An arrangement where professionals become professionals because of their parents' wealth and not because of their own merits is what cheapens professionals.It would cheapen professionals and make them a dime a dozen.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An arrangement where professionals become professionals because of their parents' wealth and not because of their own merits is what cheapens professionals.It would cheapen professionals and make them a dime a dozen.
That won't help when the pay drops so low due to field saturation its not worth the trouble of going to college in the first place.An arrangement where professionals become professionals because of their parents' wealth and not because of their own merits is what cheapens professionals.
It's already happened. Look at data processing.Wow. Is that just a debate tactic or do you really believe that?
I wonder: how many of the people who would be eligible for a free education are already getting government-funded educations through either ROTC or GI Bill programs?The question up for debate is...
Should public college be free of cost, or would it create too much liability?
My side: I take the stance that yes, free tuition of public college would indeed be best for society in general. It could be costly for government. And it could cause other problems which need to be addressed as they spring up. But one way of paying for it is, if more people go to college, they make more money (in a perfect world), then they have more money that can be taxed. So not only do you potentially end up with a more educated society, but in the long run, there's the hope that free public college will eventually pay for itself by someone's potential 20+ years of work before retirement, should the average be that high, and the additional tax dollars picked up along the way from the higher salaries of said workers.
Which field do you think this would happen in, specifically?That won't help when the pay drops so low due to field saturation its not worth the trouble of going to college in the first place.
The question up for debate is...
Should public college be free of cost, or would it create too much liability?
My side: I take the stance that yes, free tuition of public college would indeed be best for society in general. It could be costly for government. And it could cause other problems which need to be addressed as they spring up. But one way of paying for it is, if more people go to college, they make more money (in a perfect world), then they have more money that can be taxed. So not only do you potentially end up with a more educated society, but in the long run, there's the hope that free public college will eventually pay for itself by someone's potential 20+ years of work before retirement, should the average be that high, and the additional tax dollars picked up along the way from the higher salaries of said workers.
I wonder: how many of the people who would be eligible for a free education are already getting government-funded educations through either ROTC or GI Bill programs?
I wonder: how many of the people who would be eligible for a free education are already getting government-funded educations through either ROTC or GI Bill programs?
The question up for debate is...
Should public college be free of cost, or would it create too much liability?
My side: I take the stance that yes, free tuition of public college would indeed be best for society in general. It could be costly for government. And it could cause other problems which need to be addressed as they spring up. But one way of paying for it is, if more people go to college, they make more money (in a perfect world), then they have more money that can be taxed. So not only do you potentially end up with a more educated society, but in the long run, there's the hope that free public college will eventually pay for itself by someone's potential 20+ years of work before retirement, should the average be that high, and the additional tax dollars picked up along the way from the higher salaries of said workers.
No. In college you are specializing in something for a vocation that should ideally be paying you. So its important that there be a price signal so that only degrees that give a good career is selected by the students as they know that the other degrees will not earn them enough to pay back the money they are investing in their education. It also helps in motivation.The question up for debate is...
Should public college be free of cost, or would it create too much liability?
My side: I take the stance that yes, free tuition of public college would indeed be best for society in general. It could be costly for government. And it could cause other problems which need to be addressed as they spring up. But one way of paying for it is, if more people go to college, they make more money (in a perfect world), then they have more money that can be taxed. So not only do you potentially end up with a more educated society, but in the long run, there's the hope that free public college will eventually pay for itself by someone's potential 20+ years of work before retirement, should the average be that high, and the additional tax dollars picked up along the way from the higher salaries of said workers.
Philosophy is one I really don't get when people question and doubt it and because law schools tend to like applicants with a lot of philosophy as an undergrad.2 guys I know...1 with a degree in film, the other
with a degree in philosophy have a company
that sells mulch & lumber.
Then we basically end up having very, very few who work with kids in most areas where working with kids is specialized.No. In college you are specializing in something for a vocation that should ideally be paying you. So its important that there be a price signal so that only degrees that give a good career is selected by the students as they know that the other degrees will not earn them enough to pay back the money they are investing in their education. It also helps in motivation.
If society believes that working with kids is important, then they should increase the pay and invest resources in it. Making things free simply hides the problems that society has in assignment of its priorities without solving them.Then we basically end up having very, very few who work with kids in most areas where working with kids is specialized.
Working with kids is lousy pay but someone has to do it.
It's important regardless of what society thinks. Making it easier for people who will likely never be better off than moderately comfortable, if they get that, isn't fixing all of societies woes but it is help where it's needed and working with what we have rather than waiting for paradigm shift in social thinking.If society believes that working with kids is important, then they should increase the pay and invest resources in it. Making things free simply hides the problems that society has in assignment of its priorities without solving them.
Why not have targeted scholarships and fellowships instead?It's important regardless of what society thinks. Making it easier for people who will likely never be better off than moderately comfortable, if they get that, isn't fixing all of societies woes but it is help where it's needed and working with what we have rather than waiting for paradigm shift in social thinking.
Or maybe we could educate folks like you in the humanities so you could learn that we are all in this world together, and our own well being depends on everyone else's.Before we try that maybe we could educate the electorate on basic economics so they would understand that there is no free lunch.
Let's say one graduates with a BA in philosophy.Philosophy is one I really don't get when people question and doubt it and because law schools tend to like applicants with a lot of philosophy as an undergrad.