Ungar thinks more students should major in liberal arts because it’ll make them well-rounded and have a better set of skills than someone who specializes in a certain major. While a liberal arts degree isn’t a bad choice that just doesn’t fit every person that wants to go to college. First of all, even if someone wanted to have a liberal arts degree and specialize in a certain major that’s going to take even more time depending on the major. That’s a long time in school and most importantly that’s a lot of money being spent if you’re paying for it out of your pocket. Then, a liberal arts degree doesn’t fuel the economy as much as the science, technology, engineering, and math majors (STEM).
A college education has become a necessity in today’s society. What if college was miraculously free. It would be like going to your public high school without paying that horrendous tuition fee. A lot of people say that free college is a dumb idea because it could potentially flood the market, and Others think it’s a great idea though, because more people would end up going to college because they don’t have to worry about financially paying for it. If there was a such thing about free college lower income students might reach graduation.
In today’s expensive world, it is a common trend that the cost of university education increases as the cost of living increases. Most countries offer free education through high school, yet many question wether university education should be free as well. It is essential to ambitious students to have a university level degree, but not free of cost. These people believe that “if you are good at something, never give it for free”, since anything available for free of cost is hardly valued. Thus, if university education becomes available for free, then students may not find it to be as valuable.
Most parents find it hard to pay for college. College is not worth the cost considering there are jobs for people that do not go to college, Time could be used at a job, and Students end up in major debt. Instead of students going to college, they could go straight into the workforce. Going to college helps obtain you better jobs. The effort students put into receiving a degree is not the same as ten years ago ( Shierholz ).
I guess people can look at that way, but it’s the matter of perspectives. If a person doesn't have a dream or future plans, it is a waste of money and time, because you are not learning anything in the university. However, if you have your dream and things to achieve, attending university would not be a waste of money, because you get to have a chance to study deeper on what you want to study. Also, most of people who go to two year college transfer to the university, anyways. They might save their tuition fees, but when they transfer, it is the waste of time.
Free College Tuition From Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders believes that college tuition isn’t in the interest for our country’s future. Bernie Sanders states “It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college” (Bernie). Bernie Sanders’ point is that many of the talented people in our society may not be able to pursue their dreams or pursue their desired job because they and their parents can’t afford college. If Bernie Sanders is right that many Americans can’t afford to go to college, as I think they are, then we need to reassess the popular belief that FAFSA and other scholarships will considerably lower the price for college.
Making college free to all is not going to give the big picture a great return on their investment. Numerous full-time students are graduation at the minimum rate. After they even graduate they can make a decent living for that matter even make more than a student without the college education. Not only will it make taxes go up but the loans they take out are not getting paid for; just digging more in more into a
One reason the opposition side of this argument argues that minority scholarships are fair is because, the scholarships are not always distributed by college institutions. Countless organizations, corporations, associations, and minority advocacy groups will offer scholarships to minorities (Minority Scholarships). These groups have every right to give out their money to whoever they would like, but that is not what the debate in this paper is about. The argument is against college institutions giving out the low requirement minority scholarships. If students can get different groups to give them money for school, that is nobody 's business but themselves.
However, college tuition is not very affordable and is increasing every year. A free college tuition is definitely necessary for students because some are paying for college themselves, the college workload is stressful enough, and scholarships, grants, and financial aid doesn’t cover all costs. College tuition should be free because it would create positive changes for people attending college, universities, and the economy. First, most students are paying for their own tuition themselves because either they want to be independent and do so, or because their parents have made that decision for them. According to Newberry, the average cost a year of undergraduate studies at a private university now tops $21,000.
Student athletes should not get paid because the full-ride scholarships that usually pay for you to go to the university pays for your entire education at the university. Jason Whitlock wrote about college athletes not being paid on Gale Opposing Viewpoints. “We need to stress to them that the educational opportunity they have been afforded is more valuable than the ‘pocket money’ an Ed Martin can provide.” Also, if the player is good enough they could be drafted or go professionally to a pro team in whatever sport that they are decent in. Then again, if we pay these collegiate athletes while receiving scholarship money, “the NCAA admits that a ‘full scholarship’ does not cover the basic necessities for a student-athlete. The NCAA refuses to change its rules to allow schools to provide scholarships that equal costs” (NCPA).
I agree with this article. For-profit colleges help people in their education in a lot of different ways. However, many people earn a degree to get a job. If the debt that they procure while doing so is more money than that which the degree can help pay off, that degree will have lost its meaning. Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus support this argument in their article “Are Colleges Worth the Price of Admission?” when they criticize colleges for not focusing on the right priorities to aid undergraduate learning.
The problem is the lawsuits that are holding the NCAA back from doing so and they also make arguments of paying college athletes pointless. Most people agree that if college athletes did get paid it wouldn’t be a total shock but it is just not that easy. These kids should just go through college like the alumni did and it will all payoff when they get their first major job paycheck. The point of college is to get you ready for the real world and if college athletes get paid while in college it totally defeats the purpose of college. Previous alumni didn’t get paid to play sports at their college so what makes the new athletes special.
Would paying college athletes help or damage the idea of amateurism? The issue of college athletes being paid has been debated recently. On one side of the argument, supporters believe that college athletes should not get paid. However, opponents think they should get paid. Colleges should not start paying their athletes for participating in a sport because the athletes have already gotten paid in education, and they aren’t professionals yet.
The athletes don’t know how to handle all this money; so by having college athletes it helps them with handling their money. It teaches them money management at a young age. Others may say that college athletes shouldn’t get paid because they are given scholarships. The only problem is that according The New York Time they say that “ The average athletic scholarship is less than a $11,000 a year”(Zissou). This is not for kids who are going to community college or anything.
In addition to reducing options, this would significantly reduce pressure on public institutions to serve students effectively. In conclusion, establishments have a great deal of reason to meet enrollment targets and go understudies through than to guarantee they are successful after graduation. On a very basic level, the "cost" of free open school is more than the money taxpayers would spend on it. By moving us to a framework construct to a great extent with respect to open establishments oversaw through top-down regulation, Sanders ' proposition would intensify the difficulties above, not solve them. It 's one of Bernie Sanders utopian dreams, it won 't happen, but that 's not to say it wouldn 't be welcome.