Britain has recently tripled its university tuition fees, which have increased from 3000 to 9000 Pounds Sterling. The general trend in the anglo saxon world is that higher education costs a lot of money, and working class families cannot really afford it, so they stay working class! Some would argue that if you pay for education then you would take it seriously. On the other hand, getting a degree from British or American universities not only increases your chances for employment, but also your chance of getting a higher starting salary. What are your views on this important issue? Should higher education be expensive, affordable or free to everyone?
It should be free for the best students, plus scholarships for the poor, and affordable for others. It can be expensive for a few programs (e.g. executive MBA).
I don't know how they are justifying such a huge fee. I am not in favor of huge tuition fee for students. They should be able to find the fee from other part time works without affecting their studies. This will make them more responsible.
Dear Mohamed
In the Brazilian public universities , financial autonomy is precarious , to the extent that , in almost all of them , most of their resources , which are insufficient , comes from the government. There should be a system of payment for students in a differentiated and proportionate manner , according to the socioeconomic status of each student.
Of course raising money in proportion and differentiated way , it creates mechanisms to strengthen the autonomy of the university. In this way students can better order the correction of shortcomings and problems , which always exist in public universities .
We live in a world that is becoming increasingly competitive. Any institution that wishes to survive can not fail to raise funds that are accessible to him . Public Institutions of Higher Education in Brazil are mostly charitable . Payment of the public education program, in a differentiated and proportionate manner is an important step to improve the quality of university education and make it fairer society
Higher education should be affordable. See the link on 'Malaysia adopts national strategy for lifelong learning'.
In his speech our Prime Minister stressed the importance of this national strategy as Malaysia’s tool to move from a middle-income to a high-income country by 2020.
http://uil.unesco.org/home/news-target/malaysia-adopts-national-strategy-for-lifelong-learning/7185a1e401f55c16d61550a7349fe80a/
Education should be free for each one whatever the level of education.
While I believe that higher education should be free I understand that many countries simply do not have the means to do so. In these cases there needs to be a variety of options available for the affordable to the not so affordable with the help of financial aid, grants and scholarships.
In my opinion it should be affordable. If it is free it will be misused. Not everybody is destined for higher education because of their mental capabilities. Therefore only those that have the mental capacity should get into higher education. There should be some kind of financial help for those who do not have the resources.
It should be free for the best students, plus scholarships for the poor, and affordable for others. It can be expensive for a few programs (e.g. executive MBA).
higher education must be affordable to everybody provided they have the right intellectual skills to accomplish the study. Entrance test are an excellent way to select the appropriate people. However the nation can ask restitution after studies, e.a. to work some periods for the government or the public health organizations
In my country, both primary and secondary education are an obligation and it is free. It would be nice if University education would be free, but not obligatory! There are countries Free Tuition!
http://higheredstrategy.com/countries-with-free-tuition/
Here's another way to look at it...what about the countries who have little or no educational opportunities? Where is the population in regards to economic status? What is the political, religious status in regards to how it views it's citizens/congregation? What is the health status of the general population? What is the poverty level, high or low? I am willing to bet that the educational status of any country's citizens will determine the answers to these questions. Anyone can educate themselves given the opportunity and resources. It does not have to be inside the walls of a higher learning institution, but it does need to be accessible and affordable.
This question is what we call here a "Dorothy Dixer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Dixer: a planted question appealing to a given group (namely left-wing sympathisers).
Saying "education should be free" is not really accurate or possible any more, as it is not in any sense "free". Everything costs, and higher education costs a great deal. What one is really saying with this question is that education should be entirely state-funded (i.e., a burden of the tax-payer).
But if all education is state-funded in means, in essence, that those who live near higher education providers and have the wherewithal to study (i.e. those who are not working, caring for others, living in regional areas, are too poor to take time out to study, are too old and infirmed, etc) will be the beneficiaries, and those that do not, will not. This is tantamount to one section of the community have access to a free service that others do not or cannot have. This means one much large sector of the community will essentially subsidise the education of a much smaller sector of the community. The real question is: is this fair?
A quite separate question is: given education costs money--part of which should be met by the beneficiary of the educational experience (and not the taxpayer)-- how much is a reasonable contribution?
The fear of making higher education free is that it will become cheap. It will lose it's value and consequently no one will venture into it.
Higher education should be affordable to the deserving. I don't think that it should be free, it should be valuable and valued!
Martin comments are true in that everything costs (including professor's wages). As the costs of material for infrastructure becomes more expensive due to demand, costs will go up. That being said, there are ways t make education available. Many of these are in the form of:
1) State sponsored education
2) endowments to the institution
3) subsidized scholarships(State or private funding)
The question to be posed is: should it be for all? or based on a competitive basis?
Due to the amount of students today, I think the answer is that it must be competitive in nature.
My last answer is based on a reasoning of what is happening today to pension funds. Sooner or later these sponsored education programs for all are pyramidal in nature and will sooner or later collapse (my own biased opinion).
For deserving students, it should be at least affordable - free is better.
Education should be heavily invested in by government and industry alike, because they are the direct beneficiaries i.e. economic growth (more taxes and income)
Good question @Mohamed. As mentioned by many contributors, it depends from each country's history. Underdeveloped countries who must fasten their human resources development, could choose free public university costs. Middle developed ones could attempt for affordable costs, and developed countries who have a consequent human resource could do a balance between free universities, affordable and expensive ones depending on the needed knowledge and its cost from tools and technologies for different fields. However, it must be based on competitive scheme for all (poor and rich, underdeveloped or developed countries), unless human resource quality could be lost. And all must help poor people for free, rich people must pay the costs 'it is not reasonable that rich and poor could access to same services with same costs or for free'. As higher education must be under governments' responsibility, knowledge must be allowable to all people .
However a sociological question from labor people and more educated ones based on economic factor still be a key question for all. The only response is the competitive issue based on the mental and intellectual capacity of the students not on their economic means, with an open door to different people who weren't able or unlucky to reach desired studies or who want improve their skills.
My goodness! By all means, higher education should be free or largely subsided. Society at large must invest in their best brains which is a way for investing in its own future.
I understand that higher education with high standards is dead expensive. However, it is time we all thought about inter and transgenerational education and future - seriously.
Dear Mohamed
If the student has a good financial situation, he could pay the cost of their studies during the course.
For those who do not have sufficient income, a loan could be granted for the course and pay this loan would be paid after completion of the course , with plots and deadlines revised in line with future income.
If all students in public schools to pay for the benefit of the course, it would save large public resources for maintaining free public schools.
Consequently, there would be resources to improve the quality of education, including providing greater employability for graduates; investments to increase the number of vacancies and to meet the demand of candidates who meet the minimum requirements; fund the proposed grant of credit and employment generation for improving the quality of education and increase in vacancies
Best brains are already being sponsored either by the government or by the companies as well as by individuals.
The question is if we make it free, then what will we expect?
How do we pay the wages of professors and the helping staff?
How do we pay for apparatus, chemicals, etc. for experiments?
We can deduce from the situation of developing countries. We can also look at the developed countries and see how much effort they are doing for higher education.
Making it free would render it cheap.
I think that higher education is the spinal column of a nation; it provides the qualified human resources for the nation's organization, running, thinking, ruling, managing, and advancing its industry, economy, health, science, technology.... so it must be hold financially by a consequent state budget. Other sponsors from individuals, industries and foundations are welcomed for better advancing research or helping best brains. Anyway any investment (private or public) in higher education is a collective investment for the nation's progress and also for worldwide human development from new discoveries and human scientific knowledge expand. I think we shouldn't think higher education as any marketing place or commercial issue, we should focus on its quality.
Thank you Fairouz for your comment. It adds value to the thread.
Costs of higher educatiion have risen over the years so that for many it is impossible to gain an education without going into huge debt. The assumption is that the debts can be paid once the student graduates and gets a higher paying job. However, new graduates are now faced with high unemployment rates and may have to take lower paying jobs or may not get a job at all. Their student debts remain a burden for many years and some will never be paid off.
I believe American and British universities are the highest cost of leaning. At the same time. I agree with what Fairouz said,"Any investment (private or public) in higher education is a collective investment for the nation's progress and also for worldwide human development...".
I agree with you provided that the level of selection is High
Higher education should neither be free nor too expensive in my opinion, because if it is free, quality can be causality over a longer time frame, as we have witnessed in mnay developing countries. Also if it is too expensive not many would be able to afford it resulting in lower quality of students over time. The governments should see that quality faculty and academic infrastructure is in place for higher education, but only a part of the expenditure can be collected through fees from the students, rest must come from public or private sources.
it should be affordable for all students intended to seek higher education and free for those who cant afford it by giving them handsome scholarships.
In my opinion higher educational costs may be helpful in maintaining high standards, quality infrastructures and study environments and only cream is promoted to the best. However some scholarships and free education need to be there for deserving and toppers of Univ./Institutes - so that instead of being absorbed here and there - this brainy mass gets into higher studies and serves the nation / world in best ability/capacity.
The rapid rise in tuition at major public universities in t he US is one of the most controversial subjects in higher education. Although I would love for higher education to be free, I'd settle for affordable for the lower middle class, not only the more affluent middle class and the wealthy. Because of the costs, most students work 25-40 hours per week just to keep bills paid and tuition on time. Their effectiveness as students is consequently much lower because they are also required to carry a full load of credits--15 or five classes every semester to keep their financial aid ( mostly loans that now stand at more than a trillion dollars owed by students across the nation). What is so terrible about the rise in costs here is that most of the expense is not in faculty salaries or student aid; it is in administrative positions that are mostly "add-ons" that are not essential nor in many cases even "needed." For instance, in a division I worked for over more than a decade, the few of us who administered and taught the program have been replaced by a cadre of at least six people and not one of them has prior teaching or total administrative responsibility for this program in the past.. And the program offered since 2002 is now gone, supposedly for lack of money. Probably from paying to many other people; as my grandmother used to say, "There are too many cooks in the kitchen." For a university to provide scholarships requires a very high college admission score, often unattainable to the working class and much less available to the poor, both of whom lack the academic rigor from their public schools to achieve at the very high levels required.
There is also in the US today an emphasis on salaries to be earned after graduation. In this country, the best salaries starting out come from engineering and accounting (a bachelor's level). For all the other professions, graduate school is a necessity with huge costs attached in most cases. Programs in humanities are being cut back or cut out completely simply because fewer students see big income in those fields. Certainly , I don't disagree with earning money but in all professions, one cannot walk into an entry-level job and expect great income. But too many young people have been misled into thinking that the only majors worth their attention are in computer technology, engineering, or medicine (and many medical students graduate from medical school with $250,000 and more in debts to repay).
Public university fees should be adjusted for social-economic class, but I guarantee that in the US that idea will produce the most virulent, vitriolic attacks imaginable by those who hold power (especially with today's federal administration) and the wealth, which equates to power in this society. Because of the huge disparities in the public schools of the nation, there should also be a sort of " Beginner's College" of one year's duration to prepare those who may lack the appropriate academic and cultural backgrounds to handle the large public university. There are plenty of tests that can determine whether or not that student is ready to move on. Again, convincing the public institution to put money into people not just administrators is a hard sell. But the costs here are outrageous by anybody's standards (except for the wealthy, of course). Grad schools can be partially funded by grad students working as Research Assistants, Graduate Teachers in the core of their field, etc. I totally agree with costs for graduate education. But something must be done about the tuition costs and the cutting of programs like the humanities that restrict students to knowing almost nothing outside their own major field. This kind of craziness is taking place in a world in which communication, understanding, and humanity are desperately needed.
Should higher education be affordable?
83% YES
17% NO
See Debate and opinions.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-higher-education-be-affordable
I think that a country should always make education as accessible as possible, but with rigorous methods of student selection.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Higher Education
- Universities