The cost of the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education

Point

The social-democratic model, most prevalent in Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for
universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt the countries
maintaining them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying for free university education
is ruinously high. The government money needed to be channeled into universities to
provide for free education, as well as into various other generous social welfare benefits, has
been a case of borrowing from future generations to finance current consumption[1]. For
these countries to survive, and lest other countries attempt to follow suit with similar
models, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. In the case of
education, it seems fair to say that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary
and secondary education opportunities, since the skills acquired during such education are
absolutely necessary for citizens to function effectively within society; reading, writing, basic
civics, etc. are essential knowledge which the state is well-served in providing. University, on
the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and
responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to attend, but one can live effectively without
it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non-
essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they cannot view it as an
entitlement owed by the state that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is just too
high, and the state must act from a utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees will
place the cost of education upon those wishing to reap the benefits of education, and not on
the taxpayer.

Counterpoint

It is far from impossible to pay for free university education. States waste money in many
activities, and if they were to cut back on other discretionary spending then the cost of free
higher education would be entirely feasible. Cuts to defense spending in countries with
overinflated militaries, or ending farm subsidies in many European states, are just some of
things states can do. Furthermore, the benefits of higher education are to everyone, not just
those who receive it directly. It is beneficial to all of society when there are educated
professionals within it. It is thus absolutely essential for states to fund higher education, and
to maximize the numbers who attend so as to reap the rewards of an educated populace.

Budget Cuts Are Happening

Schools need the money! Now a days everything needs money. Government is running out
of money. Theres bills to pay. Theres the heat, theres the power, theres the supplies, theres
the water. These things all need money. And of course there are scholarships. I believe that
scholarships give talented people opportunities but the supplies for those people need
money.
Ladies and gentlemen: Point counter-point is back online for another thrilling school year, and this months topic,
drum roll please. is free higher education. Thats right, you read it correctly, FREE higher education. (Admittedly,
not a topic of my choice, but que sera and all that jazz)

Anyway, lets dive right in; free higher education seems like a great idea, and as senior applying to colleges I wish
college was free. But, since we live in a realm called reality and not fantasy liberal-palooza land, we need to have
grounding in reality. Yes, it would be lovely if higher education was free, but realistically speaking is it possible? My
opponent raves about the ridiculous price of postsecondary education, but does he consider the fact that this tab still
needs to be paid? Does he think that some government mandate can just magically make the cost of this education
disappear? Things cost money for a reason, professors need to be paid, utilities need to be paid, housing needs to be
paid for, etc. Money is needed for everything, especially in this economy, and if college education is on a whim made
free, then the American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for everyone. And there is no conclusive evidence
presented by my opponent that suggests that welfare costs and unemployment will go down if everyone is educated.
If the education level increases for everyone, there is no guarantee that everyone who gets that education will get a
job. So, that means that higher taxes will be needed pay for someone elses non-compulsory education, with only a
slight, if any, increased chance of getting a job. Thats right, despite what modern projections on a college education
are, it is not something that has to be done. Modern perceptions though, and my opponent, make the false
assumption that college education is the only way to success, a common misconception.

A College education is a way to be successful. Just because you come out of college with a fancy piece of paper
does not guarantee you success, and the same could be said of the converse; not having a fancy piece of paper with
a universitys name smattered on it does not equate to being unsuccessful. And lets look at success, what really is
successfulness? In all honesty, one should be able to make their own version of success, without having some liberal
breathing down their neck telling them what successfulness should be. When did obtaining college education become
the only mean to being successful? (And they call me an elitist.) Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg made billions
without a college education, and Peter Theil and his 20 under 20 organization pays young people to drop out of
school and work on an entrepreneurial enterprise.

I have one more criticism of my opponent, and that is that he is once again being a demagogue through his idealistic
diatribes aimed against what is realistically possible and ethically moral (Im trying to pay for my own education, not
someone elses) . Using taxpayer dollars to fund someone elses non-compulsory education, with a very low return
rate for a huge investment makes me want to vomit. There is even no guarantee that after we pay for these people to
go to school that they wont sit on their rear-end, join occupy, and/or live off the government teat.

Before I move on to my next point, I want to point out some logical inaccuracies made by my opponent to our dear
reader. He makes the assumption that the responsibility to pay for college is on the students family, which as a whole
is completely outrageous. Coming from a family with three other siblings, my parents have made it clear that all loans
must be taken out in my name, meaning that I myself am responsible for investing in my education, not mommy and
daddy. And branching off from that, my opponent completely disregarded the fact that taxpayer dollars already go to
helping students pay for college. Its called FAFSA, and its low interest, student loans designed by the federal
government to help students pay for college tuition. In addition, my opponent assumes that all citizens will be better
once we make post-secondary education free, but at the same time he neglects the quality of that education. Did you
ever wonder why private school students on average score higher than public school students on standardized tests?
Its due to the fact that most public schools have lower quality educations than private schools. So, why wouldnt the
same logic apply here? (Look at the school district of Philadelphia, besides GAMP, Masterman, and Central, which
public school would you like to go to) The government reminds a lot like the character Mush from the movie A Bronx
Tale, because everything they get their grubby little hands on is mushed.

Continuing on with putting down fallacies, lets look at what else spewed out of my opponents confused yet good-
intentioned thoughts. (I will admit that at least his intentions are in the right place). The last throes of his article goes
into a passionate plea for the election of Jill Stein as president. (In retrospect, passionate plea should be changed
to soppy, knee-crooked, begging. Apparently this is the new campaign strategy for the Greens). He quotes Dr.
Steins campaign platform saying that we need The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled
public education system from pre-school through college. We will also forgive student loan debt from the current era
of unaffordable college education. Which, I ask the dear reader to decide, is this really viable with over 16 trillion in
national debt?

Lets go full circle and get back to my title. Why do people feel so entitled? College education is not a right, and if
intelligent people, like my opponent, believe that, then they have fallen under the evil scripture of mass media and
political narcissism. They are the real danger here, the intellectuals of society who are corrupted and now feel entitled
and no longer contribute. And when this occurs, we lose all American excellence. There is a reason why the
Declaration of Independence says the pursuit of happiness. And that is because happiness is not a right, you have
to earn it yourself, the government cant give you a happiness handout. The same could be said of college education,
there is no right to college education for a reason, because when something that important is given away for nothing,
its true meaning and value is lost.

Hutang Negara Malaysia 2013

Good education costs money. Somebody has to pay for the campus, the lecturers,
the equipment and library. When anyone proposes free education, what they
really mean is free to the student.