the right to buy better

[britishboy]

ok we have all seen the people saying 'all schools should be free' and stuff like that but the reality is that you shouldnt, you should be able to spend your money on whatever you want!

what dp you guys think?

[Sugaree]

Well, yeah, that's just a given. I don't think anyone can really disagree with it.

[britishboy]

Well, yeah, that's just a given. I don't think anyone can really disagree with it.

no there are socialists who think Cambridge Oxford and Harvard should be free

[Vlerchan]

no there are socialists who think Cambridge Oxford and Harvard should be free

Everyone should have a chance at the same standard of education. Top education shouldn't simply be granted exclusively to members of the upper class. Entrance should be gained by those with the greater intellect not the larger bank account. It's not such a problem in Ireland as it is in other countries, however. In Ireland third level education is completely subsidized by the state (for BA, anyway; austerity means MA's got cut.) The entrance fee is the only thing you must pay (and, even that can be subsidized by the state if you fall into certain income (and/or grade) category's.) There are exceptions, but they're limited solely to Griffith College and American College Dublin.

Note how I never once used the word 'Free'.

[Cygnus]

I personally think public schools and universities should be free and finishing high school should be compulsory. Private schools and universities are another thing.

[Tarannosaurus]

People shouldn't be denied the right to a good education, just for being born into the
wrong family. That's kind of out of your control who you're born to.

P.S. I'm not saying there's something wrong with being in a low income family in
case anyone mistakes the phrase.

[PinkFloyd]

Everyone should have a chance at the same standard of education. Top education shouldn't simply be granted exclusively to members of the upper class. Entrance should be gained by those with the greater intellect not the larger bank account. It's not such a problem in Ireland as it is in other countries, however. In Ireland third level education is completely subsidized by the state (for BA, anyway; austerity means MA's got cut.) The entrance fee is the only thing you must pay (and, even that can be subsidized by the state if you fall into certain income (and/or grade) category's.) There are exceptions, but they're limited solely to Griffith College and American College Dublin.

Note how I never once used the word 'Free'.

This sums up what I think os right.

[Stronk Serb]

The smart should attend good universities, not rich if they lack the intellect.

[Yolo98]

Let rich people send their kids to oxford,cambridge etc , it keeps the toffs out of the public schooling system

[James Bond]

If they were free, they wouldn't be as prestigious as they are. They couldn't afford the top notch teachers and professors that they have, the education itself would suffer.

[Vlerchan]

If they were free, they wouldn't be as prestigious as they are. They couldn't afford the top notch teachers and professors that they have, the education itself would suffer.
Which is why I never suggested third-level education become free but rather government-subsidized (i.e paid indirectly through tax). With government-subsidized education tuition fees are still paid and top professors are still incentivized to teach in top universities. The only difference is the (higher) standard of students entering top universities and a general increase in the number of students entering university overall.

[Luminous]

Universities could be free, if possible students had to go through rounds of testing. There needs to be some costs to pay employees and teachers, but they don't have to be the extremely large tuition costs they are now. However, if the student is boarding they should have to pay rent as they normally would.

[tovaris]

Spending money doesnt realy have to do anithing with schooling.
You know i believe there should be no money... But it you have a mountin ofbcash you dont need go ahed and give it to the read cross.

[CosmicNoodle]

Spending money doesnt realy have to do anithing with schooling.
You know i believe there should be no money... But it you have a mountin ofbcash you dont need go ahed and give it to the read cross.

Exactly

[Human]

I don't really understand what you mean. Schooling is given to you free, so why would you want to pay for it in the first place?

[Sugaree]

I don't really understand what you mean. Schooling is given to you free, so why would you want to pay for it in the first place?

According to britishboy, if you pay for it, that somehow makes something better. I don't get the train of thought either.

[LouBerry]

I personally think public schools and universities should be free and finishing high school should be compulsory. Private schools and universities are another thing.

Me too!

[Walter Powers]

I support a voucher system. That way, everybody has a basic amount, and you can add more if it's within your means or value education more.

Then, over time I'd gradually decrease the voucher, and over the course of decades move completely to private sector and nonprofit solutions.

[Poisonberry]

Everyone should have a chance at the same standard of education. Top education shouldn't simply be granted exclusively to members of the upper class. Entrance should be gained by those with the greater intellect not the larger bank account. It's not such a problem in Ireland as it is in other countries, however. In Ireland third level education is completely subsidized by the state (for BA, anyway; austerity means MA's got cut.) The entrance fee is the only thing you must pay (and, even that can be subsidized by the state if you fall into certain income (and/or grade) category's.) There are exceptions, but they're limited solely to Griffith College and American College Dublin.

Note how I never once used the word 'Free'.

Top education isn't "simply granted exclusively to members of the upper class" though where that phrase differs from "free" is hard for me to find. How have you come to this conclusion? I'm getting a very expensive top notch education and it wasn't simply granted in any way, shape or form.

I noted how you never used the word free, but "simply granted" sure sounds like free. Like, if you show up at my door and I "simply grant you a piece of pie" didn't you just get it free?

[britishboy]

I don't really understand what you mean. Schooling is given to you free, so why would you want to pay for it in the first place?

higher quality, specialist subjects depends what you want!

as for universities there's no reason for it to be free, state schools get you to a level that sets you for life, if you choose to take thing's futher you should pay! and at a time of cuts on everything, we shouldn't be paying for uni placements

[ksdnfkfr]

Scholarships to wherever should be awarded based on academic and intellectual performance. A great mind is a terrible thing to waste. Could be a genius who could've cured cancer ended up doing some ordinary job because his family didn't have the big bucks to send him to medical school.

[britishboy]

Scholarships to wherever should be awarded based on academic and intellectual performance. A great mind is a terrible thing to waste. Could be a genius who could've cured cancer ended up doing some ordinary job because his family didn't have the big bucks to send him to medical school.

he can get a loan

[ksdnfkfr]

he can get a loan

So are you saying scholarships shouldn't be awarded because someone can get a loan? And what is the person doesn't qualify for a loan?

[Stronk Serb]

he can get a loan

Why are you against special tests which allow you to attend an university, despite being poor? People who are smart will go to universities and possibly more scientific breakthroughs will happen.

[Vlerchan]

I noted how you never used the word free, but "simply granted" sure sounds like free. Like, if you show up at my door and I "simply grant you a piece of pie" didn't you just get it free?
It's not Free. It's (as explained) government subsidized - i.e It's paid for (indirectly) through tax.

Top education isn't "simply granted exclusively to members of the upper class" though where that phrase differs from "free" is hard for me to find. How have you come to this conclusion? I'm getting a very expensive top notch education and it wasn't simply granted in any way, shape or form.
When I said 'granted to the upper class' I meant that members of higher income brackets can afford (as in pay) to go to better universities. That, in my opinion anyway, is wrong. As I already said; universities should choose based on intellect rather than the size of your (/your families) bank balance. The same standard of education should be available to everyone, basically.

I think you're simply misunderstanding what I'm saying, though. Hope I've made it clearer this time.

[Walter Powers]

Why are you against special tests which allow you to attend an university, despite being poor? People who are smart will go to universities and possibly more scientific breakthroughs will happen.

We have those. They're called the SAT and ACT.

I have a problem with things that increase demand to the point to where college gets even more expensive and out of reach without providing an avenue for higher university capacity.

[Sugaree]

We have those. They're called the SAT and ACT.

You quite clearly don't know shit about universities then. You're fucking 15, have you even tried STUDYING for an SAT or ACT? They don't give you a grant into college, they're just tests that prove that you can actually handle the shit they teach. There's a clear difference between the two Walter, and I'm not sure you see it.

[britishboy]

You quite clearly don't know shit about universities then. You're fucking 15, have you even tried STUDYING for an SAT or ACT? They don't give you a grant into college, they're just tests that prove that you can actually handle the shit they teach. There's a clear difference between the two Walter, and I'm not sure you see it.

no need to ne rude, he may be fifteen but he has much better social skills than you!

[Walter Powers]

You quite clearly don't know shit about universities then. You're fucking 15, have you even tried STUDYING for an SAT or ACT? They don't give you a grant into college, they're just tests that prove that you can actually handle the shit they teach. There's a clear difference between the two Walter, and I'm not sure you see it.

Uh yeah. I might take the PSAT this year, and I've been looking into what I'll have to study.

And I know that you can submit your scores for scholarships, too. What's stopping you from telling them you got a 30 on the ACT in a scholarship essay?

[Sugaree]

no need to ne rude, he may be fifteen but he has much better social skills than you!

Whatever you have to say about my social skills is irrelevant, as that is not the topic of this thread. I'll take a page out of your book and say if you want to pick a bone with me, you can private message me.

Uh yeah. I might take the PSAT this year, and I've been looking into what I'll have to study.

And I know that you can submit your scores for scholarships, too. What's stopping you from telling them you got a 30 on the ACT in a scholarship essay?

Other than the fact that you have to actually prove you got a 30 on the ACT? Nothing at all. You just act like SATs and ACTs are almost absolute sure bets of getting into a good college when they're not. I've taken both, I got wonderful scores, and I've been denied by at least five different colleges. And I met their requirements! I didn't have to apply for scholarship money, so I didn't. Perhaps that's what stopped them from accepting.

[britishboy]

state education gets you to a point you can get a job and fit into society, want to take it futher? you pay. it's like living in state housing, and asking for a bigger house

[Vlerchan]

state education gets you to a point you can get a job and fit into society, want to take it futher? you pay. it's like living in state housing, and asking for a bigger house

I did Geography at Honours level for my Junior Cert (which is basically the equivalent of the GCSE's). A common question was to discuss why Ireland received so much investment from multinational corporations. There was number of answers - low corporation tax; EU membership - but the one relevant to this entire discussion was: 'A highly educated and skilled labour force,' or something along those lines. Subsidizing third level education isn't simply free stuffs for poor people but rather an investment in future economic growth. We're living in a rapidly changing world and I can tell you that a secondary level education simply isn't enough - BAs aren't even worth what they used to be now-a-days.

It's also nothing like asking for a bigger house.

[britishboy]

I did Geography at Honours level for my Junior Cert (which is basically the equivalent of the GCSE's). A common question was to discuss why Ireland received so much investment from multinational corporations. There was number of answers - low corporation tax; EU membership - but the one relevant to this entire discussion was: 'A highly educated and skilled labour force,' or something along those lines. Subsidizing third level education isn't simply free stuffs for poor people but rather an investment in future economic growth. We're living in a rapidly changing world and I can tell you that a secondary level education simply isn't enough - BAs aren't even worth what they used to be now-a-days.

It's also nothing like asking for a bigger house.

secondary education is enough, for a waiter, a driver and a cleaner, want to be better? pay for it!

as for economics, neither the US or UK is short of brainy people, Australia has great scientists as well, maybe smaller poorer countries need more but they cant afford it

[Harry Smith]

secondary education is enough, for a waiter, a driver and a cleaner, want to be better? pay for it!

as for economics, neither the US or UK is short of brainy people, Australia has great scientists as well, maybe smaller poorer countries need more but they cant afford it

Loool- you can go very far with a secondary education. Alan Sugar? We had free universities back in the 60's and it worked perfectly. It shouldn't matter how much money you have it's about being able to reach your potential in life.

As TB said Education, Education and Education

[Vlerchan]

secondary education is enough, for a waiter, a driver and a cleaner, want to be better? pay for it!

as for economics, neither the US or UK is short of brainy people, Australia has great scientists as well, maybe smaller poorer countries need more but they cant afford it

I don't know exactly what you mean to say but to me it reads something like: "If you're poor then you should stay poor because we already have enough well-educated people [not that you can ever have enough]." Firstly I'm sure that everyone 'wants better' but wanting better and actually being able to obtain better are two entirely different things. The problem is that these genuinely intelligent individuals who end up as cleaners and waiters and drivers (all generally-low income jobs giving their children an equally poor chance of achieving much more) couldn't pay for it; couldn't afford it, they're university position got passed up to those of the middle- and upper-class who had the funds. I find that wrong. How anyone can think differently - that the wealthy rather than the intelligent should be the ones who learn - is simply beyond me. And, trust me, secondary level education on its own will get you nowhere - not in this day and age, anyway.

I can only assume that 'smaller' and 'poorer' countries means Ireland. I'll admit that our GDP Is significantly lower than that of Britain or the US but nowhere in Ireland do we have such glaring income inequality. In Ireland individuals are given the chance to reach their academic potential (and, for the most part, everyone does) before being thrown out into the free market. This well educated population, as already stated, attracts FDI (and, as an extension of that, more employment) which is important to any countries growth regardless of size.

[CosmicNoodle]

higher quality, specialist subjects depends what you want!

as for universities there's no reason for it to be free, state schools get you to a level that sets you for life, if you choose to take thing's futher you should pay! and at a time of cuts on everything, we shouldn't be paying for uni placements

WARNING; What you are about to read contains an OPINION

You should not pay to take things further, that is basically keeping the rich rich and the poor poor, the rich pay for better education (=better job's) and more money whilst the poor cant pay for better education and get worse job's ergo keeping them poor, it's not right that good high quality education should be kept for the rich.

P.S. You spelt Futher wrong, it's Further

[nopelol]

I don't believe that everyone has the right to free university education, simply because of the ridiculous surplus of college graduates. So they might as well 1. Make an industry around further education and create jobs for thousands of other people and 2. Contribute to the country's GDP. Although I agree that some individuals should be allowed free entry to some universities if they have proven their self worth, that's what scholarships are for. We can't seriously assume everyone is going to cure cancer or find a cure to AIDS. If they were serious about it though, they could pursue that in many places instead of university, or take a different path such as mature aged entry.

[Vlerchan]

I don't believe that everyone has the right to free university education, simply because of the ridiculous surplus of college graduates.
I was waiting on someone to make that argument - excessive numbers of university graduates causes a surplus of skilled workers to appear in the local economy (which I personally believe is mostly made-up, but I'll humour you with a counter-argument, anyway) - and, really, it's the only valid argument against government-subsidized third level education. Of course if university education is subsidized by the government there's still going to be the same number, or roughly the same number, anyway, of university places open. So by subsidizing third level education we won't be seeing that much larger of a surplus. However, with the same number of places now open to a larger number of people we will be seeing a higher-degree of graduates (and, I'm sure, a lot lower of a dropout rate.) with individuals being granted entrance based on academic ability rather than wealth. This argument only applies however if you believe a country can ever have too educated a population - I personally don't.

1. Make an industry around further education and create jobs for thousands of other people
Education is already basically an industry in America. With government-subsidization it would still continue to be the same industry. Government-subsidization does not mean free. People still get paid.

2. Contribute to the country's GDP.
Actually, seeing as most graduates in America leave college with huge private debts they're unable to pump the money they're earning due to their new degree back into the economy having to spend the next few years paying off this aforementioned debt instead. This means economic growth (and GDP) is lower.

Although I agree that some individuals should be allowed free entry to some universities if they have proven their self worth, that's what scholarships are for.
One major problem I've always had with scholarships (over fully subsidized government education - scholarships are a good thing to have in countries without that) is that tuition fees for everyone have to go up to account for the free entrants. It's not much, admittedly, but it's still means more money for potential university applicants to pay.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

It would be quite a pain on taxpayers paying for someone else's medical bills. But otherwise, it's quite agreeable.

[Get Outta Compton]

Education should be free, unless you want a brain dead country.

[britishboy]

if I want a bigger pool, I pay, if you want better education, you pay! I know state education isn't the best but it will get you to a appropriate educated level for working class life

[Vlerchan]

if I want a bigger pool, I pay, if you want better education, you pay! I know state education isn't the best but it will get you to a appropriate educated level for working class life
Repeating your point doesn't make it anymore correct. I'm specifically focusing on the opening - "if I want a bigger pool, I pay, if you want better education, you pay!" - which verges on ludicrously. Trying to paint Education as some needless, wasteful commodity, a statues symbol of sorts, is just simply incorrect on so many levels. I've also made it quite clear how actually government subsidize education benefits society as a whole and not solely the individual in receipt of it - Again: it's a long term investment into economic growth - and am yet to see any valid argument against that.

Poverty is cyclical. The individuals who can't afford university tend to be the individuals who's parents couldn't afford university and who's children, unless there is the change I call for, probably won't be able to afford university either. Restricting third level education to the upper- and middle-classes only keeps the working class in poverty, unable to escape. Though, at this stage, I'm only repeating myself here.

If I may ask, though: why are you for government subsidization of second-level education? Surely the same logic applies: if people want a pool in the first place then they should be providing it for themselves?

[Stronk Serb]

if I want a bigger pool, I pay, if you want better education, you pay! I know state education isn't the best but it will get you to a appropriate educated level for working class life

In Yugoslavia and now each university has it's budget of a few hundred students who are subsidized. Those who passed the tests got schooled for free and you could always sign up for self-financing. I fail to see why are you defending this so hard, is this some God given right for the aristocracy or something?