meant to comprise of the working class as well as the rich. Communism is more deconstructive, it's meant to remove classes and the state, where individuals share the control over wealth and means of production. Marx and Engels are a little dense to start with, I would recommend reading Andrew Haywood before going into their works to get a proper understanding. Then moving into neo-communism to gain a contemporary understanding of the field.
• Millionaires and billionaires abusing their power to gain more wealth sounds terrifying but is not actually practical or easy, especially in the richer more developed countries. So yes, sweatshops are bad, as is paying less than minimum wages but Marx's old arguments of freeing the working class are far less applicable than they were in his time. Oppression is not what it used to be. How to raise the conditions of the working class is an excellent, and difficult, question. However a simple 'take the money of the rich and give to the poor' Robin Hood-esque action cannot work and punishes those who achieve. Policies must take all this into account, as well as existing laws. You can't charge one person more than another for the same thing - that's a breach of your fundamental right to equality. All people must be treated equal. What actions are at the expense of the working class is a hard thing to figure out. Some may even argue that the influx of migrants into the US is at the expense of the working class since they lose jobs, but this is exactly the xenophobic thoughts that led to Trump getting elected and Brexit occurring.

I hope I've sort of broadened your understanding of these issues. Most of the public do have a rather narrow, and inherently personal, understanding of these issues. It's important to consider the counter points and understandings of an issue. Debate and voicing your opinion though is always important and I'll be happy to continue this one. I myself am seeing some pros of having free education through this debate.

 

[Mykaelochi]

Going to break down what I'm saying into points again since it's easier to read

• While quality is something we all have to strive for it's very very difficult to attain. Educating people to the level required to teach is difficult and costly, both for the teacher and the university. Motivation to get people into the profession is difficult, especially when most teachers are paid peanuts. Making schools and universities tuition free makes this worse as you suddenly cut off the biggest funding for the institution and thus the teacher. When there is already a dearth of teachers, quality cannot jump in the standards of teaching until that dearth is solved. In most schools in my country alone, there is a shocking lack of teachers, especially in rural areas. In my own college, one of the best in the country, after we fired our economics professor due to low quality, we couldn't find a replacement because there were no teachers and had to rehire him. My college is funded by both the government and tuition, so is subsidised (I can explain my college's system fully if you want). Asking for better teachers and removal of tuition fees is almost contradictory, especially outside the United States. Better teachers is always good, but the focus should be on how to get enough teachers as well as improving their standard, something which requires money.
  
• This isn't entirely related to the discussion, just something I've been coming to terms with myself is exactly what my takeaway of school was. I was (I think at least) an above average student and I did well in tests/exams and paid attention in class. Yet if I was asked to explain Bernoulli's theorem, something I learned not that long ago, I would be completely lost. My school education did nothing for my knowledge of the Industrial Revolution or most other forms of history, except a very very basic knowledge of World History and Indian History, both of which I knew very little about in reality. Undoubtedly going to school is essential and important and does teach a lot, but perhaps striving for an 'adequate or better' level of education is the wrong approach to take. An understanding of fields of science and humanities is essential, as is a teaching of morality and ethics, but to the degree and complexity that it is being taught is perhaps unnecessary, particularly given that it rarely sticks in the student's head. Of course the counter to that is that unless this level of complexity is learned, the student won't know truly whether he likes or dislikes a field, which is a very valid point. I myself can't really say what level of knowledge should be gained from school. I know that the basics I learned, especially at the lower grades are essential and things I know and remember, yet the complexities at the later levels were perhaps unnecessary.
  
• What I feel must be emphasised more in schools is morality and ethics, learning that racism is bad, that all religions must be respected, that xenophobia is wrong, that men and women are equal. Clearly looking at Trump and Brexit this isn't prolific enough in the so called 'Western Liberal Developed Nations' and I think education can really help change this.
  
• To be fair what I spoke of was more socialist than communist, since I assumed the continued existence of the state but is distinctly different from Leninism. Leninism speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat - that is the complete control of the means of production and distribution of wealth in the working class, essentially a form of revolutionary action against the capitalists and bourgeoisie. Socialism is the collective ownership of wealth and resources as well as a democratic control of the means of production - this is done by the State which is meant to comprise of the working class as well as the rich. Communism is more deconstructive, it's meant to remove classes and the state, where individuals share the control over wealth and means of production. Marx and Engels are a little dense to start with, I would recommend reading Andrew Haywood before going into their works to get a proper understanding. Then moving into neo-communism to gain a contemporary understanding of the field.
• Millionaires and billionaires abusing their power to gain more wealth sounds terrifying but is not actually practical or easy, especially in the richer more developed countries. So yes, sweatshops are bad, as is paying less than minimum wages but Marx's old arguments of freeing the working class are far less applicable than they were in his time. Oppression is not what it used to be. How to raise the conditions of the working class is an excellent, and difficult, question. However a simple 'take the money of the rich and give to the poor' Robin Hood-esque action cannot work and punishes those who achieve. Policies must take all this into account, as well as existing laws. You can't charge one person more than another for the same thing - that's a breach of your fundamental right to equality. All people must be treated equal. What actions are at the expense of the working class is a hard thing to figure out. Some may even argue that the influx of migrants into the US is at the expense of the working class since they lose jobs, but this is exactly the xenophobic thoughts that led to Trump getting elected and Brexit occurring.

I hope I've sort of broadened your understanding of these issues. Most of the public do have a rather narrow, and inherently personal, understanding of these issues. It's important to consider the counter points and understandings of an issue. Debate and voicing your opinion though is always important and I'll be happy to continue this one. I myself am seeing some pros of having free education through this debate.

I do appreciate this discussion. It's a beneficial thing to be able to exchange ideas without trying to insult one other, participate in mudslinging, or create gossip (wink wink, the Presidential Debates are kind of an example of this). Although a majority of my views can be seen as liberal/socialist, I do consider reading the opposing argument a helpful thing as well. Perhaps this is just me, but I think that the general public needs to be alert on what politicians say. For example, Trump has had many lies including saying Obama wasn't born in this country or calling climate change a hoax. Take, climate change. Climate change is something clearly evident by the melting of land ice in the Arctic and the rising average global temperature as a result of carbon dioxide and other emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas facilities. Should the warming continue, one will see more extreme weather and rising sea levels. This is something that is happening right now. To have a candidate, now the president-elect, that is so ignorant on issues like this is appalling. Climate change is kind of issue that affects everyone no matter if you are a progressive or a conservative or whatever. I think it's also important to explain why we know certain things like evolution and the Big Bang. This combination of division, power, and ignorance may sooner or later blow up in other faces. Trump recently said of the Paris climate agreement that he has an ''open mind'' to it. Trump should have been advocating for stopping climate change in the first place. He also said ''I hope that everyone can get along''. Well he should not have been saying things like ''I'd like to punch him in the face.'' or ''I can be in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I still wouldn't lose any votes.'' He should, I think, apologize for his racist and insulting comments instead of just saying it was the heat of the campaign.

 

[Ashkil]

The only thing that keeps me from completely losing my mind in fear is the hope that Trump is neither an idiot nor has enough power to really do that much

 

[Mistral]

Yes and no.

Yes, I do think post secondary education should be free, or at least the cost of it drastically reduced. The cost of tuition at schools is ridiculous and to have to go thousands of dollars into debt for a degree is quite honestly ridiculous. 99.9% of the students I know and talk to have to take out student loans and go into debt just to get a degree. The few that are fortunate enough to get through their undergraduate degrees without student debt are incredibly lucky.

However, that said, I also think there should be stipulations in regards to it. I'm not sure how it is elsewhere, but I know at both my community college and my current university, students had to maintain a 2.0 GPA to get financial aid, basically a C average in all of their courses. Dropping below that meant the student risked losing their financial aid or lost it altogether. I think that maintaining a 2.0 GPA should be required for students who do want free tuition. Dropping below that would mean the student would have to pay out of pocket. It just wouldn't be fair for a student to outright fail their courses and get by on free tuition while someone else who's working hard in their courses and maintaining that 2.0 GPA (or even higher) and also getting free tuition. The students should have to at least work for it.

Bear in mind that's only for public, post secondary colleges and universities. I don't really know enough about private colleges and universities, other than that the costs are higher than public colleges and universities, to speak on them here. Primary and secondary school is already free here (with the exception of breakfast and lunch, but the district offers a free and reduced lunch plan for those that need it), with the exception of private primary and secondary schools, and sending a child to one of those is usually up to the parent anyways.

As for the quality of teachers, there's going to be crappy teachers regardless of whether college is free or not and regardless of whether it's a public or private institution. I've had crappy teachers at the community college level, though not so much at the university level (but that's not to say that there's not crappy teachers at the university level because there are).

 

[Whovian#1]

I don't think school should be completely free. I think the amount of money you have to pay to get in should be different depending on the amount of money you have. I'm not saying it should be cheap, I'm saying it should be affordable for those who don't have to much money, while the people with money still have to pay full price because they can afford it. Education is a privilege, and everybody should be able to get that privilege but people shouldn't be able to obtain it because of their wealth or status.

If you don't understand what I'm saying:
School should not be free and should cost money, but the price should be lowered for the people who don't have the money to go to school. Whether a person gets an education or not should not depend on how much money they have.

 

[Whovian#1]

That being said, that doesn't mean they get into every college. They should still not be allowed in Harvard if they aren't a good student. However if somebody does get excepted into Harvard, and wants to go there, but doesn't have the money, the price should be lowered for them so they can go to Harvard.

 

[Shane McMahon]

No, I dont think that all education should be free.

However, I would like to think that anyone could receive enough education to function within society, i.e. be able to read and write well, be able to use a computer, know the scientific method and how to perform experiments, have a decent understanding of maths, be able to understand the history of their country and know where they are in the world. In other words, enough to allow them to find out more, as well as live a happy life.

 

[Ashkil]

No, I dont think that all education should be free.

However, I would like to think that anyone could receive enough education to function within society, i.e. be able to read and write well, be able to use a computer, know the scientific method and how to perform experiments, have a decent understanding of maths, be able to understand the history of their country and know where they are in the world. In other words, enough to allow them to find out more, as well as live a happy life.

More of a philosophical question and not one that I necessarily believe in but do you really feel such things are necessary for functioning within society? I'm in the career of law where there is little to no use of the scientific method or even math yet I can function perfectly in society (I do actually know them but that's a different matter). In fact things that I actually do need to do to function in society - driving (something which I only just learned well after school), paying bills and taxes, cooking - these are all things that are not taught in schools. So is what we learn in school really that important?

 

[NES]

College should be free - but there should be some conditions. You shouldn't be able to major in whatever you want - if you expect the government to pay. However, I could make a compromise where a double major with one subject like math could be combined with a less employable major like sociology - and the government would pay for both.

 

[Leaandro15]

I think school should be free that way people would be more into school half the students that don't go to college after highschool don't go probably because they can't afford it and they can barely afford to pay their bills I really wish school was free so more people could be more motivated to go and I also wish that it was like highschool where everything is free without you paying from your budget also I wish that it was not required or mandatory like highschool where you have to go because it's a law that you have to go to school until you're 18 you can drop out ,but I also wish that you can get free books to borrow without buying them or renting them which costs a fortune.