Should college education be free for all?

[Shortie]

College education depending on the country you live in is either government-funded or you have to pay for it yourself. Many often ague that college should be government-funded in every country to help people get what they need to be successful in life.

I will admit, that being made to pay for education can be off-putting and is probably why so many do not bother.

What do you think, should college education be free for all?

 

[Jason]

I think it should be free with conditions. I mean, some people have simply urinated on free money given to them for college and others have foolishly went into fields where there wasn't jobs. Well, my solution for this is demanding two majors, one that can get a job and a backup in case you can get some work you really want to do, like say do art or music.

 

[Shortie]

I think it should be free with conditions. I mean, some people have simply urinated on free money given to them for college and others have foolishly went into fields where there wasn't jobs. Well, my solution for this is demanding two majors, one that can get a job and a backup in case you can get some work you really want to do, like say do art or music.

This I can agree with. With it being so easy to choose any course you wish without thinking about how it will help you later on in life when needing a job or a career, there does need to be some boundaries in place to prevent it from being wasted.

 

[Augusta]

Yes, public colleges should be government funded and free to the masses. You would not only be equipping people to be sound intellectually but making people to be self dependent. As they are done with college ,they can get into the labor market to get food jobs.

 

[CuriousFiend]

Well first off it ought to be highlighted that no government funds anything at all because governments in and of themselves do not actually generate revenue.

Governments merely allocate portions of our's-& our preceding generation's-(ie: the taxpayer's)-$/£/€/¥/etc-towards paying for the various services we expect to be provisioned for-& maintained by our elected officials who we appoint to our respective nations corporate governmental institutions.

It is not any of our respective government's who's cash it is which they're so eagerly pissin' down the toilet at every possible opportunity, racking up massive debt in our's-& our descendant's legal titles-all while the perfidious political stooges themselves busily stuff their own pockets full.

It is literally our money and we ought to expect and demand proper responsible management.


So...

"Should college education be free for all?"

...in my opinion, no it shouldn't. Simply because the fact is that there is no such thing as "college education"-"free for all".

It is an impossibility.

We pay for everything the government spends.

However I do think that governments should responsibly allocate a sufficient portion of our taxpayer $/£/€/¥/etc towards providing & maintaining-& to the highest of standards-for all citizens from 0-21yo, fully & freely accessible educational services, including facilities, resources and everything necessary to responsibly provide for our developing future generations.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Demon_skeith]

I don't think it should be free (public schooling is paid), but I don't think it needs to cost as much.

 

[Aragon Burner]

If college was free for all then yes it would improve the overall intelligence of society but it would also made the degrees worthless pieces of paper as everyone would have them just like a high school diploma. So now there would be a new criteria they would create like it would need to be Master degrees or Doctorates.

 

[Demon_skeith]

If college was free for all then yes it would improve the overall intelligence of society but it would also made the degrees worthless pieces of paper as everyone would have them just like a high school diploma. So now there would be a new criteria they would create like it would need to be Master degrees or Doctorates.

I promise you that only because people go to college and end up with a piece of paper, doesn't mean they have higher intelligence or really walked away with the needed skills.

 

[Aragon Burner]

I'm sorry but a college education will enhance your IQ. It trains the brain. I'm not saying non graduates are dumb by any means, but I think it stands to reason.. More education = higher intelligence

 

[CuriousFiend]

I'm sorry but a college education will enhance your IQ. It trains the brain. I'm not saying non graduates are dumb by any means, but I think it stands to reason.. More education = higher intelligence

So long as students are actually being *educated as opposed to *indoctrinated, then they may potentially walk away with greater subject specific intellectual capabilities than that which they began with, although general intelligence isn't strictly limited to common core academic activities either.

Furthermore, development of any specific academic intelligence & knowledge via theoretical & basic limited introductory application alone simply does not compare to that which can be attained via real world experiential development.

In most cases individuals will find themselves entirely unprepared and well out of their depth once diving into the real world practice of which they've spent several expensive years supposedly learning at whatever preeminent educational institutions they'd submitted theirselves unto.

It is one thing to become theoretically proficient with a subject as described within a physical book or digital file....and a completely different thing to actually practice that subject in real world environments.

Another factor which often seems wholly overlooked is the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike, neither are their subjective experiences, nor intrinsic capacities. Every individual is infinitely unique regardless whether we wish to perceive only the overt similarities we/or society prefers.

Not forgetting the well known fact that males & females develop in significantly different ways, requiring significantly different developmental strategies.

This fundamental reality means that standardized unisex educational practices are inherently flawed due to the generalized standardization.
The modern institutional education systems are literally premised upon fallacious reasoning and yet apparently very few ever notice this.

 

[Jason]

So long as students are actually being *educated as opposed to *indoctrinated, then they may potentially walk away with greater subject specific intellectual capabilities than that which they began with, although general intelligence isn't strictly limited to common core academic activities either.

Furthermore, development of any specific academic intelligence & knowledge via theoretical & basic limited introductory application alone simply does not compare to that which can be attained via real world experiential development.

In most cases individuals will find themselves entirely unprepared and well out of their depth once diving into the real world practice of which they've spent several expensive years supposedly learning at whatever preeminent educational institutions they'd submitted theirselves unto.

It is one thing to become theoretically proficient with a subject as described within a physical book or digital file....and a completely different thing to actually practice that subject in real world environments.

Another factor which often seems wholly overlooked is the fact that no two individuals are exactly alike, neither are their subjective experiences, nor intrinsic capacities. Every individual is infinitely unique regardless whether we wish to perceive only the overt similarities we/or society prefers.

Not forgetting the well known fact that males & females develop in significantly different ways, requiring significantly different developmental strategies.

This fundamental reality means that standardized unisex educational practices are inherently flawed due to the generalized standardization.
The modern institutional education systems are literally premised upon fallacious reasoning and yet apparently very few ever notice this.

All majors are not indoctrination, though. What you're speaking of are the liberal arts. Those are the ones where you have to deal with "opinions".

 

[CuriousFiend]

All majors are not indoctrination, though. What you're speaking of are the liberal arts. Those are the ones where you have to deal with "opinions".

Well, no that is not what I posted.

Of course I agree with your point, that all majors are not indoctrination.

However I certainly was not speaking of liberal arts.

It may be surprising to realize how easily opinions can become equated as facts.

All it takes is a perceived "authoritative" figure stating an opinion as if fact, which if unchallenged, viola the opinion is interpreted as fact by subordinates.

We witnessed this occuring throughout the mass covaids hysteria. Sheet, some still do believe the opinionated falsehoods are "fact" while simultaneously believing the actual scientifically proven peer reviewed facts, proofs & evidences are the "falsehoods."

Why did/do so many fail to recognize the falsehoods?

Simple. The individuals who deceptively asserted these lies were perceived as "authoritative", eg: Anthony Fauci.

Indeed many far more experienced individuals did attempt to challenge his falsehoods yet the entire global mass media apparatus along with policy enforcement agents aggressively censored everyone who didn't simply agree with the approved false narrative.

Thus as with any opinion without substantiation merely spoken by a perceived "authority" and left unchallenged, so it was when Fauci spake falsehoods which suddenly became "fact" in the minds of the unwitting.

 

[Jason]

Well, no that is not what I posted.

Of course I agree with your point, that all majors are not indoctrination.

However I certainly was not speaking of liberal arts.

It may be surprising to realize how easily opinions can become equated as facts.

All it takes is a perceived "authoritative" figure stating an opinion as if fact, which if unchallenged, viola the opinion is interpreted as fact by subordinates.

We witnessed this occuring throughout the mass covaids hysteria. Sheet, some still do believe the opinionated falsehoods are "fact" while simultaneously believing the actual scientifically proven peer reviewed facts, proofs & evidences are the "falsehoods."

Why did/do so many fail to recognize the falsehoods?

Simple. The individuals who deceptively asserted these lies were perceived as "authoritative", eg: Anthony Fauci.

Indeed many far more experienced individuals did attempt to challenge his falsehoods yet the entire global mass media apparatus along with policy enforcement agents aggressively censored everyone who didn't simply agree with the approved false narrative.

Thus as with any opinion without substantiation merely spoken by a perceived "authority" and left unchallenged, so it was when Fauci spake falsehoods which suddenly became "fact" in the minds of the unwitting.

Universities are less biased than you think. I even remember a math professor who was opposed to women voting. Well, he didn't speak this publicly, of course.

 

[CuriousFiend]

Universities are less biased than you think. I even remember a math professor who was opposed to women voting. Well, he didn't speak this publicly, of course.

Ok so, I'm still unsure if there's a language barrier at play here, however, I do not appreciate the repeated attempts at 'putting words in my mouth' @Jason.

Now, I have not ever employed any such rhetorical trickery against yourself-nor against any others here-nor elsewhere, and this is because, (a) such falsehoods are brazenly dishonourable, and, (b) fallacious rhetorical devices, strategies & tactics are illogical, irrational & unreasonable distortions of truth-and of our actual experiential reality, and furthermore to be absolutely clear, (c) such rhetorical trickery is a very strong indicator of an individual's possession by either ignorance-&/or ignorance of ignorance-&/or variable subconscious biases-&/or deceptive-&/or manipulative intent.

Thus, I am hereby clearly stating my expectation that you please cease employing that-& any variant thereof such fallacious rhetorical strategies immediately. Thank you.

If this behaviour is due to a language barrier, then I would encourage efforting to prioritize proper use of the English language.

Now, ~"Universities are less biased than you think."~

-Whether universities may or may not be biased, nor to what-if at all any potential extent that may be, is simply not a particular subject that I have specifically opinionated on here.

~"...than you think."~

-Bruh, how on earth could you supposedly know what I, or any other but that which your-own-subjective-self may or may not think at any given moment?
Such an assertion is completely ridiculous mate.

Finally, ~"I even remember a math professor who was opposed to women voting. Well, he didn't speak this publicly, of course."~
Wtf? So if this cracker didn't speak such uber retarded sexist crap publicly, how is it that you supposedly know?

He would have had to speak his current-(*at the time)-sexist opinion publicly for you-as a member of the public-to have heard and subsequently to know....(((fast-forward)))....and to now assert this claim as supposedly being fact.

 

[Demon_skeith]

I'm sorry but a college education will enhance your IQ. It trains the brain. I'm not saying non graduates are dumb by any means, but I think it stands to reason.. More education = higher intelligence

Pretty sure a lot of sports players are pushed through college to get to higher level of sports, so they may have a paper, but not all the knowledge and I know others that did what they could just to pass a class with subpar grades.

 

[Jason]

Ok so, I'm still unsure if there's a language barrier at play here, however, I do not appreciate the repeated attempts at 'putting words in my mouth' @Jason.

Now, I have not ever employed any such rhetorical trickery against yourself-nor against any others here-nor elsewhere, and this is because, (a) such falsehoods are brazenly dishonourable, and, (b) fallacious rhetorical devices, strategies & tactics are illogical, irrational & unreasonable distortions of truth-and of our actual experiential reality, and furthermore to be absolutely clear, (c) such rhetorical trickery is a very strong indicator of an individual's possession by either ignorance-&/or ignorance of ignorance-&/or variable subconscious biases-&/or deceptive-&/or manipulative intent.

Thus, I am hereby clearly stating my expectation that you please cease employing that-& any variant thereof such fallacious rhetorical strategies immediately. Thank you.

If this behaviour is due to a language barrier, then I would encourage efforting to prioritize proper use of the English language.

Now, ~"Universities are less biased than you think."~

-Whether universities may or may not be biased, nor to what-if at all any potential extent that may be, is simply not a particular subject that I have specifically opinionated on here.

~"...than you think."~

-Bruh, how on earth could you supposedly know what I, or any other but that which your-own-subjective-self may or may not think at any given moment?
Such an assertion is completely ridiculous mate.

Finally, ~"I even remember a math professor who was opposed to women voting. Well, he didn't speak this publicly, of course."~
Wtf? So if this cracker didn't speak such uber retarded sexist crap publicly, how is it that you supposedly know?

He would have had to speak his current-(*at the time)-sexist opinion publicly for you-as a member of the public-to have heard and subsequently to know....(((fast-forward)))....and to now assert this claim as supposedly being fact.

He was a Christian friend is how I know, but I highly disagreed with some of his views, but I kept it to myself.

 

[CuriousFiend]

He was a Christian friend is how I know, but I highly disagreed with some of his views, but I kept it to myself.

Do you have an idea of what sort of "christian" cultist?

Coz there are three broad primary branches, Roman Catholic, Protestant & Orthodox, and further branching from these are quite a lot of different "christian" cults-each possessed by a sub-variant of the general "christian" biblical ideological virus.

Some of these "christian" cults can be rather oppositional, especially the more extreme fringe ones.

If your mate was opposed to women voting, then, Roman Catholicism comes to mind first, since they are the most common and have a history of opposing womens suffrage. Although as far as I am aware they-[Roman Caths]-aren't anti-women or hateful or nothin', it's just that their particular ideological possession dictates certain distinct roles for men and distinct roles for women. Meaning, failure to conform to their collective cult ritual practices is sinful and an affront to their supposed "god".

 

[Jason]

Do you have an idea of what sort of "christian" cultist?

Coz there are three broad primary branches, Roman Catholic, Protestant & Orthodox, and further branching from these are quite a lot of different "christian" cults-each possessed by a sub-variant of the general "christian" biblical ideological virus.

Some of these "christian" cults can be rather oppositional, especially the more extreme fringe ones.

If your mate was opposed to women voting, then, Roman Catholicism comes to mind first, since they are the most common and have a history of opposing womens suffrage. Although as far as I am aware they-[Roman Caths]-aren't anti-women or hateful or nothin', it's just that their particular ideological possession dictates certain distinct roles for men and distinct roles for women. Meaning, failure to conform to their collective cult ritual practices is sinful and an affront to their supposed "god".

He is a far-right Presbyterian. He went to Bob Jones University at one time.

 

[Henrywrites]

Pretty sure a lot of sports players are pushed through college to get to higher level of sports, so they may have a paper, but not all the knowledge and I know others that did what they could just to pass a class with subpar grades.

I agree with you. These sports players are just thought the basics and not focused much to know the deep knowledge about the courses that they are taking. Their aim is to have the paper for basic knowledge and nothing more.