A section of students argue that post graduate education places emphasize on problem solving which immensely contribute to society development. Hence, the public must bear the cost.
Yes. It would help the poor but brilliant to pursue higher studies.
No. Because free postgraduate studies has been criticized as not helping many sponsored students to be serious with their studies due to low commitments.
It will be a great idea to have free post-graduate studies but in a developing country like Ghana, we can foresee there is bound to be many implementation challenges(e.g. Sustainable source of funding) that will make it near impossible to roll out.
I support free post-graduate studies if the student works in a place represents the field of study. This means that the student will work on his charge without any financial support from the university and he has the Lab to investigate. This may be a best program for research from the view of both the development of the practical field and addition of new research for the academic work.
Yes, I support free postgraduate education. In my country, education is free at all levels, which contributes to the formation of highly qualified human potential and the generation of new knowledge, which impacts on economic and social growth and development.
Yes. I support free postgraduate education by merit/top rank wise. If it is possible education and hospitality is free at all level for eligible persons only. Otherwise this facility was misused at all levels and everybody try to misuse at any cost.
I agree with both colleagues EEffie Amonoo and Goli Srinivasarao for such study but the law must permit these conditions in our countries.
I agree with the answer given by Dr. Alicia Alonso because the professional formation must be continuous, so that when the university student concludes this educational level, the professional formation is not over. This must continue systematically and the postgraduate is the way to achieve it
I do. Whatever the negatives, such as student motivation, they are far outweighed by positives. The right to higher education through purchase, is simply not a good idea and is directed at the well-off, not the brilliant.
Isaac,
I've yet to hear a persuasive argument against it. If we remedy illness through publicly-funded health care, should we not 'remedy' ignorance (in all its forms) through publicly-funded education?
James:
Yes, all people in all countries should have guaranteed health and education. Without doubt, we would have a better world.
I think whole education before University (elementary, middle, high, etc.) should be free (as it probably is in most countries). However, higher education should remain non-free step in the education. If free - young people treat it as just the next necessary step in education. Often mentally forced by parents to do that. As a young scientist who graduated within the last 10 years, I can say it from the students perspective - unlike more experienced scientists from the perspective of academic labour. Other pros - countries in which the education is not free remain high research quality represented in the rankings, or it doesn't seem that the universities in these countries suffer from the lack of students.
No, and to repeat for advanced health care No.
All societies benefit from maintaining a minimum level of both education and health care.
If we keep our citizens generally well then we are all less likely to catch diseases and we all benefit.
Similarly with education. If we educate our young to a minimum standard then they are more likely to perform well within our society and again we all benefit.
However, in both education and health, not forgetting social care, housing etc, there comes a breakpoint where the social minima become lifestyle choices benefitting the exclusive minority - and my guess is that everyone using this forum is currently in that exclusive minority regardless of their background.
Take for example the situation in the UK. Every one has a right to education until age 16, and they are all encouraged to participate to their fullest extent. It is mandatory for them to attend school for minimum periods during the school year.
After that age they can choose to progress in education or drop out into other walks of life if they see fit.
A large minority choose to progress into advanced secondary and subsequently tertiary education. This is the point where lifestyle choices are first being made and there is an assumption that society has a duty to pay for those who choose to pursue advanced education and those who choose not to go into education should pay for them.
The reality is that those who go into advanced education will have substantially higher lifetime earnings than their peers.
Demands for free degrees and post grads etc mean that society is skewed to supporting the rich and well educated at the expense of the poor and less well developed.
I see the same arguments coming from artists; painters, singers, musicians etc who demand that society pays for their highly exclusive lifestyles while they pretend they are somehow advancing society through their offerings.
Imagine the situation where professional footballers demand society pay for their lifestyle while at the same time they earn such exorbitant salaries.
No and no again. You guys all have superb futures before you. Learn the difference between equality of opportunity and robbing from the poor to pay for that future.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy
- Free Will