Fong

You are a confusing person.

You ask me to prove something that is clearly impossible to prove.

Yet when asked if you think more people would apply if it was free, you seem to agree that they would.

So why do I need to prove that someone isn't getting a degree now, if you freely admit that more would apply if it was free? Then clearly there ARE some people who would want a degree that are not applying who would if it was free.

This has NOTHING to do with the fact that you keep saying ANYONE and then set out clauses that do not apply to everyone.

Shiva_TD

Everyone in the United States that really wants to go to college goes to college. There are no barriers that prevent it including tuition. The proposition that making it free to the student would somehow increase the number of those graduating is a false argument and is therefore moot.

If it is not moot then present a case where someone was prevented because of tuition costs.

Fong

Well instead of asking for a specific case in a population of 300m, which is extremely difficult in an online debate to prove, it is one thing to get statistics, but you are asking for personal information about a single individual. The only way I can 'prove' your question is to outline, here on the internet a personal example. Who exactly wants their life detailed on a political forum where anyone can access it?

Why not answer the question that Aztek asked previously.

Do you think more people would get a degree if it was free.

You will find the answer in that question, is the answer to your own question.

AzTeK

Actually, Fong, he already answered that question. He said no, he doesn't believe more people will gradute.

While I do, there is no possible way to proove either of our point so I just stopped debating right there, eventhough of course I respect his oppinion

__________________

Fong

I know it is odd. It is just the refusal of the most basic logic.

Will more people want something good if it is free.

Well of course they will, it's human nature. Yet despite that, people who are against the idea will stay say no, even though in their heart they must know the answer is yes.

Shiva_TD

Just because something is "free" doesn't imply that more people will do something even if its good for them. By way of analogy I would point out that exercising an hour a day is free but most people don't do it.

It isn't the cost of a college education that prevents people from getting a degree. Its the amount of time required and dedication over four or more years that prevents people from getting a college education. Those that are willing to make that personal commitment go to college. Those that don't want to make that commitment don't. That will not change because tuition costs are either reduced or eliminated.

The failure of logic is when you make an assumption without any evidence to back it up. Before you assume more people would go to college if it were free you have to establish that people aren't going because of the cost. That has not been established.

AzTeK

The analogy is a bit broken. Not all people work out 1h a day eventhough it's free because the benefit from it to them is not inherently obvious. The same reason why so many people smoke eventhough they know it will probably end up costing them quite some tome of quality life. The positive aspect/negative aspect is not inherent, or atleast not big enough to justify doing so/stopping it.

With a college education you'll be earning cold hard cash after you'r done. The benefit of it is obvious and from the greedy point of view of the general public vastly superior to simply "living a couple of years longer". Shouldn't be, but it is...

I believe it is. A college education should be seen as an investment. It's a fact that even in Germany, there are quite a few college degrees that do not provide a positive return of investment, so in other words, over the course of a standard working life, you would have earned more money without a college education than with one. Unfortunately I only have the study in German so there's no point in showing it to you, but that's the way it is. Reducing the cost of education reduces the risk of making a bad investment which increases the amount of people willing to make the investment.

You haven't provided any evidence either. You just provided a scenario that oyu think is the most likely, whereas neither Fong nor me share that view. But read my statement above, as to how the cost of a college education could very well be the reason for not getting the degree.

__________________

Shiva_TD

I am not the one proposing a milti-billion dollar social program for a country that is already roughly $9 trillion in debt. The fact that you "think" it might be benficial does not support such a proposal. You need hard facts and data to support your proposal for increased government spending and taxation on the People.

You can question the numbers that follow but I would guess they are close to the truth.

I would estimate that it takes about 1500 hours per year for a person to attend college including class time and home work.

Working those 1500 hours instead of going to school at just $8/hr equals $48,000 over four years. For the average person it would cost them much more than that in lost wages. Time and money are two major factors in why even those that have the academic capabilities to complete a college education don't go and not tuition costs. Of course a lack of good study habits and a dislike for school is another factor which would prevent people from even considering college.

And thank you for pointing out that a college degree can be a waste of time, efffort, and money for some people. They actually earn less because of it and therefore present a negative impact on society.

Fong

Your analogy is a flawed one because you are saying people who can do things for free aren't doing them.

Yet that isn't what we are proposing is it?

We aren't proposing the Government start a scheme and give people all they need to complete a degree on their own.

What we are talking about is GIVING someone something.

No one gives you excercise.

The moment you start to give something away you notice that more people turn up to get it.

Simple bloody fact Shiva.

I can't believe we are even debating the idea that if you start to give something away for free, more people might or might not turn up.

What crazy madness is that Shiva? Think about it, put it terms of how the Free Market thinks, what does the free market say when you start to give something away for nothing?

Yet you are going to debate that issue? Come on. This is stupid.

Fong

You will argue.

People lack motivation. That is their problem. Etc.

I say so what?

I put it in terms like this, if I get you to get an education when you lack motivation, by giving it away for free. Then later on in life, like what happens soo often, when you gain motivation, like Einstien did, like J K Rowling did, like soo many great people in life have, then you won't have to waste 4 years of motivated time getting an education.

Instead of turning round and going, yeah I am going to do this, no wait, instead I will have to go back to Uni and spend 3 to 4 years getting a degree before I can move on with this section of my life.

You can say, yeah I am going to do this, wow lucky they were letting me do education for nothing, didn't think about it much at the time, but that degree is going to be very handy now.

I don't care if you are motivated or not, if I had my way, I would make it compulsory.

The UK is currently debating on whether to increase the school leaving age from 16 to 18. For everyone. How long will it be before we decide to make it 21 and everyone is taught to degree level?

Think of it as the building blocks of your society, just because the idiot down the road doesnt want to pay for the foundations to be done correctly to HIS part of the house, doesn't mean you don't want solid foundations through-out the building.