Question: Is a college education worth it?

Title: College is worth it Content: This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: It is worth it to go to college, and I will explain why it is worth it in the second round of the debate. Yes, I will post arguments using mathematical sense. Sincerely, Dr. Maniac

Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: Accepted. I will be arguing that the benefits of a college education outweigh the costs. I hope this is a great debate! :p Go!

Title: College is worth it Content: Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...

Title: This house believes that college is redundant for further studies Content: As you all know, college is an important milestone in life. Personally, I think that a college degree is worth pursuing regardless of an individual's career goals. First off, Candidates can explore new specialisation fields and experiment around to find their passion. This can actually help students to save money as well- If they are aware of their specialisations in a field of their choice, there is no need to take multiple courses in university. Instead, they can just directly choose to study in their field of choice. Which leads us to the next point. It serves an advantage. When students go to college, they may be unsure of what field to specialise in. however, as students grow older, they may develop sudden interests in medicine, law, economics and etc. When they finally decide what do they want to specialise in, they have a college degree to help them get into schools of their choice. Thirdly, college gives second chances. for those students who didn't do very well in high school, college is a perfect opportunity to earn back the grades they think they deserve. For all education levels above college, they tend to weigh your college degree higher than your high school degree. My fourth point is that college helps us build a strong foundation for future studies. It gives you the basic knowledge you will need for future studies. Students can gain advanced knowledge in the fields that they are interested in and can have a general understanding of the other subjects. It also helps students to exercise their critical thinking skills and make sensible choices as well as help them to express themselves through writing and speech. Another point I would like to use to oppose to the opinion that college is redundant for further studies is that it helps students increase their chance of admission into schools of their choice. Imagine that you are checking 2 resumes from 2 applicants. They both have the same amount of experience, but one applicant gained a higher college degree that the other. Which one would you choose as a new intake? I believe that all of us will choose the student with the higher education background. However, in real life, students are compared with thousands os applicants, so they must have some academic achievements that make them appeal to the university that they are applying for so that they will choose the student as their intake. Last but not least, college prepares students for university life. Students learn to deal with the hardships in life in college. It makes the student strong and practical enough to deal with the hardships that they are going to face in the future. Students learn to adapt to new situations and new environments in college just as they would do in graduate school or university. Overall, I would like to conclude that college is in fact not redundant for further studies but it plays an important role in a student's education. Thank you.

Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to "Actually, College is Very Much Worth It" by Andrew J. Rotherham "College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans." College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: It seems you have misunderstood me. Notice how you are debating the Pro for the statement 'Going to college is financially not worth it' meaning you are debating that it is not worth it to go to college.

Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: The amenities and tools that universities offer their students to gain higher education, including the excellent standard of university professors, are priceless. Consequently, an increase in tuition fees would definitely still be worth attending university for as there is no other institution that can give such high quality facilities, teaching, help and advice in addition to a highly regarded qualification (a degree). Such a qualification as a degree could potentially allow for huge salaries and pay packages in the long-run, making the tuitions fees paid to the university which had made all that possible, seem insignificant.

Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning "half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. "According to Wall Street Journal,"Paying for college never is easy, but it"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can"t afford a college education. That"s wrong. Most of them can." Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.

Title: College is worth it Content: I accept your challenge, under the pretense that we can qualify which college experiences we are debating about, i.e., I will argue that a number of specific majors/fields of study are not worth the time and money, if one is hoping to gain employment through them, while I will conceed that other types, such as trade schools, are more worthwhile in today's economy.

Title: College Should be free Content: College is way too expensive for normal people who just want a higher education. In this debate, I wish to have a logical discussion with another person to discuss if this is a good idea or not. I look forward to the debate

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that "...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt " and maybe no job in sight". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations.

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second "rebuttal" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: "I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says "studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So

Title: The costs of college outweigh the benefits Content: As billionaire Warren Buffet stated, "The greatest investment is yourself." Before stating my contentions, I'd like to define some terms within the resolution. A college education is the completion of a bachelor's, master's or PHD degree. Outweigh: to exceed in value, importance, or influence, (and) benefits: something that is advantageous or good in short and long term. Contention 1: - There are many alternatives to pay for college rather than paying out of pocket. As we all know, the United States is currently in a recession, attacking the middle class drastically. Many people who are not financially capable to pay for college can obtain certain resources like scholarships, grants and/or financial aid to help pay for expenses. The people who receive these financial aids come from struggling middle class families. According to CollegeBoard.com, a total of 35% of high school students earned academic scholarships and 11% earn athletic scholarships in 2011. Also, 20% of students going to ivy league schools obtained the pell grant. As you can see, there are many alternatives to help paying for college without giving the students too much debt. Why should financial burdens prevent a qualified student from going to a college of his or her dreams? Contention 2- People that go to college have a more fulfilling job. The definition of satisfaction is an act of fulfillment and gratification. One may be content with themselves no matter what occupation they do every day. However, when one obtains a degree in a specific field, they will gain more financial wealth and security, thus gaining the capital needed to pay for student loans and other expenses. According USA.gov, in 2010 alone, 68.1 percent of high school graduates attended college. Compared to the 32 percent that didn't attend college, those who did grossed an average of 29,000 dollars more a year. With that much money made more a year, a college graduate can afford a larger mortgage, or save their money towards his or her's children's college fund. The more someone invests in themselves, the more return they're going to get out. Contention 3-When students attend college, they help maintain the democratic system America has so perfectly designed. Imagine if your state senator or representative did not attend college? Imagine what decisions these politicians would make without having taken an ethics class? As Thomas Jefferson stated "Information is the currency of democracy." If college is not worth going to as the affirmation attempts to advocate, then, my fellow americans, we are a country of poor democratic worth. Also, according to a statistic stated by CollegeBoard.com, 60% of college graduates play a role in our democratic system, either by attending city council meetings, volunteering for potential political candidates, or simply voting. As you can see, when students go to college, they participate substantially more than high school graduates.

Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or "career". In order to get a "career" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .

Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: College important. In this economy if you do not have at least an associate degree then its even hard to get a Job in McDonald. There are only a few people who became successful without going to college such as bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc but even Albert Einstein who was a genius since the day he could speak decided to go to college to improve himself. College gives us a chance to be in a real world by teaching us skills to build a career, to make connections, experience and to learn more about the career that you are interested. Not to mention the satisfaction that it gives us when you are a college graduate compare to a high school graduate.

Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: Whilst it cannot be disputed that most universities guarantee an outstanding education, it would definitely not be worth £20,000 per year! That amount of money could considerably add to an "average" salary making it worth the same as a "high" salary but without obtaining a degree and wasting 3/4 years of your life! Furthermore, although the quality of education may be worth paying for, the quantity of education does not justify such an increase. Many students are given less than 15 hours of lectures per week so should they really be paying such a huge amount for an education that they rarely receive?

Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: In this round, I will finish up final rebuttals, then list both the costs and benefits of a college education. Weighing and impacting each point will be done at the end of the round.Monetary BenefitsWhen talking about monetary benefits, note that the claim was always about lifetime earnings. Lifetime earnings and opportunity costs are different points, and higher lifetime earnings does not show that you will accumulate more wealth, simply that you will have a higher income. I agree with my opponent that the average college graduate will have a high lifetime earnings differential. However, there is no "averaging" to be done. The number stands at roughly $275,000, as other studies are too flawed to be considered.DebtMy opponent has mostly dropped this point, instead focusing on monetary benefits. Simply because one will have higher earnings (not wealth) over their lifetime does not mean that debt should be ignored.The average college graduate will be in debt until the age of 33. As was brought up in my first contention and not refuted: "College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, “running back home.” That hurts us all." Some small weighing to be done: A small chance of earning $275,000 versus being in debt for eleven years, with a 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything. It's fairly obvious that these costs outweigh the monetary benefits, especially when combined with opportunity cost.Investment Potential (opportunity cost)A brief reminder: If a college graduate misses out on an opportunity, this is considered opportunity cost. If I can show that college graduates miss out on an opportunity to make more money, then this must be considered for total wealth accumulation.My opponent only responded to my point on job experience, leaving the investment point un-touched for the entire debate. This alone justifies a pro ballot. Investing money, rather than going to college, will result in far more wealth (more than three times as much) by the age of 65, even if the college graduate invests too. This is using the average savings rate, investment returns, cost of tuition, etc. Simply put, this point outweighs any possible monetary benefits that my opponent can bring up, and the point was dropped. The opportunity cost of going to college is roughly 1.3 million dollars.Pro-College Studies PointIn the last round, my opponent claimed that this point reinforces his case. This is entirely false. The only way it would do this is if con could refute my points of how college graduates no longer receive the same benefits that they did years ago. I brought these points up in rounds 2 and 3, and will reiterate them here. In round 3, I showed that the recession did hit college graduates harder, as is shown by the fact that they now have the same unemployment rate as non-graduates, when 10 years ago they didn't. Again in round 3, I showed that job growth is occurring in areas where college degrees are not needed. However, more and more people are going to college. This greatly decreases the value of a college education. This causes underemployment, meaning more and more college graduates are not gaining the wage benefits that my opponent has brought up. "More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree." Default rates have increased. Drop out rates have increased. An average college graduate is going into an environment that is completely different than it was 20 years ago. Thus, this entire point still stands: only recent college graduates can be considered, unless con can show that these graduates will eventually reach the earnings/employment potential of past graduates (note that burden of proof is shared in this debate). Drop-outs and Defaults.My opponent misunderstands my drop-out point. The focus was not on the cost of dropping out. The focus was on the fact that less than half of those who go to college even gain any benefits.Defaulting, however, should be considered as a cost. This point has not been adequately touched upon by my opponent. We've already established that the monetary benefits will be roughly $275,000 (other than opportunity cost). If you default on your student loans, you lose all of that. It cannot be forgiven by bankruptcy: your wages will be garnished, your tax refunds offset, you will be ineligible for future federal employment, etc. This is an extremely large point greatly undermines the value of a college education. One-fifth of all borrowers will default and lose all their monetary benefits. My opponent focuses a lot on the benefits of a college education. However, one must ask themselves: how likely am I to actually achieve this benefits? The answer is not likely at all, roughly 40%. Once again, this point alone can justify a pro ballot. If 60% of students will not even attain these elusive benefits, then they shouldn't even be considered in this debate.Social BenefitsAs I've stated before, this point has a very small impact.My opponent again mentions that you are "learning to live on your own gradually and constructively." I brought up in round 3 that you must also learn to live on your own if you don't go to college. My opponent responded to this by saying that "you're also getting an education," but this point is meaningless as we're debating about whether or not the education is worth it in the first place. What's the difference between learning to live in college, and learning to live in the real world? You have to constantly worry about debt, you have to work jobs to in order to finance your education on top of class work, you have to go 11 years knowing you're at a disadvantage for buying a home or getting married, you know you have a massive default/drop out rate, etc. The social benefits of going to college are easily countered with the social costs. I concede that you do not lose job connections by attending college. However, it is fairly clear that you don't gain many either. Why? Because the unemployment rate for college graduates and non-graduates are the same, and because the majority of job growth is occurring in areas where you don't even need a college education. Also note that my opponent statistic on 80% of jobs aren't advertised does not show that non-college graduates only gain access to 20% of jobs. Con's own source mentions you gain access to these 80% of jobs through your "network," which includes, friends, family, peers, social organizations, service providers, recent graduates, etc. This does not require a college education. Causation versus CorrelationThis point wasn't intended to completely negate con's benefits. Rather, it was to show that those who qualify to go to college will automatically have higher earnings/unemployment potential than normal high-school graduates, due to their own personal traits. My opponent's claim that college offers benefits because success-driven people decide to go simply cannot stand in this round until con can show that they achieve such benefits. I've already shown that there are little benefits to a college education, and large costs.What is not a benefit?Lower unemployment.Greater overall wealth.Social benefits.Job opportunities. BenefitsRoughly a 40% chance for a $275,000 lifetime earnings differential.Costs1.3 million dollars of opportunity cost, which my opponent has not refuted at all.A 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything if you borrow money.Being in debt for 11 years and unable to become a full consumer.ConclusionYou will have roughly 1 million dollars less wealth than if you were to spend money elsewhere.You will gain no noticeable benefits over a non-graduate.You are extremely unlikely to achieve any benefits. College is 11-15 lost years of your life with nothing to show for it.

Title: college tuition too expensive Content: The cost of college is becoming an issue all across America. With the current state of the economy, the percent of unemployed workers and the cost of college can seem like a far fetched goal. Many people who may not receive a scholarship or enough government funding may not be able to attend college. This is a big issue because having a college background is becoming an important factor in the business world today but, the cost makes many look for other options. The idea of having to pay back thousands of dollars makes people question is it actually worth it? From my stand point it is. You may not leave college doing the same thing you began with but the life experiences are endless. College gives you not only knowledge but builds you into a better person by taking you through life experiences. With the cost of college increasing it may hurt generations to come because they will not be able to experience, learn and grow into a better individual. Without future doctors, lawyers,athletes etc where will the world be in the future. Who will run the country, perform surgeries and close business deals? All of these questions will be as questions unanswered if people are not able to afford college. There should be more options better payback systems to make the cost of college more affordable.

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates. Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students. Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college. Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient. Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity. So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions: 1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting? 2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations? 3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society? 4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated? I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.

Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: =Monetary Benefits= My opponent tries to comb through my argument and pick through it but the bottom line is, though he disagrees with the extent of my claims made, that there still is a monetary benefit for college educated people. He claims there is ONLY a difference of over $275,000. That's still a lot; a salary boost of thousands a year. In the end, though we have varying studies (and there are literally dozens of college income and average income studies and numbers out there) the bottom line, concluded by both of us, is that there is a long term monetary benefit to attending college. Even the low number given by my opponent is pretty high, and if we average the two the benefit is even higher. Through it all my opponent failed to refute the claim that there is a monetary benefit to attending college which only helps to add weight to our case going forward when combined with other points.=Social Benefits= My opponent claims that 12 years of public schooling and some start up job positions can replace the benefits given by a college experience. However, this is simply not the case. He claims "real world" experiences are better than college experiences. However, while learning how to live on your own gradually and constructively in college you're also getting an education. Instead of flinging 18 year olds into a dingy apartment right away, college eases young adults into this transition making it easier on them. Also, my opponent claims "job experience" will give them more connections than college will. This is simply an unpractical claim to make. The jobs 18 year old high school graduates will be hourly wage jobs to start almost guaranteed. They'll have to work their way up to a management position in the 4-6 years they could be in college. College students however are usually hired for higher positions automatically and will forgo the wage jobs. Another thing, colleges have Career resource centers which specialize in helping college students get jobs. The UF center for example, gives out thousands of jobs a year to college students. [1] Also, they claim that many jobs are not advertised and are only reached through school and professional connections. Up to 80% of jobs never reach the "job market" via advertising. College students will have these connections via professors, internships and the resource center on campus. Non college students are barred from all this.=Opportunities=My opponent claims 54% of students have a chance of dropping out and 20% will drop out. Almost 100% of these drop outs occur within the first year of college meaning the damage financially and to their time will only be the extent of a year. They will owe 1/4th that of traditional 4 year students. The risk is not as high as my opponent claims. On year of tuition will be about $5k not the full extent of a student loan. Also, again, the experience and status of being college educated is always there. Even if you have to start out poorly, you will always have that status which will help you advance long term. People without college educations will always hit a barrier when on the rise. People without college educations will always be barred from positions requiring an education. This is huge. The opportunities presented by a college education are forever. Not having a degree will close these doors to you and they will never be opened. =Problems with Pro-College Studies="because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago" This helps to reiterate my point that college degree benefits are more long term than my opponent wants to acknowledge. Even 20-30 years later these college graduates will get jobs and according to multiple studies will be making some amount more than their non degree holding counterparts. My opponents claims about the recession are misleading. The recession caused EVERYONE'S unemployment numbers to rise. It did not affect any one group more or less than another. Of course, if unemployment is above 8% college graduates will be affected by this. =Causation Versus Correlation=My opponent makes a rather weak claim here about causation. He claims people who go to college would be successful anyways and therefore college studies are not as straight and true as they appear. However, it doesn't change the common denominator in all these studies which is a college education. People geared towards success do tend to go to college as my opponent points out. Why? Because college gives benefits. If college benefits did not outweigh the costs then these success driven people would not attempt to attend college. They attend college because of the tangible benefits to be gained.If these college eligible people would earn more regardless of college; why attend? Because college is obviously more beneficial than not. Or else they'd continue without it and earn more anyways. College enhances these skills and benefits. =Chance of Benefits=I said before, college benefits last a lifetime. The degree will always be with you, so chance of success is exponentially greater throughout their lifetime than a non degree holding person. Also, as I mentioned before, the drop outs occur almost exclusively in the first year of college so the damage done is only a year's worth. College loans for one year, not four etc.The chance of benefits and success are exponentially greater for a college degree holder than a non college degree hold over a lifetime due to the ability to be exposed to college educated positions etc.=Conclusion=* College monetary benefit is present and confirmed by my opponent* Opportunities for jobs are exponentially greater than non degree holding people* Most high level people (CEO's, politicians etc) all have college degrees* If college didn't offer benefit's so many success geared people would rely on themselves and forgo collegeThe benefits of college outweigh the costs.[1] http://www.crc.ufl.edu...

Title: Going to college is worth Content: I accept, and will be arguing that college is worth it for some people.

Title: The costs of college outweigh the benefits Content: colleges are playing with our money and giving us nothing but a kind of education that makes us inelligible in the job market.the increasing number of unemployment shows us that the market do not think that our college degree does have some value.if our employer don't think our degrees are valuable and fire us for that reason, our degrees really don't have ny value.therefore college education has no benefit at all.

Title: Publicly tax paid post-secondary/college education in the U.S. Content: My case A college degree is only so valuable as the market decides it to be, and that is determined by the scarcity of the degree in the market. In applying for a job, the employer sees my resume, and sees that I went to college. This is valuable because it shows that I have taken the initiative to further my knowledge past the standard of education, which is currently high school, to go to college. However, what my opponent is advocating for is changing the standard of education to college education, instead of high school. When a college education is free to the student, future employers will expect their applicants to have a college education, rather than just a high school education, because really, what is the student’s excuse at this point? This has a few impacts. One impact is that it drastically increases the amount of people going to college, thus increasing the costs for all taxpayers as tuition and student numbers go up, another is that it devalues the degree, thus making graduate school necessary for future high-earning employability, and finally, that it is making people who really shouldn't have to pay for someone's college education pay for it. College admittance overload When college is "free" to attend for the student, this means quite clearly that we are going to get a huge increase in the amount of people attending college. We’re going to get teens, college dropouts, people who never attended, etc. all flooding the system, because now it is no longer a monetary investment for them to have the education that is publicly perceived as essential to being successful in life. One might say, “Who cares? Now we have a more educated society.” Well, the taxpayer, and hopefully the students, cares. It is predicted that, by 2018, 60% of job openings will require a college education (1). And that’s just based on the status quo of how accessible a college education is. If one were to take into account the massive inflow of students that would come from taxpayer provided college education, we could expect that number to go significantly higher as college becomes the new standard of education, thus making a college degree approach pointlessness. Skyrocketing prices, decreased quality, or both? Now, my opponent would like you, the judge, to believe that government could somehow magically control cost without decreasing the quality of the education. But as I have shown above, the colleges are going to have significantly more students than they are going to be accustomed to, and the only way they would be able to adequately provide for them is if they were to increase costs. That being said, my opponent wants to plan controls into college spending levels. But if the college can’t raise prices to be paid by the taxpayers, then the college won’t be able to provide a high quality education to all of its students. But if my opponent revokes the cost control portion of his plan, then we are going to have skyrocketing prices to be paid by taxpayers that will be there for a skyrocketing amount of students. Essentially, with taxpayer-funded college, you’re going to have an ever-increasing tax burden to be paid for by everyone as more people go to college. If price controls don’t exist, then that price is going to be increased many-fold and will be increasing at a rate faster than ever before. If price controls do exist, then the taxpayers will be paying for an education that will be sub-par. What my opponent is proposing is a lose-lose system. Why should a person be forced to pay for someone else’s kid to go to college? At the core of my opponent’s plan, taxpayers would pay for college. However, it would seem ridiculous to force a parent to pay for another parent’s child to go to college, or to force someone who doesn’t even have kids to pay for that cost. This is also fundamentally unfair to parents who have already paid for their kid's college, and who now need to pay again, for, as I've shown, little to no clear benefit. So why should a person be forced to pay for someone else’s kid? This is not a rhetorical question; I expect an answer from my opponent. If he can’t adequately answer it, then he loses the debate. If he can, then he still needs to refute all of my other points, or I win. And now to take these points together What my opponent is proposing is a system where the taxpayer provides for college education to increase accessibility. However, what we see is that this would increase accessibility to the point where the college degree would be hugely devalued in the job market, thus making it so students would need to go to graduate school to get the high earning job formerly promised by a college degree (which repeats the problem of accessibility and price that my opponent is trying to solve for in the first place), which would make it take even longer for people to become productive members of our economy and would come at a huge cost to the taxpayer, which is everyone. Controls on how much colleges spend would inevitably decrease the quality of the post-secondary education (while still increasing price to taxpayers as people flood the system) and to not control the spending would mean an even higher rate of tax increases to the people of our country. And this would all be paid for by people who really shouldn’t have to be paying for it. So now to refute my opponent’s points. High costs can be negated by heightening corporate taxes These heightened corporate taxes would just be indirectly taxing the people. This is because, when a corporation expects to earn X dollars per year, and their taxes are increased, they just raise the prices of their goods and services so they still earn X dollars per year. The same people who are paying taxes are paying these costs, so heightening corporate taxes creates zero solvency. “As the wages of those who take advantage of this goes up, society as a whole also will make more money- Leading to everyone eventually benefiting.” This is making a pretty big assumption that wages would go up. Everybody has more of their income taken away trying to pay for college through taxes, and additionally, the college degree would be devalued, as I have shown above. The value of a college degree is relative to how scarce it is in the market, and when most people have college degrees, that value goes away. “Over about a ten year period, the cost to invest will go down and the country will still continue to show improvements in wages and lower poverty rates.” This is a huge claim, and my opponent has not provided any evidence to support this, logical or empirical. Until he has provided evidence, I ask that the judges not take this bare assertion into account. But even so, we have no reason to buy that point based on the fact that the college education would be devalued in the market. Conclusion So to conclude this round, the judges have no reason to vote for Pro. The positive impacts of his case are based on the assumption that a college education would increase the value of the students in the job market, which is simply false given the fact that the value of the degree would go away. So this means that he would be pointlessly and drastically increasing taxes for no clear or evidence supported benefit. In my case, I have shown that publicly provided college/post-secondary education would exacerbate the problems we have with education drastically, by increasing costs, decreasing quality, decreasing the education’s value, and forcing the payment on people who shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s kid. Thank you for reading, I urge a vote for my side. Sources: 1. http://www.reviewjournal.com...

Title: is school truly needed Content: I'm just going to make a couple opening statements: 1) My opponent clearly hasn't been paying enough attention during school to know whether it will benefit him for the future or not. This debate could very possibly have anywhere between 100 and 10,000 spelling and grammar mistakes all on my opponent's side. 2) The reason education is needed is for preparation for college, which is the best way to guarantee yourself a job. People with a bachelor degree at least find it easier to find a job, and they earn more money. People who took classes that would teach them things beneficial to their future field of practice. I'll break out the Jonbonbon's Encyclopedia of Education 2nd Edition next round for some supporting evidence of my opening statements.

Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: I am arguing that the costs of a college education do outweigh the benefits.

Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: My refutations:Monetary BenefitsMy opponent comes up with a number similar to that cited by collegeboard, of roughly 1 million more dollars being earned by those holding bachelors degrees, as opposed to those holding high school diplomas. However, my opponent's calculations fail to take a variety of other factors into account. The letter from Charles Miller, cited in my "Benefits" section, shows one of the issues: "The report assumes a student will finish college in four years. Actually, the typical time to graduation is closer to six years in higher education today. The addition of two extra years of college costs and two less years of earnings makes a significant difference. " My opponent also fails to take into account the fact that tuition is financed by student loans, which are difficult to pay off. As I already mentioned, the average college graduate will be unable to pay off their debt until age 33. Given my opponent's estimates, this age should be 23.5 years, or after 1 and a half years of earnings. My opponent's number for the yearly cost of college also should not be considered, as he only included the price of public institutions. According to the fact sheet that he cites, the yearly cost of all four year institutions is $20,986. The income data which is cited by my opponent is also from the 2000 census, which is far too outdated. To repeat the quote used in my "benefits" section: "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years. .. calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. "At the end of this round, I will be showing another major issue with my opponent's case in general which works to farther refute this monetary point. Social BenefitsThe majority of societal benefits cited by my opponent are not gained solely through a college education. An individual must learn to live on their own even if they don't go to college. Other benefits which my opponent brings up, mostly social skills, aren't as beneficial as one might think. Students already go through 12 years of school to gain social skills. The additional four years, while it may be beneficial, are by no means required. Rather, students should be putting their social skills to the test in the real world. Simply put, real world experiences outweigh college experiences. My opponent also briefly mentions "job connections. " In this case, the 4-6 years of employment and job experience gives far better job connections than the college experience. The overall impact of this point is very small, and can be easily countered by weighing it against the arguments I brought up. Opportunities My opponent is attempting to decrease the impact of my risk point. "Fear of failing" is not an adequate phrase. The fear is of 54% chance to drop out, and to not gain any of the benefits from a college degree. The high default risk, almost 20%, is far too large of a risk for the average student to take. I'd also like to state that student loan debt cannot be forgiven through bankruptcy. Defaulting on such debt is virtually a guarantee to have your wages garnished, to suffer an incredibly large drop in your credit, to have tax returns offset, and to be ineligible for future federal employment. My opponent also asks if "the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? " The reason why the value of a college education is dropping, largely in respect to employment opportunities, is because more and more individuals are graduating college, while job growth simply cannot keep up. This does not decrease the value of not going to college. My opponent then brings up job sector growth. There is a large issue with the statistic my opponent brings up: It is focused on percentage increases. Meaning an industry which goes from 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be said to have higher growth than an industry which goes from 5 million to 9 million. The study which I cited in round one focuses on the actual number of jobs created. Among the top 10 growing jobs, only one requires a bachelors degree, and among the top 20, only 4 do. Problem With Pro-College StudiesThis section is aimed at employment and income prospects. Any study which brings up the benefits of a college education must show that these benefits can be obtained by recent graduates. For this reason, the quote "individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor’s degrees" cannot be considered because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago, when the benefits of a college education were much larger. College graduates were hit especially hard by the recession: the previous unemployment rate of 5.8% has nearly doubled to 9.2%. "That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. "The same goes for future earnings. Studies cannot include individuals who have already held a college degree for 20+ years, and already achieved a large income. This is due to the fact that the rising costs prevent current graduates from reaching such future earnings. Effectively, recent graduates are no longer able to obtain the employment and income benefits that past graduates have. Therefore, studies which show the benefits achieved by past graduates do not show that recent college graduates will obtain such benefits. Causation Versus CorrelationWhile this may be a generic argument, it is important to consider in this round. What's important to note is that college's tend to enroll students who are already geared toward success. Students who graduate with high gpas will, more often than not, continue in to college. However, as high school gpa is also correlated to future earnings, this skews statistics which report on the earnings of college graduates. This rebuttal can be summed up as follows: Any student which meets the requirements to go to college will, on average, earn more than the average high-school diploma holder, regardless of whether or not they attend college. This does not completely negate con's future earnings statistics. It is true that college graduates will have higher incomes. However, one must always keep in mind that, due to what I described above, the numbers will always be a couple thousand dollars lower than what is cited. The Overall Chance of Any BenefitsThis relates to my rebuttal against "opportunities," yet is large enough to deserve its own section. The overall chance of achieving these benefits is very low. The 54% drop out rate means that one is more likely to not receive any of these benefits, and instead be faced with massive student loan debt. The 20% default rate means that even if one does manage to beat the odds and graduate they will not receive any of the benefits. Instead, they will receive massive wage garnishments and federal benefits being offset. Even if one can somehow manage to graduate and not default on their student loan debt, they will more likely than not be put into a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Thus, even if my opponent manages to prove that the monetary benefits of college outweigh the monetary costs, voters must keep in mind that its extremely unlikely any college graduate will actually achieve these benefits. ConclusionCollege graduates only earn $279,000 more over the course of their lifetime, not $890,000. A college graduate is unlikely to actually obtain such lifetime earnings. There are very few social benefits of going to college. The large risks taken to obtain a college degree vastly outweigh the potential benefits. College graduates do not have a lower unemployment rate. Job potential for high school graduates is increasing.

Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: 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...

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: College does make success in life more easily achievable. 1.) College makes financial success easier to obtain. Students that graduate from college have tremendously larger average lifetime salaries than students that do not attend or graduate college. You can more than double your income though attending college, and college graduates are more likely to obtain jobs with better benefits, saving them tremendous amounts of money over a life time. College graduates also have more job security and a lower rate of unemployment.2.) College allows you to experience new things, and expands your point of view, allowing for a life that is based off of more experiences, and is open to many more perspectives. Going to college allows you to have experiences you would not have otherwise, which allows you to feel more fulfilled in life. Self-fulfillment is a large part of success as it leads to happiness in life.3.) College opens doors and allows you more choice in your future. By obtaining a better education, you also have the opportunity to explore different fields of study and work that you would not be able to explore without a college education. The choice of what path to take in life is a form of success because it makes it easier to be an autonomous individual.College allows oneself to be more successful in life financially, though self-fulfillment, and through allowing more autonomy and opportunity for happiness.Sources:http://www.finaid.org...I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.

Title: Better to wait to see if MBA is necessary. Content: While many people advocate for getting higher education sooner rather than later, this is not necessary. It is better to wait to see if the degree proves necessary. If it does, go get it. If not, then you are better off not having the debt.

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponent states 2 main points that: 1. American citizens can't afford a college education. 2. It doesn't guarantee a good job. However, I believe that college should be required as: 1. Universities offer better returns if you invest. 2. The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. 1. Caroline Hoxby, a Stanford (and formerly Harvard) economist who specializes in educational issues, states that "the value of the education has actually been increasing faster than the tuition. She calculates that at the most selective colleges, the amount spent on each student has grown at an average annual rate of 13% from 1967 to 2007, reaching about $92,000. Over the same period, tuition at the selective schools grew at an average annual rate of 6%. The difference is made up by increasing charitable contributions from alumni and others. The investment, says Ms. Hoxby, is well worth the money spent. Even accounting for charitable contributions, she notes, studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't. The studies suggest that the return on investment in education at a selective school is similar to the long-term return on stocks. "Since the mid-1990s, the average (inflation-adjusted) wages of college graduates have skyrocketed, increasing by 18 percent" as of 2004, a recent study found. In contrast, wages of high school dropouts rose at about half that rate -- 10 percent -- over the same period. The Census Bureau in 2004 calculated that the average college graduate earns $27,800 more per year, adjusted for inflation, than the average high school graduate. That adds up to more than $1 million over a lifetime As you can see, and have probably already heard, a college education does lead to better wages for the majority of people who attend and graduate, therefore college does in fact offer better returns. 2. The number of scholarships are increasing, and community colleges are always an option. The University of Minnesota Scholarship Drive seeks to increase by 2,250 the number of students who are helped through privately funded scholarships. The goal is to raise $150 million, making it the largest scholarship fund raising effort ever undertaken by the university. Currently, 4,500 students receive scholarships funded through private gifts to the university. Indiana State University has increased the number of Presidents Scholarships to 20 for 2009-10, up from 15 in previous years, and has created a new University Honors Scholarship that will be awarded to 80 incoming freshmen. The Presidents Scholarships award is the most prestigious award at the Indiana State University, and increasing it to 20 is a massive amount, as it provides students with $15,000 dollars a year. The University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg will be offering approximately 75 more scholarships to incoming freshmen this fall as part of an effort to help students in tough economic times and maintain enrollment totals. Community college costs just a fraction of the total price tag for public or private four-year residential colleges. If you're short on cash and don't have the test scores to win a merit scholarship, community college can save you thousands. But don't make your decision based entirely on money -- many four-year colleges offer excellent financial aid for those with serious need. . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://www.nasfaa.org... . http://www.giving.umn.edu... . http://www.pittsburghlive.com... . http://collegeapps.about.com...

Title: The High Tuition Rates of Universities in the United States are Unjustifiable Content: Value is subjective. I might think a Starbucks peppermint mocha latte is worth $5, and my opponent might not. To me, the cost might be justified; my opponent might think differently - it depends on our values and what utility we think the product provides either to us as individuals, or to the community/globe as part of a larger transaction. In this debate, I will explain why the tuition rate of college is on the rise, and why that's justifiable to people (in general). First, let's take a look at supply and demand. I think we all know that if something is in high supply and low demand, the cost will be lower, and if something is in low supply but high demand, the cost will be higher. Henry suggests we look at the tuition hike between 1980 and now. In 1980, only 17% of the American population over 25 had earned a degree [2]. Today, 40% of people 25-34 (not including people over 34!) have earned a degree [3]. That's more than double, and doesn't even count a significant portion of the population. Moreover, postbaccalaureate enrollment has risen about 80% between 1985 and now [4]. With such a growing demand and a supply that is simply not on pace, price hikes can be expected. Next, we should consider why so many more people are seeking a degree than in the past. In addition to a shift in the job market, we also need to acknowledge that politicians (and society) have encouraged this notion that everyone deserves and should have access to a college education. The government has made it significantly easier for people to obtain loans and other funding for college, private, federal or otherwise. As such, colleges know they can increase the cost of tuition and not have to worry about inhibiting demand. Even if people can't afford to pay for it, they know the government will assist them either directly (FAFSA, loans, etc.) or via legislation that makes it easier to obtain loans from private banks. If everyone had to figure out a way to pay for college themselves, tuition would go down to facilitate competition and remain a lucrative investment for students. On that note, my opponent suggests that attending college is about accessing the "database" of knowledge regarding the accomplishments of the human race. I beg to differ. Everyone has different aspirations and goals for their college experience, but overall attendance is about an investment in your career. Learning is super awesome, but in an age of information, ignorance is a choice and we do not need to attend a 4 year higher learning institution in order to expand our knowledge. I've learned more from engaging on this website than I have in my 4 years in college. We have access to the internet, books, and an institutionalized education at least until grade 12. Some people don't learn anything in college at all. What college provides (and one reason why the cost is so high) is a piece of paper upon completion of a certain amount of time/credits that demonstrates you have successfully finished a curriculum that some employers feel make you more qualified to hold certain positions. If I want to be a doctor, does it matter that I cannot recite Shakespearean sonnets? No, even though knowing those sonnets might make me more cultured and well-read. I can learn those sonnets on my own. What people want to know is that if I intend on being a doctor, that I was trained in a particular area of study and demonstrated a certain level of competence in a particular field. That's essentially the purpose of college, technically speaking (and the life lessons, bong rips, chugging funnels, etc. is just a bonus). Another thing to note is that like employers, colleges are now competing for talent. Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education notes, "Now we're competing in a global economy, so if you want to get the best scientists, the best engineers, you're literally competing with universities and employers from around the globe." Professors are not always people in Education, but experienced professionals who lend their expertise to universities... for a price. Depending on the skill and value of their staff, universities have to compensate their educators accordingly. It's about which school will offer the best teachers the most lucrative monetary incentives, and students will have to pay for that. I'd also like to point out that tuition is not by any means limited to covering the expense of attending class. For one thing, most colleges provide health insurance plans to their students - and we all know how expensive health insurance can be. They also provide counseling services, tutoring services, career opportunity services, advisers of all kinds (academic and otherwise) and more. In addition, colleges now compete by bragging about their state-of-the-art recreational facilities and other amenities, such as innumerable WiFi hot spots, access to computer labs and all of the technology within (not to mention the employees who help run those labs and make repairs), gourmet food and dining services, and more! Colleges also pay for landscaping, have massive bills for electricity, water and other necessities, janitorial services, and basically a massive staff. As the size and population of colleges increase, so do the number of people that have to be employed to accommodate that growth. Colleges keep expanding. It's imperative to take into account while we consider paying for all of these goods and services that we cannot compare dollar for dollar the cost of tuition in the past vs. the cost today. In addition to the factors I have already mentioned, inflation is a given. A few closing points... For high-knowledge careers that require an extensive education (doctors, lawyers, businessmen, scientists, etc.), it makes sense to invest in college. The return they will get in salary will make it favorable on a cost-benefit analysis compared with not attending college and choosing a low-skill job instead, which won't pay as much. Therefore, for many people the cost of college is justified. Postsecondary education opens the door to higher-paying jobs that are not available to people with fewer skills [5]. Finally, perhaps the tuition hike is not as mind boggling as my opponent implies. Even as sticker prices climb, student aid has gone up dramatically. For students in private schools, the aid increases just about cancel out tuition increases of the past five years [6]. We also need to consider that people's income has also increased (as a whole) since the 1980s, going back to the inflation point. The most important factor to note here is that despite what I think or my opponent thinks, it's what overall consumers (attendees) think about the cost of tuition. Apparently with all factors considered: the return on investment, the luxuries and amenities, the value of a collegiate education and the college experience in general make the tuition cost worthwhile. As such, it is justified. To re-cap... 1. College is in high demand while the supply remains limited 2. Government backs access to college, so tuition hikes don't inhibit demand 3. Universities have to compete for talent to make their college more reputable 4. The cost of amenities and other services is high; tuition covers more than your time in class 5. Inflation dramatizes the cost 6. The return on investment for attending college still makes it a worthwhile endeavor for many [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://education.stateuniversity.com... [3] http://finance.yahoo.com... [4] http://nces.ed.gov... [5] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.npr.org...

Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: University education is an investment.

Title: Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. Content: The main purpose for education is to gain knowledge so as to be able to get a better job. The cost of a four year college will cost any were from 3,000 to 33,000 per semester. There are very few people who could afford this kind of money for fun, or to be better human beings. People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people. Now I pose the question to you and the voters. If you could not get a better job by going to college would you pay to go? http://www.collegeboards.com...

Title: University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical Content: ++++++++ Refutations ++++++++ "We live in a very 'status' society where a university degree is considered 'top of the line' and a college diploma is considered 'a step down. '" [Not according to my first contention which states that colleges and universities are only different in name. My opponent has dome nothing to address this point and it therefore stands. A college degree is a college degree and the prestige is not garnered from going to a university. The prestige is garnered from going to an institute of higher education that has a well known name. This could be one with the title university or any other synonymous title. ] ~~~ "Furthermore, she asserts that university bound students don't necessarily even need to go to university because without a four year degree they would still make the same amount of money and be as successful because they have already developed a strong work ethic and other related traits. " [I watched the video provided in your link and it does not address going to a university. It argues that you do necessarily need a college education to do well. This goes against your original arguments and is in fact evidence that supports my position. This debate is not whether a college education is useful, it is about whether or not colleges are more useful than universities. ] ~~~ In conclusion my opponent has neglected to defend himself against my rebuttals and even contradicted himself on at least two occasions. I stick to my original contention that a university is different than a college in name only and this point has not been refuted.

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: I cannot deny that four-year college educations do provide higher paying jobs compared to a person with only an associate's degree, but even though the person may make more money it all depends. It depends on the major the person took, it depends on the amount of debt they will be in, it depends on the college they went too, it depends if there are even jobs available for them after graduation. I say this because yes, all college education does cost money, but some a lot more than others and it is because of this cost and rate of recent unemployment for certain jobs why perhaps the four-year education is currently not worth all its time and effort. While there are grants and scholarships for full time four-year college students to apply for to aid in their debt, that is if they take the time and effort to do so, many cannot forget that even after graduation and debt there also may lie unemployment and underemployment. Seeing in the online website article," The Economic Policy Institute", last updated in April 21, 2016, that, "For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 12.6 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007)". Despite how low these rates may be now it cannot be ignored how dramatically the percentage changed from 2007 to 2016 in the underemployment rates and shows that in the due future these rates will only become increase. Through this percent of people who face underemployment and how it will begin to grow over time it can be seen that many people will have their four-year degree but most will never work to their educations actual potential. Lacking in that higher paying job they so longed for and then for those who had not applied for grants and scholarships finding themselves stuck in debt that they cannot escape due to their underemployed job. It is not common, but there are associate's degrees that allow a pay just as high as any bachelor's degree may provide. It is with these certain opportunities that people may take through a shorter college life that they will end up with not only a much smaller debt but also a well paid trade and working job that are currently in the need and are not facing unemployment or underemployment.

Title: University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical Content: I will attempt to refute the resolution that compared to college, universities aren't useful. ----------- Refutations ----------- ". .. college teaches you how to screw in a light bulb, while university teaches you the history of one. " [This analogy is very broad and for the most part incorrect. What you learn at a college or university depends not on that institution but what any specific person is studying at that institution. For instance, if I wanted to get a degree in auto mechanics that was offered at a university would you argue that this degree would teach me nothing about repairing cars and would only teach me about the history of automobiles? ] ~~~ "University isn't practical, its theoretical. It doesn't set you up with a career, it sets you up with a hobby. I think the ideal university student is that of a person 50+ because one can develop a new interest or fascination that they can than gain self-satisfaction, where in earlier life, they really couldn't. " [Harvard University is one of, if not the, best law school in the United States. Getting a degree in law from here virtually guarantees that you will be sought after for employment by numerous law firms. Also, the idea that a younger person can not gain self satisfaction through a university is absurd. ] ~~~ "With early life, a nineteen year old university student is worried about everything but gaining self- satisfaction. They are worried about passing the upcoming test, remembering the study group on Tuesday and buying beer on Friday. " [I ask my opponent to explain his view that passing a test would not make a person satisfied with themselves. Studying is merely a means used to gain that satisfaction. I also ask my opponent to explain his view that buying beer for a party is a worrisome activity. ] ~~~ My Contention: University is a title used to describe an institute of higher education and is synonymous with the words College, Institute (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Academy (United States Military Academy), Union (Cooper Union), Conservatory (New England Conservatory), and School (Juilliard School). All of the above institutions are considered colleges and simply because a place has a different title does not mean it offers a dissimilar educational experience. As an example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a great place to get a degree in engineering, but so is the University of Michigan [1]. A title only changes how one refers to a thing in this instance, not the style of teaching. Sources: [1] . http://www.graduateshotline.com...

Title: Ending Education Subsidies Content: First off, any books cited by Pro cannot be taken seriously. I don't have the books available and without an online reference, that can be checked by the voters, voter are not to consider Pro's books a reliable source. Every source that Pro cites, I am contesting as invalid. Therefore, voters please only consider Pro's sources valid if you have personally gone to the library and verified Pro's sources.CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successPro concedes that college is required for success. He says that it should not. He argues for an ideal scenario rather than the actual one. The essence of the debate is the Pro is saying that the government should end subsidies in education. He has the burden of proof to show why. How does he show this? By saying that college should not result in higher incomes. It doesn't matter if Pro thinks that. It is not true. He admits that it is not true. Ending educational subsidies will not make it so. I am not arguing about whether college should or should not result in higher incomes but rather that it does.C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsCollege, which my opponent admits is a path to success and higher income cannot be afforded by the majority of students. My opponent concedes this point as well.C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needPro does not address this contention. A dropped contention in a debate is considered to be conceded. Conclusion: Education should be subsidized.With all the premises true, the conclusion holds true as well.Summary of my casePro has conceded my entire case. The rebuttal that he provides merely voices his opinion that college should not lead to higher income and a successful career which is not the case. Pro's only standing argument now is that there should be less college education because it costs a lot and doesn't increase productivity. I agree that it costs a lot but argue that college is in fact beneficial. This is the reason I am defending subsidies. So, now the only point of disagreement is whether college is beneficial. If I can prove that it is, then I win the debate since my opponent has agreed with every other point that I made. My rebuttal to Pro's case below will prove this point.PRO'S CASER1) Human CapitalI must admit that Pro had an unorthodox way of arguing the resolution. His main argument for why education should not be subsidized is that education is not beneficial at all. So, let's get to the arguments that Pro makes in order to back up his claim.Pro's main argument seems to be that there is no transfer of skills, i.e. Calculus won't help you in a job that has nothing to do with Calculus. However, if your job does involve Calculus, then it will help you in your job. That part is fairly straightforward. Pro's entire argument on this point comes down to the point that college students should not take breadth courses since it doesn't "teach them how to think" and they won't use those skills in their job. I don't claim that a sociology major taking classes in Algebra "teaches them how to think." It merely provides them with knowledge of Algebra so that after graduation, the college students ends up well-rounded and knowledgeable in a wide variety of fields. In the future, if their job requires Algebra, they would be able to perform it. If they want to change careers or decide after graduation to persue a career that does require a fundamental knowledge of Math, it benefits them that way too. This is the reason why schools and to some extent colleges have basic requirements for graduation which often involve taking breadth classes. Pro is essentially arguing for vocational education which is not beneficial precisely because of the points I mentioned above: lack of options if you change your mind.Pro's next argument here is that classes that aren't exactly the same as your job are useless to your job. To back this up, he cites a study where students were made to do word problems. When the word was changed, Pro claims there was no evidence of transfer. This is completely unrelated to college classes. Classes are intended to provide knowledge of the subject matter, not specific transferable skills. This knowledge is used on the job. For example, someone who wants to be a Sociologist or psychologist must learn how to interact with people and understand human nature. This makes them more knowledgeable about the subject and better able to use this knowledge on the job. They don't need to do exact problems that they are doing on the job but need to learn the general content.Here is another example. If a student wants to be a web designer, they need to learn how to write HTML. They can learn this in college. After they graduate, the pages they might have to design may not be the exact same pages that they did for homework in college. However, without a fundamental understanding of HTML, they can't design web pages. Pro's source is absolutely irrelevant and have flawed methodology. I read the link he provided in round 1 (Detterman). In page 2, the author gives examples of how skills are not transferred. Essentially, the people conducting the study taught a mentally retarded women to give the correct amount of change to a cashier when she bought something. They then made her try it in the real world where she failed. From there they jumped to the conclusion that skills are not transferable.R2) SignallingPro's first paragraph argues that college students are smarter than high school students. I argued that college students are smarter and harder working because they go to college so obviously, we agree that college students are smarter and harder working, the question is why.In his second paragraph, Pro argues that this is not the case since general transfer of learning doesn't exist. However, all Pro has argued for so far was an isolated word problem which did not affect how students responded to different word problems. My argument is that college makes students more knowledgeable (has nothing to do with Pro's study) and it helps them meet deadlines and promotes hard work. Pro would have students working right away but if a job requires a degree in Sociology, how will the students get the required knowledge that is gained by a degree in Sociology?R3) Useful Education Pro says that for degrees like Sociology, investing money in it is not worth the cost. However, as I pointed out, the ideal scenario is that everyone goes to college. The government should be encouraging this. The way to do that is by offering subsidies.Comments on Voting:I usually don't make comments on voting but in this case, it is imperative that I make these comments while Pro still has the chance to respond to them.Conduct: If Pro wanted to argue that skills are not transferable, he should have made a resolution as such. I may or may not have accepted. However, he makes a resolution that educational subsidies should end. This while technically correct wastes his opponent's time debating something that may not be what they intended to debate. My intention for instance was to debate the benefits of subsidies, not argue about transferability of skills. However, I did take the time to argue it and negated Pro's arguments while providing better ones. Sources: Pro cites books. So, the reader is left wondering which page the studies are mentioned. The fact that Pro cited books should be enough to penalize him for sources since books cannot be verified. Only one of the claims he made is backed up by a study that can be accessed online.

Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: BenefitsAs the majority of this debate will come down to weighing costs versus benefits, we first must know the benefits of a college education. "Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years, and excluding those graduates with advanced degrees, calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. " (. http://www.insidehighered.com...) (his actual report can be downloaded here: . http://chronicle.com...)Monetary Costs"This year, according to the College Board, average published in-state tuition and fee plus room/board charges exceed $17,000 at four-year public institutions. " (. http://www.cnn.com...) At four year private institutions, this number is roughly $11,500 annually. (in the Charles Miller report). Students are forced finance these costs with large loans, resulting in a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars by graduation. "Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The effect of this debt goes far beyond decreasing the lifetime earnings of a college graduate. Collegeboard now reports that the average age by which student loan debt is paid back stands at 33. (. http://www.soundmindinvesting.com...). This greatly limits what can be done by graduates within the first 11 years of their working life. "College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, “running back home. ” That hurts us all. " (. http://chronicle.com...) Opportunity CostTo show that opportunity cost outweighs the monetary benefits of a college education, one must show that there is a better way to spend the money which can not be achieved by going to college. This can be done fairly easily with investing potential. Using the average savings rates, cost of college tuition, student loan interest rates, and investment returns, an individual who invests their college fund instead of spending it will earn $1.3 million by the age of 65. A typical four year college graduate "will have less than a third of that. " (. http://www.nypost.com...) There are other, similar methods of investment, all of which will result in more money than a college education. Another form of opportunity cost is the 4-6 years of lost job experience while attending college. With more and more job opportunities opening for those without college degrees, the 4-6 years of additional training and chances for promotion may very well outweigh the $279,893 monetary benefit of college. This job experience can also be gained while investing in the previous scenario. Shrinking Benefits of a College EducationRecent graduates, which excludes graduates over the age of 25 who where able to find a job before the economic downturn, now have roughly the same unemployment rate as non-degree holders. "Over the past year, for example, the unemployment rate for college grads under age 25 has averaged 9.2 percent, up from 8.8 percent a year earlier and 5.8 percent in the first year of the recession that began in December 2007. That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. It also suggests that many employed recent grads may be doing work that doesn’t require a college degree. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The majority of college graduates that do find a job are often underemployed, working as waiters food-service helpers. "More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend. .. According to the Census, the number of Americans under the age of 25 with at least a bachelor's degree has grown 38 percent since 2000. Not nearly enough jobs have been created to accommodate them, which has resulted in falling wages for young college graduates in the past decade, as well as the employment problems we're now seeing. " (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With food preparation and service receiving the largest job growth between 2000 and 2010, the job opportunities for non-degree holders are only increasing. In fact, "among the top 10 with respect to actual job growth, 3 will require a postsecondary degree and only 1 will require a BA. " (. http://www.educationalpolicy.org...) The Risks of Attending CollegeThe risk one takes while attaining their college degree is the most important cost to be considered in this debate. These two risks, defaulting on student loan debt and dropping out, go hand in hand. In the United States, only 46% of all students who started college managed to complete it. "The "Pathways to Prosperity" study by the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2011 shows that just 56 percent of college students complete four-year degrees within six years. " (. http://www.reuters.com...) College dropouts are forced to pay back their debt, but without the benefits of receiving a college degree. Dropouts gain a very minimal increase in wages, and spend years of their lives with nothing to show for it except debt. Default rates are also abysmally high. 19.2% of "borrowers who graduated with a certificate from a for-profit, less-than-four-year institution" defaulted on their student loans. (. http://www.educationsector.org...) "A recent study by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found that for every borrower who defaults, at least two more fall behind in payments. The study found that only 37 percent of borrowers who started repaying their student loans in 2005 were able to pay them back fully and on time. " (. http://www.nytimes.com...) Student debt overall has now reached over $1 trillion, more than credit card debt. (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With student loans unable to be forgiven through bankruptcy, and with defaulting resulting in tax refunds being offset and wages being garnished, a college education is a high-risk, low-benefit investment.

Title: encourage fewer people to go to university Content: University education gives people something to aim for

Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: Higher education is required for all but the most basic of jobs (Contention 4)You're probably wondering why I'm trying to make this point. Obviously college benefits the individual even more if it's required to get a halfway-decent job, right? That's exactly the point. But what happens to the rest of the population without a degree? They're left behind to "feed off the table scraps".In the book Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, Anthony T. Kronman, a professor of law at Yale Law School, said: "All but the most unskilled forms of labor are increasingly based on knowledge of a kind that can be acquired only in school, and in supplying that knowledge America's colleges and universities provide a tremendous service to the individuals who come to them to learn a trade of profession"[1]. There is no denying the benefit to the individual when he or she receives a college education, but those who do not are limited to all but the most basic of jobs. In defense of my contentionsContention 1) College does not benefit the majorityMy opponent states that the people who do not attend college should not factor into this debate because the resolution doesn't apply to them. This was true, until I brought up my fourth contention. Now, those who do not go to college must be included in this debate as a group of individuals who are suffering the consequences of not going to college. If we are forced to include the individuals who do not attend college, we are now left with a resulting 62.6% of high school graduates who have not benefited - but have actually been impacted negatively - by a college education.Contention 2) College contributes to the already growing income gapGiven my response to my opponent's objection to my first Contention, my opponent's response to my second is also void. Yes, college graduates make more money, and their income has been proven to increase over time compared to the income of blue-collar workers. This is exactly what my point was trying to get across. If the wages of higher educated jobs are increasing faster than the wages of lower education jobs, then that is an income gap that is increasing.Contention 3) College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care systemMy opponent seemed to misunderstand this contention. Yes, it's true that med-school students have to pay more than regular college students, and yes, they are part of the minority. But I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that health care prices in the United States are so high BECAUSE med school students have to pay so much towards their educations. It takes an average of 11 years to fully pay off the debt that one acquires through med school, and it is for this reason that the costs of health care in the United States is so high. And seeing as the cost of health care affects everyone, this is an obvious detriment for the majority of the U.S populace.Responding to my opponent's contention:College students make more moneyI agree. The arguments in my fourth contention apply here as well. What about the students that do not attend college? What about the students that can not attend college? It's simple, they are forced to make less than their higher-educated counterparts. So again, I acknowledge the benefits to the individual, but that is insignificant compared to the detriments to the majority.I urge an affirmative vote.Citations:1. http://books.google.com...

Title: Community college should be the first college people attend Content: There are many reasons why people choose to go to a University first, rather than a Community College. Rebuttal: "By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree." Yes, the financial cost is remarkably lower. But, a vast majority of Community Colleges only offer a 2 year degree program. That is only worth an Associates Degree. With this being said, if you wanted to work harder towards a Bachelor's degree, you'd have to move to a University, or find a four year Community College to transfer to. Even then, that is IF the class is transferable. It's not necessarily less money either. When transferring into a University, most colleges charge full price for every class you still needed to take. Therefore, you're getting a somewhat better deal, but not much. If you're going to live on campus, that's even more. It's better in cases of class size, but the education value is much better at a University. Resources: 1. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org... 2. http://www.collegeconfidential.com... 3. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: Hi. My name is Dillon and education has always been an important thing for me. With our downfalling economy, I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available, therefore stimulating the economy for us. With more and more people getting better jobs, a larger amount of money the will have to pay for Social Security, which would possibly help decrease the deficit the U.S. economy is in right now. Also, a college education would allow for more innovative technologies to be developed in the future, as well as a generally smarter public, which is always beneficial. I am sorry I do not have any sources cited, but it is 10:15 P:M where I live and I still have work to do. Also, not many sources are available, as this debate isn't exactly the largest thing to be arguing about.

Title: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased Content: A degree will become more valuable.

Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: Before I begin addressing the contentions, I’d like to point out some issues associated with the way my opponent has set up this debate. First of all, because my opponent has not set any specifications for the term “college”, I’m going to assume that he’s referring to post secondary education in the United States. Additionally, we must also place a distinction between the inherent and extrinsic costs of college. For example, we can still have colleges without student loans; it is simply the government’s choice whether or not to distribute them. Ergo, student loans are not an inherent cost of a college education; they are simply extrinsic costs that should not be associated with the “cost” of maintaining a college, making my opponent’s second contention a moot point. We must also draw a distinction between private and public colleges, as they are funded differently and receive different kinds of subsidies, which I will address in the contentions. ===THE CASE=== Do individuals benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent’s case hinges on the belief that college education does not necessarily lead to a career or a decent salary. To prove his point, he posts a bunch of unsourced statistics: “College graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn’t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education”. The first problem with this argument is that the statistics he uses to back it up are biased and inconclusive. Obviously some majors are more likely to yield careers than other majors. To put this skewed statistic in perspective, only 4.2% of university graduates are unemployed six months after graduating if we account all majors [1]. Additionally, whether the job they land requires a college education is irrelevant, because a college degree is still an important credential which helps secure employment (even if I were looking for a cashier, I’d rather higher a cashier with a diploma than one without). The second problem with this argument is that it needs some relative statistics to put the information presented in perspective. This relativity is essential because without it, we don’t know whether the high unemployment rates are the result of an inefficient college education or just a frail economy, and when we look at the employment rates for America as a whole, what we find is that high school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed when compared to college graduates. We can safely conclude that despite side proposition’s misleading statistics, college graduates do have a significantly higher employment rate because of their investment in a post secondary education. This idea of relativity brings me to my constructive argument. The fact is that when we tally up unemployment rates, the degree you major in, the number of years it takes to major and everything, what we find is that the individual with a bachelor’s degree earns, on average, almost 1 million dollars more than the individual with only a high school diploma [2]. I’d gladly invest $20,000 – $30,000 for a million dollar return. Monetarily speaking, from the individual standpoint, college is an efficient investment and much more beneficial than costly. Additionally, one must not forget the experience of college, which, to many students, is priceless. Skipping college would mean missing out on college means missing valuable education, networking, and social opportunities (such as college parties). So unlike what my opponent suggests, the average college graduate will most likely not “always be in debt”. What’s more likely is that you’ll go to college, have a great time, and land a career that’ll net you almost a million dollars more than your high school graduate neighbors. Because of the reasons that I have stated, college is clearly beneficial from an individual standpoint. Does the government/society benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent’s argument here is essentially just pointing out how the government has to subsidize colleges, and that the subsidies can go into other much needed investments. This argument falls because my opponent does not state how much money goes into the college subsidies (like saying there is a cost, without saying how much the cost is), and because college subsidies need to be broken down to the cost of college per se and extraneous costs. This needs to be broken down further into subsidies for private and public colleges. When subsidizing public colleges, the government needs to fund the entire cost of building and maintaining the college. I accept that this is a cost of a college education, but I’d just like to point out that the tuition costs of public colleges goes back to government coffers. When subsidizing private colleges, the government basically does three things. The first thing that the government does to subsidize private colleges is offer students financial aid. I have already explained why student loans should be dismissed, as they are not a direct cost of college. Even if my opponent can somehow prove that they are, the point about the inefficiency of providing student loans falls because government loans/subsidies per student have been falling due to increasing attendance rates, and tuition has still never been higher. The government also gives grants for research teams. However, these grants cannot fully be considered subsidies because we are essentially buying information, which is something we benefit from. Lastly, the government gives tax breaks to private colleges. If we disregard financial aid, private colleges are basically a self sustaining, mutually beneficial industry, that does not have a cost. Finally, I’d like to point out that post secondary education is often cited as the most powerful contributor to social mobility, something that society and individuals benefit from. ===CONCLUSION=== I was a little confused when constructing my arguments because of some of my opponent’s arguments. His last to arguments really seem to be about abolishing college subsidies and redirecting it to investments in things such as infrastructure, which I actually agree with. However, as I have explained, these are not inherent costs of a college education; they are simply inefficient ways that the government handles its money. My opponent seems to agree with me that the benefits of college per se outweighs it’s cost, and that it’s just the inefficient way the government approaches it that is the problem. Therefore, the resolution is negated because the benefits of a college education outweigh its cost; the only problem is the misappropriation of government funds. I thank the readers and hand the debate back to my opponent. ===SOURCES=== [1] . http://www.economist.com...[2] . http://www.lorainccc.edu...

Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: We are debating whether or not it makes economic sense to go to college, in other words whether or not college will create a net-income gain or a net-income loss. Arguments should be based in statistics and mathematics and not in strict opinion.

Title: Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US Content: The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted?

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Increasingly in the past couple years, people have seem to forgotten the immense value of a college education, more specifically a four year degree. However a four-year degree(full-time) is more valuable now than ever. In a time of unbelievable competition in the job market, something has to be done to separate the best from the average. A four year degree shows not only knowledge in a specific discipline but also shows that one had the commitment to get the degree over a period of time. In the choice between a person with a four year degree and a lesser education, the person in the four-year degree tends to win due to the credibility of crendtials and knowledge. A four year college degree also gives an immense amount of options, compared to a two year degree which allows trade specialization. A four year degree allows trade speicalization of a two year, but also a lot more options that the other may not have available. A lot of the best paying workers start with a four year degree. In a dynamic world having options is invaluable and if you want real options of four year degree is the way to go. A full time education/ a four year degree often causes debt but so does any college education, however schooling for any comfortable life style costs money. The existence of grants and scholarships help offset much of this cost. Studies show that a full time student make more money faster than a part time student. According to Erica Loop who published an article called, "What Benefits Are There for Being a Full-Time College Student Over a Part-Time Student?" states that "A full-time student is more likely to receive the full amount of the grant than a part-time student is". It is more common for people with 4 year degrees make substaneously more than those with a Associates so people with a higher education degree have more of a capability to pay it off. Also some student may be discourage by the amount of time in order to be successful and loose focus.

Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define ‘costs’ We would like to define ‘costs’ as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government’s money we’ll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today’s debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today’s debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don’t let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone’s life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, college graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn’t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education. That isn’t even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that "Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?" asked Van Horn. "While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority." This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates’ loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests.“It's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up” - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way.

Title: Going to college is worth Content: Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.

Title: A College Degree Is No Longer Enough Content: I would like to debate on whether or not having a college degree is enough to get a job in today's society. Please do not accept the debate if you do not mean to actually debate. Thank you.

Title: Should All Students go to college Content: Yes all students should go to college because everyone deserves to have a great education which will lead to many positive choices in life. A student will have a variety of good opportunities to choose from, instead of having to take a job just to have a paycheck.

Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: Thanks for a friendly, educated debate. It was my first, but won't be my last. I do agree there are some benefits of online college, in certain situations. If you can not afford traditional college, and can't get the scholarships and programs I mentioned above, then online college is a very viable option. I don't entirely agree with your last point. What kind of opportunities? If you mean being able to pick a particular major without having to go to a select choice of colleges, then yes, I agree. Online college does not offer the social opportunities and athletic opportunities traditional college can offer. Certain jobs will look to see how confident you are working alone and with others. Traditional college is a life experience, that will really shape the way you look at the world. Thanks for debate, voters please vote.

Title: Affordable education Content: As this is the final round the pro will be going over what still stands in this debate as well as weighing the impacts. First extend the pro case, the con concedes it and did nothing to refute it, the pro has shown that an affordable and accessible form of education is the best way to solve for the issues the con argues. This is important because we will be impacting the con arguments as advantages to the pro. Next, we look to the con arguments and see that the con has consistently taken the middle ground in this debate and has no real impacts coming from the con side. Finally, we will look to each argument from the past response and impact these for the pro side: 1. Because school is affordable the diploma is depreciated. The pro has already responded to how this is not the case. In the pro case we show that because we view education as a commodity and because we focus on optimizing productivity (or the value of a student in the pro case), we have a consistent frame of thought because of it. Go to college or you"ll do nothing with your life. The pro however takes this argument from the con and shows that if we shift away from the learner mentality and more to a study mentality we see the education itself, not just the diploma, gain back the value it once had. -Students are only there for a diploma. This falls back under the pro argument for the previous point. Students go for the diploma because that is what they are conditioned to do. Students even overlook diplomas in areas of work that they like for the more "productive" diplomas. The pro takes away this stigma and has students study what they want with no outside pressures. We create a true educational environment unlike the con. The more affordable and accessible the education system the better. 2. The con does not make education inaccessible, we want better quality. The con position in the debate about affordable education is that affordable education fails and should not be implemented the pro is the opposite, we want more affordable and accessible, thus by definition you make school less accessible. Even if you didn"t make school inaccessible by making it less affordable, the quality argument coming from the con is extremely biopolitical. The only way that the con sees bettering quality is by determining who is valuable enough to the larger body to get a higher education. This puts those who don"t meet the cons standards at a clear disadvantage in life. Because the con does nothing to remove the negative stigmas over other learning institutions as well as labor heavy jobs, we see those deemed not worthy fall into those categories and in turn live lives they didn"t particularly want. The pro however removes these stigmas and allows everyone to study what they want by shifting away from the status quo and to a new form of education that allows all to be truly equal in their educational endeavors. -If you study you will do well. This is exactly what the pro is arguing. Study is the purest form of education rather then the unaffordable version of the status quo the con presents. Instead on focusing for paying for an education and comparing who went where who learned what, we see that in the pro world students only care about pursuing knowledge because it"s affordable and accessible, all they must do is study. The con world we see that studying is deemed as only a step to true learning while the pro shows that studying is where you truly educate yourself, the example in the pro case being Agamben"s view on Bartleby. 3. We focus on to many other things than quality of education. The pro will concede that we do focus on reforms that ultimately fail but that only proves the pro case further. Otto Nuerath"s boat is the best example I can give when it comes to fixing the education system. Reforms only plug up the holes in the boat until land where we can rebuild, but this system never hits land so we can reconstruct, we just keep plugging up the holes. The pro studier society is how we reconstruct, we move away from the boat we had and we have built a new one of better quality, to fix the problems with the old. The only true bettering of quality is happening on the pro side. 4. Change is needed and the con is how we do it. The cons way of changing is to exclude those who are not deemed worthy by the con"s system. The pro takes the opposite approach we try to fix the system, we don"t exclude we include to have more voices and opinions on problems in the world. We ignore what others deem productive or valuable and we study what we deem important. Through the pro world we fix all the issues of quality and depreciation through not exclusion, but inclusion. Affordable and accessible education is the only way we will see each other prosper instead of deeming who is valuable and who is not by what they learn or what they want to learn. In this debate we saw that the con offered up arguments against the current system and that only through making school less affordable and deeming who is worthy of university learning will we see any quality change. The pro has shown that all these arguments on quality and depreciation will be changed for the better is we reject the system now and make it more affordable and accessible while avoiding the biopolitical tones of the pro case, inclusion is the best approach for education, studying without judgement and achieving our true impotential is how we fix what is wrong with this system.

Title: State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state Content: 1) Teaching IndependenceIm not denying that colleges dont teach independence, I was challenging your statement that "College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent" by arguing the main purpose of college is to teach people careers, not to be a 4 hour sleep-away camp...."It is an all-around experience that everyone should get to have."College isn't a ride at Disney, its a privilege! College is a decision that an individual makes to undergo 4 more years of school to specialize in a career of your choice. College is an investment and a commitment, its not a right that everyone deserves and should be given a free shot at. 2) In State Recruiting" I stated that only the tuition would be free"Um, Bullsh*t, This whole debate has been about free education, free college, no expenses, free free free.... "With all of these expenses put together, the schools would have enough funding to be run properly."A) Tuition still makes up the bulk of most college expenses so if you make that free then you still are putting a massive financial burden on schools, oh wait, on taxpayers...B) Cutting Tuition and nothing else would still prevent people from being able to apply to college since it wouldnt be "free" anymoreC) So the one thing you want to cut from colleges to help people afford an education........... Is the cost to finance the education........... Do you see how that might be a little counter productive?That being said, the massive number of primarily in-state recruiting among schools would place a massive burden on college's quality of bettering individuals. So under free college, or free tuition (whichever the Pro is going for now) both the taxpayers and the students would be taking a hit. 3) Students dont always make it. The Pro admits that many people would not be able to make it through college through separation anxiety, poor work ethic, bad grades, etc. but the Pro tries to show this isnt a problem is by saying that "For some people, yes college is too hard and they end up dropping out. And if this be the case, that person would pay the government the money that the tuition was for the time they spent at college"So college tuition would be completely free, but if they fail they have to PAY FOR IT? That would send families of unfortunate souls straight into debt they would never be able to get out of! Imagine if honest kids just couldnt make ends meet and now he had to live the rest of his life knowing he single handedly put his entire family into debt because of his mistakes..... "This would give the person a reason to keep their grades up and work hard" Its also a good reason to kill themselves or their whole families if they fail. Threatening to throw people under a guillotine doesnt guarantee performance, it sparks fear in them that they would have their whole lives in college. imagine if you knew that one bad grade could determine if your family gets to stay in the middle class or becomes part of a statistic for poverty level that you yourself caused....4) Education and the Economy The Pro keeps saying how if college is free it will give us an edge over China, and rather than tear into that argument Ill re-state my point that there are other ways we can improve education that does not involve forcing tax payers to spend an enormous amount of money on taxes on something that is a privilege, not a right. - 1 - Increasing funding into high schools, which are already paid for by taxpayers, would be a good start because the reason education is lagging isnt just from students not having a chance, Americans are flat out dumber than most other students, and so the problem of increasing brains may lie in high school, not college. - 2 - One of the biggest problems American education has is that it has to integrate more than other European or Asian school programs do. America has a hell of an immigration issue where people from all over the WORLD with different backgrounds and different native tongues have to be integrated into the school system. - 3 - We should be looking how to make education more effective and get a better result for the same cost instead of just through money at the problem like a buffoon...It could even cause problems in the system - 4 - Colleges might not strive to get better if now they only have to raise acceptance rates to get oodles of government/taxpayer funds - 5 - Tuition rates are always rising, and if the government is funding ALL of it, then tuition rates might keep increasing and it would affect taxpayers and the government debt alike, its not guaranteed that tuition rates would stay at a fixed rate, and if the government tried to make it that way there would be war between colleges and the government over funding, something that we simply could not afford, literally. - 6 - Lets face it, taxpayers would be PISSEDThere are healthier alternatives to raising education without recklessly pumping billions of dollars into the already flawed system, education should be made more effective not just bigger. 5) Unequal opportunityThe point of the example was that schools may give out-of-state applications a bigger value than in-state applications if funding was suddenly cut off. The out of state applicant would pay money directly to the school, whereas the in school applicant would have money go through the government first, and that could raise a boatload of issues if the government decided to use those funds for other programs....With out of state applicants, money is guaranteed, for in state applications, that is not the case, and that could give colleges a hell of a reason to focus on out of state recruiting and forgo in state recruiting..6) TaxesHell yea taxes would be increased, it could be argued that taxes would have to be raised to over 60% and american families already fight tooth and nail to keep taxes low there is no telling what people would do if their tax rate doubled or tripled to fund education for someone who might not even make it. Even if the college was prestigious or not the cost of adding up all the current tuitions from every university and every college and every community college and every prep school and everything else in between divided by the number of people who actually pay taxes would drive the middle class into the ground.State colleges (or state tuition, i dont even know what it is anymore) should not be made free. It will raise taxes to extortionate levels, its a really poorly conceived way to gain an edge over other countries, there are far better ways we could be improving education, PEOPLE OFTEN DONT MAKE IT, Colleges may be forced to give lower qualities of education to cope with the loss of funding, the government may end up using the funds designated for colleges on other programs, students may major in stuff that isnt even useful, And most importantly......College isnt a right, it is a privilege, and American families shouldnt be forced to pay 60% to give high school graduates a chance at college if its not even guaranteed that those same people will make it or if the government or even if colleges, people, and the government alike are fighting constantly over who gets how much funding and who has to pay for it...

Title: Bachelor's Degree Content: Hi everyone! So here come my first debate! In my society, especially my college, my classmates argue that bachelor's degree is not so important for people who study IT and majors that related to computer. They suggest people to complete their associated degree and go out for work as soon as possible! Do you guys think this is right? For me, education is important and with knowledge, people can make something new! But when people from my class argue about "work experiences", they said it is far more important!!! I disagree with this! Although we see some 10% people who have dropped out and success in life like Bill Gate, Steve Jobs,... I think they learned and educated themselves in different ways! They never treat education as unimportant! So how do you think about this? For IT, is bachelor or master degree important! My stand is "Yes" and I don't think go to work early is a good way that my teachers always said! I think people should prepare enough knowledge and skills to work!

Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: =Monetary Benefit=The average cost of college tuition for a State school is roughly $15,000 a year for a 4 year program. [1] This averages out to $60,000 total in college costs after 4 years. The average salary for someone with just a high school diploma is $23,000 a year. [2] The average salary for someone with a Bachelor's degree is $45,500 a year. [2]With a college education you're making $22,000 a year more than if you didn't go to college.If we average this out, say you get out of college at age 22 and you work until age 65. That's 43 years of work. Say you're unemployed or injured for (a generous) 5 of these years. That's 38 years of work. Over these 38 years a college graduate will make $890,000 MORE than his counterpart that did not go to college.Subtract out the $60k for college costs and you've still got a net profit of $830k that you would not have made if you didn't go to college at all. =Social Benefit=There is a huge social benefit to going to college. Not only do you make lifelong friends and connections, you learn to live on your own. You have to feed yourself, go to class, work, pay your bills, do your laundry etc without your parents help. Those who leave (or don't leave) at 18 will have the penalty of not having the beneficial college transition into life. After college, students are usually prepared and willing to go out and live and work on their own, completely independent. While social benefit doesn't have a numeric value attached to it, it is extremely valuable. You can't replace the "college experience" with work experience. The friendships, job connections, skills and social transition are all invaluable and give those who finish college a huge boost over those who did not. =Opporitunities= My opponent keeps claiming that college is "too risky" and that many people shouldn't even try. But if you don't go to college at all, if you don't try for fear of failing etc then you'll forever shut out the opporitunities that a college education can bring you.Many jobs REQUIRE a college education. If you don't have one, you'll forever be barred from applying for them. Even if you don't get a job right out of college you'll always be able to apply for college degree jobs. Those who don't attend high school will never be able to apply for these, ever. My opponent claims the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? It is silly to forever shut out ample future opporitunities for better employment, better pay and greater experiences due to the fear of failing. Even if it doesn't pay off immidiately after you graduate, you'll always have the degree and the experience to use for the rest of your life. " Individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor’s degrees." [3] You're more likely to be unemployed...always, without a college degree. "Statistics project that 75 percent of future positions are expected to require at least some type of certification or licensure, and professions that require a bachelor’s degree are projected to grow nearly twice as fast as the national average, making a college degree a good investment." [3]All of these positions are forever barred to you without a college education. That severely limits your opporitunity of employment and careers. =Conclusion=* There are tangible and large monetary advantages for those with college degrees vs. those without.* College has social value and provides you skills and experiences that are valuable throughout life.* A college degree is a permenant asset and a long term plus. You'll always have it. * College degrees open up and hold far more opporitunities than just a diploma. * The costs of a college education are easily outweighed by the abundant benefits. [1] http://nces.ed.gov...[2] http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu...[3] http://www.back2college.com...;

Title: MBA Content: Making money is better than paying tuition.

Title: Colleges/Universities Content: Should colleges/universities cost less money?

Title: College, Why bother.. Content: "College, Why bother..." First off, I would like to get some truths down pat. In university or college, where the end result is a degree whether a diploma, bachelor, masters or PHD. The reasons for going is because of an education, what you're being taught on the other hand depends on how well or badly the subject in question is in the area of taboo or not. It depends on how much relevance the teachings has on the impact on the country. I know in china, north korea and heavily extreme Islamic followers will all brainwash their students to do what they want them to. But when being taught a subject like theology and biology (my two fields). there is structure and order. There is no political views when doing these two subjects in particular. Even when doing tech work, my father is a computer technician and he is quite good. If he was taught single minded clutter, he wouldn't be very good. I think a big issue is we are assuming people aren't questioning and just absorbing, that is the opposite of what we are taught in science. We are taught to stand up and question, to attack the opposition with logic and reason, to show faults in their defence. I have gained a lot more insight since I have started my courses and for the better, I am a lot stronger in who I am, I am a lot more grounded and understanding seeing the evidence or at least reason from two different sides. I have become humble and decided to express who I am in different ways, I have become more aware of the afflictions that hinder my life or life style. College or university is a different experience for different people, I have no doubt that some people can get warped world views from taking something too intensely. But we wouldn't have scientific literacy if it wasn't for college, say goodbye to your TV. Einsteins general relativity helped with that, you wouldn't have many things that you do today. College is a good thing.

Title: College, Parents, and Pressure Content: Note to all: My first time at debating. Go easy on me. I accepted this challenge on the basis of it not getting into a long and extensive argument. Thank you for not having such high expectations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reason for going against the resolve: - College can give you a better chance in the future. If you consider the view of the parents, then it is not at all hard to see why this reason stands. I'm not saying that going to college would secure your future, because that would be lying. Many people today graduate from college and cannot find a job. However, college certainly can help you in acquiring more life skills and opening up more opportunities. You'll be meeting more people, some of whom you may remain in contact with for life, whether it is out of friendship or mutual interests. Furthermore, college will help you to learn about more things that you did not know before, therefore helping to widen your horizons. Like they say, knowledge will never weigh you down. And anyways, why else do you think that most governments make education compulsory for under 16s? It proves that there must be something good in learning. I won't bother posting more reasons for now, as I realized I have already said too much. Hope to hear from the Pro side soon.

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower." The source I provided stated;"An Associate’s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor’s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor’s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor’s degree." Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.

Title: western universities should only place satellites in states that respect free speech Content: Maintaining the value of the degree

Title: 3rd party pushes for increased graduation rates Content: Thank you for the kind welcome, zach12! I look forward to smashing my head against the wall a few times!1. Goal Up, Quality DownI concede to the point that colleges and universities get funding based off of how many of the students that attend receive degrees. All colleges hope to increase their retention rates, so setting this as a goal is nothing to object to. Giving out more degrees is also an excellent idea because it both gives the society new leaders or even just workers that are willing and able to do a job out in whatever field. Con claims that the main reasons people quit going to school are that they do not have enough money, the course work is too hard and that the student may experience a sudden shift in circumstances.Con concedes that the school can give out more financial aid, so I do not need to pose a solution to this. However, I would like to mention that a sudden shift in circumstances is not the largest, or even close to the largest reason that people quit college. Maybe it is high on the list because there are actually very few reasons and this topic is so vague, but it does not account for the majority of the students. Because we are talking about increasing retention rates and degrees handed out to students, we can throw out this point that colleges cannot account for these sudden change of circumstances. To increase means to make more of, meaning that if I can prove that the colleges can retain more students and give out more degrees without sacrificing the quality of the education, I win this debate. Therefore, I will not need to prove that all circumstances are accounted for, but that some of them are. Because even one more student getting a degree or staying in school can be defined as an increase.Schools do not always have to make the course-work easier as Con claims. Students who either identified themselves as at risk for dropping out or had recently left the university often cited academic difficulties as a reason for leaving. Among the most frequent reasons listed were difficulties in specific courses, academic advising, academic support services and the quality of instruction. More personal academic reasons included a lack of access to coursework, a change in major, a poor grade point average, difficulties with the number of credits earned, frustrations with course availability and completing all degree requirements, and rigorous demands of specific programs. Delayed notification to students in academic distress and little attention to attendance and study habits by faculty and instructors were noted as well. Students and faculty both point out the need for degree audits and degree progression updates, two factors that may be tied to advising as well as student self-efficacy. [http://provost.uark.edu...]In this point we can see that there are multiple ways to keep a student in college when the reason is that they are having academic difficulties. Instead of making course-work easier, colleges can easily take into account the plans of U of A and solve the problem without lessening the quality of the course-work.2. Quality Sacrificed = Lesser Valued DegreesBecause I have already shown that quality will not be sacrificed this point is not valid in my debate and does not need a response. However, degrees themselves will not be valued less, degrees of certain colleges may, but not degrees of all kinds. When you see a degree from UT Austin and compare it to a degree from Yale naturally you'll want to hire the person from Yale first, just because of the prestigious name of the university. Degrees already vary when it comes to how they are valued. So even if quality was sacrificed (which it doesn't have to be), this will make such a subtle change that it will go ultimately unnoticed. 3. Lesser Valued Degrees = Lesser Valued SchoolingYou can cross-apply my previous argument that schools degrees are already valued so differently that this is not a huge impact on the educational system. If people truly want to go to a good school, they will find a school with a high graduation rate yet one that will still guarantee them a spot on the work force. Ultimately, it is the student's job to pick the college they want to go to, and whether or not the 3rd party pushes for increased graduation rates, the student does not have to be affected if they do not wish to be. Statistics on schools are out there, it's up to the student to find the right one.4. Easy As make for lesser initiative of the studentI agree that if you knew you could get easy As at a certain college, there is less initiative for you to work as hard as you would if you knew that those marks were hard to achieve. Now, even if schooling is made easier, this does not mean that easy As are the result. It means that the learning is easier, not necessarily the work. If the learning is made easier, the students will be more likely to stay in that college. The work may not have to become easier, as I've already pointed out. If the students learned exactly what they were getting into and had easier ways of organizing their future years, they can make the good grades without losing true initiative. When a student is in a situation where it is easy to learn, they do not lose initiative. In fact, their initiative to learn is boosted because they know they are able to.Con also makes the point that the United States does poorly when comparing it to other first-world-countries. However, I would like to point out that this will not be a factor in this debate because other countries work their school systems differently. Con does not have evidence that says that the United States is the only place that cares strictly about graduation rates. The common counter-example would be the High Schools of China that keep their students so much longer than the United States keeps theirs in school. It is not our job to compare in this debate. It is my job to prove, as I have, that you can increase graduation rates without lessening the quality of the education.5. Human capital down as a resultI have already proved that there are ways to increase the graduation rates without losing the quality of education. This being the point, Human Capital will not go down, and this point will default to Pro.My burden of proof was to prove that quality is not sacrificed when pushing for increased graduation rates as the 3rd party has suggested. I have proved that to increase retention rates is not to keep all students in school, but more students than in previous years. By posing solutions that could easily do this, I win on this interpretation.

Title: Mathematics should be optional in post-secondary education. Content: College is about finding yourself and what you want to do with your life. Some know right away and some take a few semesters to know where they should be going. But one thing is certain... College is higher education. It's the institution of learning new theories, proving or disproving their own hypothesis. How can one do that by simply reviewing what you should have learned in grade school? Why should a nursing student take photography or a history major take trigonometry? They shouldn't. If you already know what you want to do with your life, you should invest your time and studies in that field. I propose we allow mathematics and other subjects we learned in grade school to stay in college but only as core-classes.

Title: What to study in college & why? [Career Challenge] Content: Salutations to all, I will be scratching the surface of this topic. My later arguments will progress further in detail. I would like to thank my opponent for his participation. Hopefully, as viewers, I will persuade you in my favor.I would first like to mention that I will branch off of the idea of those who desire to attend college. If my opponent would like to go an untraditional route, that is perfectly fine. Every individual that hits adulthood would have to decide what they will become throughout life. It is in my opinion, that preparation for college is the best route. As I stated in round one, I will list at least six study fields and at least one career path branched off each one. There is no current ranking order for this list. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR VIEWERS TO CHECK CITED SOURCES FOR FURTHER CAREER RESEARCH!Study Field 1#: Architecture & Engineering ~ Ex. Aerospace EngineersA love for mathematics is necessary. A bachelor"s in Aerospace Engineering is required, along with the love for aviation. Average Salary: $104,000Study Field2#: Management ~ Ex. Financial ManagersIt is a must to have a bachelor"s degree in one of these categories: Finance, accounting, economics, or business administration. If you love managing money, this is your ideal career. Average Salary: $110,000Study Field 3#: Education, Training, & Library ~ Ex. Special Education TeacherA bachelor"s degree in Education and a teacher"s license is a must. Those who love to help other learn will find this field satisfying. Average Salary: $55,000Study Field 4#: Healthcare ~ Ex. Massage TherapistReceiving a certificate in Massage Therapy is required. Those who like to help reduce stress in people"s lives will love this field. Average Salary: $36,000Study Field 5#: Life, Physical, & Social Science ~ Ex. Medical ScientistsA person needs a high level of education that requires a PH.D. or a M.D. This field is for the strong-willed helpers to society. Average Salary: $77,000Study Field 6#: Protective Service ~ Ex. Police & DetectivesSome college education is highly recommended, and one must attend an agency"s training academy. To get at least an associate in criminal justice will strengthen your job prospects in this field. Average Salary: $56,000Study Field 7#: Media & Communication ~ Ex. Writers & AuthorsAlthough a degree isn't required for a writer, a bachelor"s degree will sharpen your literary skills. Majoring in English, journalism, or communications are considered the typical majors in this section. Average Salary: $56,000These 7 fields, along with examples, are my consideration as excellent studies in college. I will elaborate more in the next round. Again, I will like to say that you should check out these sites for more information. I ALSO RECOMMEND YOU TAKE CARL JUNG"S PERSONALITY TEST FOR A FAIRLY ACCURATE READING: CHECK CITED SOURCES!Cited Sources:http://bls.gov... ~ Government site about all occupationshttp://www.humanmetrics.com... ~ 9/10 accuracy for this personality test, trust me.

Title: federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more Content: college doesn't make everyone earn more, it makes some earn more. it doesn't really combat poverty, it might if you are the lucky ones to be gainfully employed. the free market determines how much people make, and educating more doesn't mean more money being earned. it just means there's a more educated populace. why is college the magic point of being a right? everyone gets good education in high school, and for the most part, college is just an inefficient continuation of high school, teaching humanities and redundancies and making classes out of things that can be condensed into one class. i might agree a trade school can be a right, but not college. if people are making more from education they can afford to pay back loans. why should we take money from other people effectively at gun point through taxes to pay for them?

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called "Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like "tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.

Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: I think Online College will benefit the world in many ways. One way is that you don't even have to leave your house then going to college. Just get up and go on your computer. Online colleges are cheaper than Traditional college. So that's a thumbs up for the people without a lot of money. Online colleges offer as much education as a Traditional college but its even better.

Title: Importance of value education in our life Content: I believe what my opponent is arguing is that we shouldn't place importance on the value of education in our life. Or, perhaps it's that the value of education is not important. Either way, the position of my opponent is one I do not agree with. My position is that the value of education is indeed important. I will use this round as acceptance, and will allow my opponent to make any clarifications. I now return the floor to Con for their opening arguments.

Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

Title: Education is Important Content: What does it mean for "Education to be Important"? What is the significance of Education? And How can Education be benefitial for us? With each of these questions comes a solution of understanding education for what it is , what it can do and what successes it brings to people. Anyone who does not get the education they need or chooses to remain incomplete within education is not showing much of any interest of a future; while I may add there may be chances of being accepted in a job, does not automatically insinuate that it will be the best either. My focus on this topic will be based on the importance, significance and benefits of education altogether. In return from my opponent I only accept your arguments and refutes to my position. I ask that we keep this debate as civil as possible and if needed use any resources to prove each side to our positions. Thank you to my opponent for choosing to debate this topic with me, whoever that might be. For further exemptions, if there be by any chance to forfeit in this debate please let one another know in advance so that the other may be considerate and suggest more options of this topic while waiting patiently for the others position. Best wishes to my opponent!

Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: College should not be your time to figure out what you're good at, it should not be your time to establish what you're passionate about. If you don't know what you want to do for the rest of your life, how is wasting 4 years and THOUSANDS of dollars helping you? There is no harm in taking a gap year. Also, if you know what career you would like to pursue and it doesn't 100% require a degree (i.e. doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.), why would you waste your money on one? College is, in my opinion, the most costly & stupid "trial-run" you could ever go through. And the crazy thing is, is that there IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING AFTER YOU GRADUATE. ESPECIALLY if you have a butt-load of student loans.

Title: Tournament Topic #8: Computers are more beneficial to education than books. Content: Extend my entire case to this round. To add, another way in which computers can be beneficial to education is the fact that one can register for college classes or particular colleges which they wish to attend. Once more, an advantage which a book doesn't even come close to reproducing.

Title: A degree will become more valuable. Content: A rise in tuition fees making higher education itself more valuable, combined with the reduced number of students that will attend university owing to the increase, will make a degree a more valuable and sought-after qualification. At the moment more and more people seem to be heading off to university and if this keeps up, before long a degree will be worth practically nothing since the majority of the country will have one. Perhaps an increase in tuition fees is needed to prevent this concern and to ensure that a degree keeps its value.

Title: Is education necessary for people's future lives Content: I accept your challenge. Education is probably one of the most debatable subjects there is. Let's review what we know. Education has helped, some not all, forge a path down the road of job opportunities. But is education a necessity for the future? I will be inferring that "education for people's future lives" means college education, which has the biggest effect on the outcome of people and their jobs. College education becomes increasingly more money, and some people who have big ambitions, can't afford what they think is a necessity. People in the past, such as Bill Gates, have not needed a college education to succeed in life. He also did not have some sort of magical gift that granted him that success. Bill Gates MADE his success by hard work and determination almost comparable to the most stubborn of donkeys. The sky is the limit when you have an idea and you want nothing more than to make it reality. Education is learning, but ambition is an entirely different thing that can make the best out of the most unlikely circumstances. Concluding Statement - Ambition can overcome the necessity of education, when the determination is at maximum.

Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: That is very true my friend, but online colleges have a lot of advantages over traditional colleges. One is that there are so many of them at your finger tips waiting to be used. Second they cost less depending on what college you choose. Three they open up more opportunities then a traditional college. While some people might choose a traditional college, I would recommend an online college. Good Luck to my opponent.

Title: Is education necessary for people's future lives Content: Counter Argument ensuing....College wasn't the right place for Bill's mind. But we are off topic now, let's start focusing on the bigger picture, all people.True college is a tool to be used that helps us find our way in adulthood, but if you have ideas and motivation, there is no need. With the right ideals and determination, money could be better spent on starting a business that could grow into something beautiful. College now a days is all about getting the diploma that looks pretty to employers. Many of the creative and idea forming types, aren't very good at being employees and want to be in charge of themselves. Not going to college and pursuing their passion enables them to do whatever they want! Where do all great businesses start? In the land of no restraints and boundaries.I make the argument that higher education is NOT a necessity! Intrinsic motivation is all it takes to follow your dreams and make your own success. Sure you got a Stanford diploma, but is this a predictor for ultimate success in your life? No. All over the world, college is becoming more than just a means of education to better yourself, it is becoming a novelty, a piece of paper that is so desperately craved by people who want to look good to employers. Whether you are big or small, intelligent or not intelligent, you can make your own success without the validation or "seal of approval" from a college. Choose the way you want to live your life. College is not a necessity, and success is purely decided based on your actions.

Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: 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) - lighth0us3This 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. - lighth0us3Well, 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 3There 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 2Additionally, 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 5This 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...

Title: A degree will become more valuable. Content: How much a degree is worth is proportional to how prestigious the institution is and how well-known the course is. A rise in tuition fees will only lead to the poor being forfeited the chance to enrol in a degree course and hence, resulting in only the better off people obtaining degrees. A degree, in this sense, has lost its purpose and worth as it is just a luxury good that can only be afforded by the affluent. One might argue that financial aid is available for the poor who perform well academically, but then again, with the rising costs of tuition fees, will there be more grants and scholarships handed out? I highly doubt so.

Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing

Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: University education helps society

Title: Ending Education Subsidies Content: Re: Con’s ContentionsHis statistics about college graduates earning more are begging the question. I agree that college graduates earn more than non-graduates. The question is why—simply stating that they do earn more proves nothing.Con then argues that many people would not be able to go to college without subsidies. I agree. My whole argument is that there should be less college education, because it costs a lot (both directly, and in the form of the opportunity cost of not working during that time) and usually doesn’t increase productivity.C1: Human Capital Con misunderstands my studies. Perhaps my algebra and calculus examples weren’t clear. My point is that the only reason algebra helps with calculus is that its part of calculus—you need to know how to do algebra to do calculus. And calculus doesn’t help with anything that doesn’t explicitly involve calculus. Con claims that he isn’t arguing for general transfer of learning, and therefore my arguments don’t apply. But by ‘general transfer’, I don’t mean general education requirements. I mean anything that isn’t actually part of your job. Not related to your job, like how the study of human societies in sociology class might be sort of related to social work or teaching, but actually part of your job. Like, learning how to use Excel will make you more productive if your job requires using Excel. Taking classes provides students with a specific set of knowledge, and unless you use that knowledge in your job, it doesn’t make you more productive. Transfer of learning studies failing to find evidence of general transfer of learning doesn’t just mean that classes completely unrelated to your job are useless; it means that classes that aren’t pretty much exactly the same thing as your job are useless.In the experiments I’m citing, educational psychologists tried very hard to find general transfer of learning. They made the sets of problems as similar as possible to each other to make it easier for students to transfer their knowledge from one to the other. The problems in the study I mentioned last round are very similar—if people can apply their learning to different situations, then surely they’d be able to apply it to different problems as similar as estimating the area of a square and estimating the area of a triangle. But they didn’t. Even extraordinarily similar problems found no evidence of transfer—in a 1974 study, they trained students to do a word problem involving cannibals and missionaries. They then tested to see if that training transferred over to the exact same problem with the words ‘cannibals’ and ‘missionaries’ replaced with ‘jealous husbands’ and ‘wives’. They found no evidence of transfer—even though the subjects were not the average person, but college students! [1] The literature on Transfer of Learning theory shows that the only way to get better at X is to practice doing X. People can succeed in college classes because you’re tested on exactly what you studied for—but work in the real world is rarely exactly what you studied in college, so college classes usually won't make you more productive at work.C2: SignallingI don’t think I need any evidence to show that people that go to college are smarter and harder working than those that don’t—it’s self-evident to anyone who’s ever been to high school, and observed the differences between college-bound students and non-college-bound students firsthand. Think about what gets you into college—good test scores and grades. Are people with good test scores and grades just as smart and hard working as those without them? And, of course, people who go to college and graduate and probably smarter/harder-working than those that go to college but drop out. Anyway, even though I don’t think I should need it, I do have evidence. The average IQ for college graduates is 115—that is, the average college graduate is smarter than 5/6 of the population. [2] In addition, going to college shows conscientiousness—that is, being goal-oriented and forward looking (being low on conscientiousness means being more laid-back, present-oriented, and impulsive). Going to college for 4 years before getting the reward shows that someone is goal-oriented and forward looking. This is an important trait for employers—conscientious employees are more reliable, more motivated, harder working, and have lower rates of absenteeism. [3]Con argues that college causes students to be smarter and harder-working, which completely contradicts his earlier claim that he wasn’t arguing that general transfer of learning exists. College classes making someone smarter in general would be general transfer of learning. College may improve work ethic more than sitting around doing nothing, but it certainly doesn’t improve work ethic compared to actually having a job. Think about it—would you want to hire someone with a college degree that had never held a job? The average full-time college student puts in only 14 hours of studying per week—compared to 24 in 1961. [4] Hardly a way to build one’s work ethic. Coincidentally, the average return to education has sharply increased during that time—the opposite of what the human capital model would predict.C3: Useful EducationMy argument is that only education involving specific job training, like medical schools, significantly increases productivity. For other degrees, like sociology, the investment is not worth the cost. If someone won’t make enough to pay back an unsubsidized loan, then that just proves that that money would be better invested elsewhere. Saying that you need a subsidy for an investment to be profitable is admitting that the investment is a waste of money.[1] Reed, S.K., Earns, G.W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436-450.[2] http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...[3] Roberts, B.W.; Jackson, J.J.; Fayard, J.V.; Edmonds, G. & Meints, J (2009). "Chapter 25. Conscientiousness". In Mark R. Leary, & Rick H. Hoyle. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 257-273.[4] http://www.aei.org...

Title: Formal Education does not equal success in later life. Content: Economic growth Pro assesses that I am presenting Formal Education as necessary for economic stability and employment. Pro is right and this can lead everyone to success, no matter what job or function they perform. Pro has basically conceded most of this argument. Advantages of education Pro is incorrect in assuming I am limiting education to just college or school. People can read and learn on their own but a formal education gives you the greatest chance of success. A steady job or pay is always considered a success. This gives one the ability to further themselves and also their family. Improvements in IQ are remarkably consistent across the whole spectrum. This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary. . http://eyeonsociety.co.uk... IQ tests are scored with respect to those standardization samples. The only way to compare the difficulty of two versions of a test is to conduct a study in which the same subjects take both versions. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the U. S. on tests such as the WISC. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponents tests do not mention the previous levels of IQ. Therefore, his test leaves out that peoples IQ were lower previously to the results of the test he gave us. He also asserts that it is impossible to rise higher in IQ or intelligence. Pro does not even show us the importance of IQ. We have schools and classes for those with less intelligence or slower learning. I have shown the majority of people who have formal education have a increase in IQ. Pro drops my economic argument and concedes points to the advantages of Formal Education. The only point Pro makes is the one about students who cannot keep up in school, which is addressed with certain schools or classes especially for these students. This point fails by the lack of evidence. I think I have provided most of the evidence in this debate and Pro has the burden of proof. I send it back to Pro.

Title: must tertiary education be free Content: Higher education is a magnificent thing, but to say that it is a right would be comparable to something such as everyone has the right to be wealthy. I would go as far as to saying that college should cost even more and be more competitive as I would say that there has been an "inflation" in a sense when it comes to the college system. University is not the only place where people learn and innovate, and the by-product of higher education does not always equate to being a productive member of society or the workplace of their selected field(s). A vision that I have for the education system that we (as I would assume that you are a resident of The United States) as a nation could possible do would be as such; 1) Stop telling our youth that college is the way to go -Not going to college does not automatically assume laziness or being unsuccessful as is the common misconception of our society, as there are alternatives such as trade schools or apprenticeships or even the military option that I had took 2) More focus/spending on the alternatives to higher education -We need a workforce that knows how to do the jobs that are in demand. Trade schools and apprenticeships are not exactly an attractive option for the average high school student, but I firmly believe it would have a better impact on their careers than college (I cannot express in words the support I would have for you if you were advocating free trade schools and apprenticeship programs) 3) Change does not happen overnight. -Years of the pursuit of college has transformed our entire job culture, to the point that is a requirement if wanting to succeed to life and the advocacy of free education is curious concept. If the points above are met, we can see a major shift in the future of our college-is-the-only-way-centric society. Sources; None (I admit that this round I decided to be entirely opinionated and going sort of freehand)

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Much of the current dogma in U. S. society in particular is that everyone should go to college. I think that we are all lifelong students, but I don't believe that college is the one path forward that should always be touted. Why not? Well, first, not everyone is benefited by broadening their horizons. There's no reason to believe that every individual is going to want to be a scientist, a teacher, or a lawyer. Second, not everyone is cut out for college, intellectually or emotionally. Anxiety among students is a huge problem. Not all these students are going to have the grades out of high school to get necessary scholarships for them to go through their college programs without heaps of debt. What are the alternatives? For one, there's vocational schools. These are essentially trade schools, meant to teach students job-specific skills. This will often be highly beneficial, as they're usually shorter in duration, produce skilled labor with hands-on experience, and are normally supported by private companies, providing a route into a job shortly after graduation. There are also apprenticeship programs, which involve working directly for an employer and studying the masters at work. This is an even more directly applicable way to learn and transition. Much as college provides a great education, it is often distant from real world problems and concerns about getting a job, which are often left solely to the students. Businesses are wary of college graduates, even those with great GPAs, because there is always a gulf between their knowledge and the knowledge and experience the company requires. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships don't suffer from that. I'll get into some rebuttal in the next round. . http://www.politico.com... . http://www.dailyfinance.com...

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate so effectively. Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational schools and apprenticeships specifically, so extend my analyses there. Also extend my points regarding why college is not for everyone. Con then proceeds to outline the very reasons for my concern. The situation is South Korea is, in my opinion, net harmful. College shouldn't be a "prerequisite for entering into society," partly because it completely excludes those who cannot succeed in a college setting. One type of education should not be preferred over another, and Con has provided only limited reasons why college is specifically important, and none for why it is more beneficial than anything I've offered up. Con then proceeds to explain the benefits of such a system. He says that there would be more economic benefits. His warrants are here lacking. I don't see any actual link made between higher education and increased benefits to individuals or society, mainly just assertions that the link exists. Let's go through those assertions. 1) Higher education = deeper education Not necessarily true, but I'll grant this. 2) More civic awareness No reason for this given - Con assumes what is taught to everyone in college. 3) Higher efficiency Again, not supported. I'd argue the reverse - the lack of on-the-job experience makes them very inefficient. 4) Increased profit for company No reason to believe that someone coming from the insular academic environment will lead to increased profits. 5) Better inventions and technology Perhaps, but neither of these things require a college background to accomplish. 6) Better firms Not likely, given that college graduates aren't normally that capable of starting their own businesses since they don't have experience in this regard. Back to Con.

Title: University education needs to be capped and more selective Content: A university degree has far less worth than it once did

Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: 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...

Title: kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education Content: Positive externalities of higher education. Generally, university education does offer some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidizing higher education. The United States is by far and away the biggest economy in the world. Out of Western countries, it is also by far and away the greatest producer. It is also a false equivalency to compare small European countries to a giant country. Controlling small population systems and funding them is much easier than controlling a mega-multicultural country of massive size. Education is a merit good. One characteristic of a merit good is that people may underestimate the benefits of studying and undervalue higher education. No one is obligated to provide people a free product, much less one of quality. POINTS The proposition of Pro ignores the domino effect. What happens to everything else when you make education free? Everyone is qualified When everyone is highly qualified, wages drop through the floor. Your qualifications can be found in anyone. Are you going to deliver babies for $17,000 a year? Of course you are if we hire you. You're lucky to have a job at all seeing everyone is qualified. Now go do surgery. Education Quality drops Professors get paid nothing now because everyone is qualified to be a professor. You have a professor in poverty, as you attempt to get a minimum wage job that everyone is qualified to do. No one pays for college, so now we can't afford the tools needed to teach you well. Better learn to love reading books from 1984. That's all the school could afford. Which college has to take you dilemma Can you go to a regional college? Well you wanted to go to Harvard for the most elite education. Guess what? It's booked to capacity because college is free. You cool with Springfield College for Crap Weasels? I hope so. It's the only place with room for you. And guess what? Professors and school administrators have certain predjudices. I hope you don't match any of them, otherwise they'll pack the place with their favorite group, race, or their friends' kids, despite having horrible grades in highschool. You had good grades in highschool? So what? College is free. Community College of the Ozarks is all that is open for you.

Title: paying to go to college freash out of school Content: My opponent's argument is blurry but I will argue how a person could pay for college and why it is a good thing. Just a little insight into my life, I did not go to college out high school. I was ignorant to my options. That is the key. There are options! You should never believe that education should be free or at the hands of tax dollars, Americans cannot afford it. If you are poor, get a pell grant, and a student loan. Pick a college that you know you can afford. You should be held accountable to pay for college out of high school; you can pay for it with the two I mentioned. You may have to pay it back when you graduate but in theory you are still paying the university right out of high school. And if you wait, you will age. I am 25 now and will not get done with Law school till I am 30. I have friends that are 25 and making money already. You do not realize it till you are older and look back at what you could have done. Look guys, this is a weird debate but I take it as an opportunity to share. My opponent's argument is cloudy but mine is here on paper. http://www2.ed.gov... http://studentaid.ed.gov...

Title: Community college should be the first college people attend Content: Questions: 1. What is the value that 4-Year colleges have that you are comparing? Is it the monetary cost or something else? 2. Are you in agreement that going to community college first is cheaper, or is that not your argument? I didn't quite understand what your argument against the cost was. If you could please answer these the best you can, I would be able to understand your argument better. Response: I understand He_Needs_Some_Milk_69 argument as that it is inconvenient to go to community college because you have to go to a four-year university anyway (please correct me if I misunderstand). -I agree that it is more convenient, but it costs more. I have shown that the College Board says that it is cheaper to start with community college. Based on price alone, it seems that it is beneficial to go this route instead of going straight to a four-year college. -I also found evidence for the argument that people who complete community college with an Associate's Degree have a higher chance of getting a Bachelor’s Degree within 10 years (1). Although only 33% of community college students transfer to 4-year colleges, students who transferred with an Associate's Degree had a 48% chance of graduating compared to 35% chance for students who transferred without an Associate's Degree (1). I would like to know if there is something that four-year colleges have that isn't present in community colleges. Resources1. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu...

Title: Should colleges be free Content: College is a place to learn, but not all people can go, and people can actually save money and buy thing for themselves or there family. Also so people don't have to worry about loans. I did some research and the government would pay for the teachers and supplies for the colleges.

Title: Should colleges be free Content: On average, a college graduate with a bachelor"s degree earned $30,000 more per year than a high school graduate, or about $500,000 more over a lifetime, as of Apr. 2013. [8] Earning an associate's degree (a 2-year degree) was worth about $170,000 more than a high school diploma over a lifetime in 2011. [9] The median income for families headed by a bachelor's degree holder was $100,096 in 2011"more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate. [10] The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007. [11] 85% of Forbes' 2012 America's 400 Richest People list were college grads. College-education.procon.org

Title: Public vs Private Education Content: Public education is, overall, not worth it to a wealthier person. To a person who doesn't have the wealth it is much smarter to put his or her child into public education rather than private education because of the main fact that they cant pay for the private education. This means that any education is good enough for his or her child and if this means public is better choice for the family because they cant afford the private education. Even though one must obtain a higher gpa to get into a preferred school under public education just means that you can get a lower gpa in Private education because realistically you are paying in advance for a college degree.

Title: Community college should be the first college people attend Content: I argue that more people would benefit from going to community college first rather than going straight to a four year university.Definitions:Community College will be any college that is state/government funded and is a 2 year institution.By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree.Argument:People should start with community college for a few reasons:>. Most community colleges have smaller class sizes compared to 4-year colleges (3).>. When the cost of community college is lowered, slightly more students enroll in college then they would have if tuition remained the same (1) According to the College Board's website, the average cost of community college for in-district students is $3,440 on average. A public 4-year college, accepting students in-state, is $9,410 on average (2).>. Community college was found to increase the number of people obtaining their Bachelor's Degree slightly (1).I would be convinced to the Con/Against side if someone could show why my sources are incorrect or what evidence there is to the contrary.Sources:1. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...2. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...3. https://www.educationquest.org...I look forward to debating with you.

Title: University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical Content: I will stand by my position by saying that yes, a degree in auto mechanics at university would be more theoretical than practical, hands on experience. I think that if one wants to gain practical employable skills, one should go to college rather than university, because in my opinion, university aren't for people who are interested in a trade, but for those interested in the social sciences or the humanities. I should have been more specific. Depending on the discipline in which one is interested in gaining a degree, university is an invaluable resource. (Ie: Law, Medicine, Business, etc) It depends upon the field, as to whether one should attend college or university. What I mean by this is that while it gives the student short term satisfaction, it doesn't provide long term satisfaction. Being older (50+) allows one to fully grasp and appreciate the knowledge that is being professed, while when one is a teenager, one isn't able to fully appreciate the knowledge being professed due to other seemingly more important priorities. (IE: Parties, members of the opposite sex, etc) In closing, the difference between these types of institutions are that of content. While I would agree that a college institution is at the same level of a university institution in engineering for instance, but as I said, it all depends upon the discipline that one wants to obtain to determine which institution is better suited.

Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence. Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one"s potential in many ways. Students who didn"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.