The death last year of free-education champion, former Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam, and moves by German universities to abolish tuition fees have put the spotlight on an age-old debate — should university students have to pay for their courses? Should we really adopt a failing model to replace the one we have? However, for those, who have already finished a university or dropped out after 1 or 2 years, the government will not provide further money and they must pay the fees themselves. He sees it as an irony that the most vocal advocates of a free university education typically come from the left wing of society. There is often a real shortage of these skills in an economy. After all, the college income premium would only be possible through the welfare benefits to which the rest of society—including those who never went to college—has contributed. Everyone has the right to educate, Your rights should not be violated. Yet that may not always be the case.
In the thirty-seven years since Canada has ratified this covenant, not only has free post-secondary education not been progressively introduced in Canada as the treaty requires, but the cost of post-secondary studies has increased dramatically in relation to the rate of inflation. I believe that if guaranteed government student loans were to have never existed then college tuition today would be half of what it is. Maybe a two year college degree will be sufficient instead of four. First of all, the government is currently spending billions of dollars on for-profit schools and other colleges and universities that have very low graduation rates. During the same period, most Canadian universities introduced discrimination on the basis of national origin by charging international students higher fees than Canadian students.
But graduates can also gain skills and awareness of civic institutions which offer intangible benefits to society. The enthusiasm among students for this cause is palpable. There is also the concern that students who are not receiving professional degrees should not get free tuition, since it is likely that they will be working at jobs that do not require a degree after they graduate. Through various combinations of this benefit troika, almost all students are able to finance their college education. In fact, university officials are quite explicit about the fact that they are admitting more out-of-state and international students and fewer Californians in order to raise money.
It is unfair that someone who is brilliant but poor doesn't get the same chance at an education as other people. Without understanding and presenting student benefits as welfare handouts, a free college agenda has no real egalitarian purpose. We know universities operate pretty much like any other private enterprise today. So what is happening now? This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic. There is also a powerful argument that university education should be free to ensure equality of opportunity. And while public universities once sought to advance the industry of the state as a whole, with an eye to the common good, shortfalls in public funding have led to universities' treating their research capacity as a source of primary fundraising, developing new technologies and products for the private sector, explicitly to raise the money they need to operate. Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university.
As currently argued, however, these claims are largely uncompelling. There are some problems that Canada might face if they were to try to adopt the same model that Norway has in place. This is not only fair, but will also ensure that countries can prosper and develop into the future with a well-educated workforce. Jake Naughton for The New York Times Politicians on the and are talking about college affordability. If college was free more people would be able to and want to go to college.
Many students who are in higher education are also being discouraged because of the low job opportunities after they graduate from… 1689 Words 7 Pages Higher education at state colleges and universities should be free for all American citizens. What we still call public universities would be more accurately described as state-controlled private universities — corporate entities that think and behave like businesses. However, there are a number of arguments in favour of making university education free for all. Even the few still lecturing for the sake of it would eventually lose motivation because of the miserable pay. But with just a small amount of historical perspective, the change is dramatic: public universities that once charged themselves to open their doors to all who could benefit by attending — that were, by definition, the public property of the entire state — have become something entirely different. People expecting the right to drive anywhere they pleased, for free, would be branded utopian, socialist and deluded, soft-hearted liberals demanding a free lunch.
The writer presents both sides of the argument. Every year the cost of tuition increase. If it wasn't free more students would want to be there it would be more of a happy environment. Dancing and chanting broke out on the grass. We're going to have something with extensions and lower interest rates and a lot of good things. That's the world we live in when it comes to highways.
In these remarks I argue that it is. Write about the following topic: University education should be free to everyone, regardless of income. This is coupled with high transfers from the provincial government to universities, which allows some of the country's best universities to continue operating while charging some of the lowest tuition. Why Should University be Free? Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidising higher education. Hesselbach acknowledges that public-funded education is a popular concept, but given that a university degree offers students the prospect of better life opportunities, he believes it is fair to ask them for a financial contribution. Indeed, when Mark Yudof was appointed president of the University of California in 2008, he was known as an advocate of what he had called in 2002 the hybrid university: an institution that retained some of the characteristics of a public university but would draw the bulk of its revenue from student tuition.