To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
One prevailing notion asserts that 'free education fully financed by the government' is an unattainable ideal. The premise argues that a zero-tuition college education merely shifts the financial burden from students to taxpayers, creating a misconception that education is free when, in reality, it emanates from taxpayers' pockets in the form of taxes.
Opponents question the equity of low-income taxpayers funding the education of wealthier students, contending that it perpetuates an unjust system. However, the argument here challenges the notion of 'poor college students,' positing that individuals on the path to college inherently possess substantial wealth—intellectual capital.
It is crucial to recognize that the benefits of a college education predominantly accrue to the individual seeking higher education. The future earnings of this individual often serve as a substantial return on the overall investment in obtaining higher education.
Moreover, the proposition of providing free college education to all may be an inefficient means of addressing the needs of economically disadvantaged students.
Verified writer
Proficient in: College
4.9 (984)
“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”
A significant proportion of students pursuing higher education originates from relatively affluent families, making a blanket approach to free education less targeted in aiding those genuinely in need.
While the concept of free education may seem appealing, it carries inherent drawbacks that extend beyond the financial realm. One significant concern is the potential for overproduction and waste in a system where education is entirely government-financed. The assumption that more degrees equate to a more skilled workforce for future demanding jobs is challenged.
Instead, an influx of unmotivated students may lower the standards demanded by higher education institutions.
Renowned author Peter Sacks, in his work "Generation X Goes to College," provides insights into the unintended consequences of this approach. He shares how the necessity to accommodate indifferent students led him to modify his courses, making them intellectually vapid, easy, and entertaining, ultimately compromising the quality of education.
Furthermore, in a zero-tuition system, those responsible for higher education's production control its quality. Government financing results in increased government control over universities, often leading to audits that may lack understanding of specialized fields. Mandates for diverse faculty hiring can inadvertently impact the teaching staff's quality, hindering the pursuit of academic excellence.
A more insidious effect lies in the potential stifling of academic freedom. State-subsidized scholars may be reluctant to explore ideas that challenge the status quo, fearing repercussions on their livelihood. This reluctance, perpetuated by institutional pressures, limits the free exchange of ideas and hampers the pursuit of knowledge.
State financing of higher education disrupts the natural dynamics of a free market. Government subsidies mask the true cost of education, leading to a distorted perception of its value. The intrusion into the market price by government funding raises the financial burden on taxpayers while reducing the perceived cost for educational institutions. Consequently, there is a diminished incentive to control costs or innovate, as the perceived value is already considered low.
True innovation and cost-effectiveness thrive when educational institutions are motivated to provide students with genuine value for their investment. In a system where the government bears the financial brunt, the incentive to respect students as discerning customers diminishes, potentially compromising the overall quality of education.
In conclusion, challenging the conventional wisdom surrounding college education becomes imperative. The assertion that free education is necessary to increase college attendance is questioned. Instead, the focus should shift towards ending government subsidies, allowing college costs to be borne by willing parties. A call to embrace individual choice in the type and extent of education is advocated, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be conducive to the diverse needs of society.
Essentially, the argument presented contends that making college education fully government-financed contradicts the fundamental purpose of higher education. The aim should be to foster an environment where the intellectual elite can specialize in their chosen fields without compromising the integrity and quality of education.
Revitalizing Higher Ed Financing: No Free Lunch. (2016, Jun 19). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/free-education-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
