Money is the basis of living , even people with lower income degrees could support themselves before the cost of tuition went up drastically. However, when you add student loans in the mix , debt over takes the standard of living. Ellison has heavy focus on this because he wants to highlight a big reason why free tuition can be beneficial for people in the long run. He believes if free tuition was put in place , every college graduate, lower income or higher income, will be able to live within their
In recent discussions of unemployment, a controversial issue has been whether a college education is worth the oppressive debt that colleges thrust upon their students. From this perspective, obtaining a preeminent education is not valued above the threat of student loans that constantly loom over the possessor. On the other hand, however, others argue that a college education constructs the building blocks for undergraduates to pursue more than just a job or career. In the words of one of this view’s main proponents, “Post secondary education should help students to discover what they love to do, to get better at it, and to develop that ability to continue learning so that they become agents of change- not victims of it,” (Roth). According to this view, secondary education develops a student’s ability to rise above change and are not lost to its enormous list of victims.
If everyone is given the same opportunity at the same start why must we prohibit the go getters that came from nothing with new thresh holds in which gives my stand on education is an equal opportunity stands on the revelations of our country’s next generation. Some people believe college tuition should be free; however, it should not, because it will devalue the college diploma, taxes will become higher, and it’s as simple as nothing in life is free. The first reason why college tuition shouldn’t be a hand out is because it would devalue the college diploma. If everyone had a diploma what makes it different from the people you’re working next too, who is going to get that promotion.
College is a specific environment that has its own expectations and rules, and students who seek enrollment should take into account that the gates are open only for those who are willing to excel and thrive academically. A cruel reality faced in college could be far away from students’ expectations. Paying for tuition, students become more responsible for their learning process, taking authority of their knowledge. Before enrolling in a class, students will consider their chances to pass it on the first attempt rather than spending money for a second or even a third chance. Thus, college tuition should be perceived as an investment in a new project, college degree, that becomes profitable at the time of successful
Students adopt ‘achieving’ approach in learning, which is the students focus more on obtaining high grades. Thus, graduates lack of soft skills and higher order thinking skills. In relation to this, exam-oriented approach does not benefit our graduates. The government and universities should apply student centered learning using problem-based learning (PBL) to focus on monitoring and assessment methods. 1.2 Problem statement: Malaysian graduates are too exam-oriented.
Caroline Bird’s argument against postsecondary education is incorrect, specifically her beliefs that students are exposed to too many options and graduates only desire jobs that save people. First, Caroline Bird shares her belief that “a college experience that piles option on option …merely adds to the contemporary nightmare.” Although too many options are sometimes overwhelming, limiting choices would also create undue pressure for students. For instance, as a student, I am exposed to several options: what classes I should take, what major I should major in, what professors I should take, etc.
The goal of the usage of this fact is to show readers this common term does not reflect real traits of smart people and can be treated as an insult because of that. It is one of the few examples of Fridman’s appeals to readers’ logic. The essay is based on general data; the author mentioned schools and universities promote negative attitude to smart students: “Nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized” (Fridman). But he did not use any statistical or science data to support his position. For example, Fridman could provide data about scholarships and other types of funding for sports and other activities.
The student retorts, “we talk about what’s true, what’s important, what’s good. Well, how do you teach people to be good?” (p. 2). She also wonders whether Emerson would have “any ideas about what to do about what was worrying him-or did he think he’d done enough because he’s spelled the problem out to the Harvard professors?”
The authors declare existing educations systems “encourage the opposite”, meaning they are not encouraging students to learn both sciences and humanities. Not encouraging additional learning is due to “funding provided by government grants.” Graduate schools are forced to “create a closed system” to meet the “demand for results” in doctoral programs. Ottino and Morson show that graduation schools are not to blame for the neglect of “whole-minded” learning, but funding is to blame. If students are receiving funding from the government; they must maintain certain GPAs and learning paths.
Gratz and Hull are not alone on the defense side of affirmative action. In his article “University Affirmative Action Admissions Policies Are Toxic,” Robert Cherry asserts that “affirmative action admissions policies disportionately accept students with lower-than-average test score and grades. As a result, they are not adequately prepared for the rigors of top-tier universities.” In making this comment, Cherry clearly favors for affirmative action to be taken out of higher education. He supports his argument with data that suggest that minorities are not performing as well as whites because some colleges lower their standards in order to accept more minorities.
Should everyone not go to college? According to Larry Cuban, District superintendent, and professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, Everone should not go to college. Sounds odd coming from someone who went to college and currently teaches at a University. To persuade the reader, Cuban uses facts and statistics in order to hopefully prove his claim and explain to the reader why he is right. However, the main factors he uses are facts and statistics, which in my opinion, are not persuasive at all, and is just information.
Do you think college athletes should be paid? This controversy is debated in Opposing Viewpoints: Sports and Athletes. Al Woods titles his argument College Athletes Should Be Paid because the schools are making money off the players, some athletes are being paid under the table, and athletes are giving up on education. However, Krikor Meshefejian titles his argument College Students Should Not Be Paid because students receive scholarships, the payment system is “problematic”, and the experience is payment enough(98-99.) Meshefejian has the better argument that students should not be paid.
What is College Worth? The worth behind a college education continues to shift as times change. This day in age, the educational system in the US is failing because for some reason, earning a bachelor’s degree in a STEM subject does not guarantee a job and that is not acceptable. If someone puts in the time, effort, money and is successful enough to get through four to six years in college, they deserve a job in their field.
“College in America” Caroline Bird thinks that a college education may not be the best choice for all high school students because college education does not bring about social equality, it does not benefit them financially, and it is not guaranteed that college will lead them to an elite profession. First of all, high school students are expected to bring about social equality through four rigorous years in college. However, college is an expensive way to categorize the highs and lows in society. It is pressuring to younger students to pursue a higher education that only a few could achieve, and is also difficult for them to established an identity in society. Second, a college education does not benefit the youth financially because it is
In the article “Debt Education: Bad for the Young, Bad for America”, Jeffrey J. Williams explains the damage student debt causes past and present college students. Williams argued that more than half of the college students and their families are in debt from having to make such large payments toward the rising costs of colleges. Though, Williams also states a higher degree or education will lead to a high income and all around better jobs, the risk of being unemployed after college is too great. This is considered to be good for individuals, as it will maximize their economic potential. It is also good for society as a whole as people are getting better education, and rising to greater expectations in the world.