The significant role governments play in educating their citizens is increasingly being eroded with new trends that ask for cost- sharing arrangements by students and parents. Is this an acceptable trend?
Education and health are both human rights recognised by the UN and all governments.Education should not be about creating elitism, but a public service for all citizens regardless of class, ethnic group or religion.
As per my personal experience, I can say that
1. Govt must incur expenditure, but it should not be totally FREE for the students.
2. No staff of any educational institutions should be permanent.
3.The promotion, pay raise etc. should be completely on written examination, performance and student score basis.
Hi Shibabrata,
Thank you for your reaction but I'm caught off guard by your second suggestion. Why shouldn't there be permanent staff in educational institutions? Do you think everything such institutions do can be handled by part-time staff? I really am interested to know.
I think this is one of her main duties to prepare educated and qualified people
As part of her social responsibility, the Government is expected and obliged to educate her citizens. All activities of governance and the level of development of any country depends on the kind and quality of education acquired by the citizens.Therefore, the cost of education, especially, in most developing countries should be completely shoulder by the government.
Hi,
Education costs can be shared by the government, associations, companies, etc.
Regards!
My problem with this sort of question is in how it is phrased. The more accurate phrasing should be, should taxpayers be obliged to pay for the education of other people, because ultimately, an educated public is a benefit to everyone?
The idea that "government" grows money on trees, and can dole it out as it sees fit, is fundamentally flawed. What we are really asking is whether people should give up part of their own income, only to benefit someone else's education. And as others have rightly suggested, I think, my answer is a qualified yes.
Completely "free" is probably not a good idea. People who are given freebies, which means, people who benefit from someone else's donations, have a tendency of not valuing correctly what they are consuming. So, as always, in medio stat virtus. I do definitely believe that an educated public is the best answer, however.
Education is an important investment for a country's social, cultural and of course economic success. Governments do often not hesitate to subsidize industry, so why should they hesitate to subsidize education. I think that there should be a social component to it. Primary and secondary education should be free, for tertiary education there should be scholarships that look at social criteria (income of parents) and other scholarships that look at performance. Such support can be given as grant or loan. In the latter case there should be good deductions when students complete their studies quickly and are among the best of their age group (say 10 percent). Such and other incentives allow people from different social groups to study, provide incentives to perform well and enable the state to have sustainable schemes that also get funds back, if provided as loans.
Education is an important investment for a country's cultural and economic success. Therefore, the cost of education, especially, in most developing countries should be completely shoulder by the government but practices are very much painful.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science