Ask HN: Should higher education be expensive?
4 points| saticmotion | 11 years ago | reply
The arguments from both sides boil down to:
In favour of a higher fee: "We don't want to pay for someone else's tuition" and "Higher education should only be for a certain elite". And from the populist side "students should get jobs and stop drinking and attending festivals" or "other countries are way more expensive than Belgium" (mostly pointing towards the USA or the UK).
Against a higher fee: "Everyone should have a chance at higher education" or "look what happens to students in the USA, they start their career with a huge debt" and "in Sweden and Finland there are no fees, and it works as well". And also fear that a new class of citizens is going to appear, who earn just a little over what's required for a scholarship, but won't be able to pay these higher fees.
But these arguments seem too simple, so I was hoping to get stronger arguments on HN for either side. I don't really know which side to choose here, because our tuition fees would still be low after raising them.
[+] [-] chrisBob|11 years ago|reply
I think every student should have the option to go to college and they should not be limited by their parents' resources.
I also think that not every student should go to college, at least not a standard 4 year university. Many people are better suited to, and would be happier with, a technical school that prepares them for a career, but that it frowned upon. Any student who can get in to college is told that they should go.
[+] [-] csmdev|11 years ago|reply
The only people who support the higher fee are the ones who already benefited from the lower fee.
You won't hear a student or young person saying: "Yes, I want to pay more to get an education". It's always the old conservative people who eat the cake and want to have it too.
[+] [-] cafard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mimu|11 years ago|reply
As a result I am obviously in favor of free education, or as free as possible.
ps: I am french so my point of view might be biased a little bit.
[+] [-] alain94040|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jagawhowho|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jagawhowho|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|11 years ago|reply
The arguments are too simple. If the government can't figure out a means to pay it which is sustainable, then it can't keep doing it. It either stops of its own volition or the country goes bankrupt/devolves into civil war/whatever and is forced to stop.
This kind of decision cannot be made in a vacuum. There is no one theoretical "correct" answer. It has to be part of a larger view which makes all the pieces work together.