It would be great if the answer was no, but I picked yes, since the teachers would have to be paid. Perhaps public schools could be free, but university is a lot of money...

Lalala~

There should always be an option.

Public and Private.

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

before college, no. but at college level yes, they should just tone down the price a little.

No. Paying for education creates an elite circle
that stays in the command of the country for
generations due to getting their kids to prestigious private schools
with money, leading to corruption in general when a bunch of
good old pals graduate to the top and make all the choices.
Money mustn't choose the leaders.
Talent is for that.

Before college you should be able to choose. At the college level, however, I think that it is reasonable to expect people to pay.

However I personally think that the prices should go down a bit, because right now it really is getting to the point where its ridiculously hard to afford. People shouldn't have to worry about having tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand dollars of debt after getting a college or graduate education.

[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg[/img]

Quote from Calíbre

There should always be an option.

Public and Private.

This

As well as, there should be subsidies for public college; however, if the students don't pay for anything, then they are less likely to value their education. At the community college level, the drop rate is staggering, because there isn't any substantial repercussions from a monetary or academic stand point; since, dropping a class would not even equate to a hundred dollar loss. For the Cal States or the UC's (in California there are three levels of public higher education with CC at the bottom and UC at the top, cost wise), dropping or flunking a couple of class means you've just wasted 2-5 thousand dollars. So, for higher level education, one must pay but not to the point that it cripples the student.

[color=green]"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."[/color]

Oops. LOL posted this in the wrong topic

But yes, colleges should be paid for. (Unless you know, scholarships.)

♪MONSTARR~ will eat all your cookies and steal your bishies~♪ Φ_Φ

Quote from Emuchan

In Germany you don't pay for school not even university and college, except in a few states where you have to pay approximately 4000$ for tuition and people actually like it. So yeah in my opinion it's a great thing if you don't have to pay for school. I only think that you should have to pay for it if you want to emigrate afterwards.

OMG!! i want to move to Germany now... anyways i am currently paying about 4300 a years for tuition(only tuition) at a community college, and now... once i transfer to OSU i have to pay 20 grand for first year and 12 after that.
in my hopes and dreams, i wish we didn't have to pay for a higher education, but in the whole school thing it is no longer just a place to learn, its also a business now
in reality i don't mind paying, i mean teachers got to eat some how right...

Some form of basic nation wide standardized education should be available to all.

Private schools are fine but not truly necessary.

Quote from Toto

As well as, there should be subsidies for public college; however, if the students don't pay for anything, then they are less likely to value their education. At the community college level, the drop rate is staggering, because there isn't any substantial repercussions from a monetary or academic stand point; since, dropping a class would not even equate to a hundred dollar loss.

a) I got paid for college 'cause of scholarships and all that jazz (planning to go the same route for my phd), so I totally disagree about the whole values thing. I go to a big public school where a lot of people really do value their education, including all the crazy honor's kids who get it paid for.
b) What cc's are you talking about? The average class is about 500 dollars at the ones in NYC, and NYC has some of the cheapest CCs in the country. CCs have incredibly high drop rates 'cause of their demographics: they take the people least likely to go to college in the first place and with the highest risk of dropping out for all sorts of socioeconomic reasons, like tuition getting too high for them to afford or not having the time because of jobs/kids/drama. Hell, even 100 dollars is a substantial amount to the average CC student.

We don't have to pay for primary intermediate and high school here. But the school still pesters you non-stop if you don't. The schools here are totally subsidized by the government but the school all say they aren't getting enough and usually make you pay a 'voluntary donation'...
Oh! Plus in University if you have bad family circumstances, have a kid, are poor, etc you get a student allowance among other things but that barely covers anything so I guess I scholarship is the only real way to go.

• So yes I think that education should be free and it should go back to the old days when university was free. Education makes the world go round, gets kids of the street and brings living standards up. Plus - uniforms, school books, bags, etc. Do you think they're free??

If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that I stated the education system I was talking about, California's. Right now, California's CC's unit price is 26 dollars with the average class being 3 units, which equals 78 dollars a class.

First of all, what I was talking about is a generalization. So, individual cases do not matter. Secondly, if one gets paid/has a scholarship for college, does one not feel responsible to do one's best in class? It's not the same as subsidies from the government. It's not as personal, for the student did not work for the subsidies except living here and paying his/her taxes, which has to done anyways. Students need to work for scholarships in some way. Then, out of all the people that sign up for it, only a select few are fortunate enough to obtain it. Also, if I'm not mistaken, don't students lose their scholarships when they preform poorly in their classes? True, not all scholarships have this obligation yet again it's a generalization.

So, story645... you had to work for your schooling. Yes, you did not do it with a job (maybe you did... but you left that out from your first post), but you still had to work and be lucky enough to get the funding.

As for your argument about honor's students, they had to work HARD for "[getting] paid for it". So, they are simply getting reimbursed for their hard work, which again that does not help your argument... it just helps mine. They created an incentive, or value, for their education from their work, which is what money is.

Quote from Amber3

I think that education should be free and it should go back to the old days when university was free.

Education was never free. One, most schools only taught people to become priests... so, the students paid by selling themselves to the church, which were the education institutions. And two, even if students didn'tt have to pay for school, they still had to pay for everything else... which was hard to do since the students could not really earn money at the same time.

[color=green]"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."[/color]

...I'll go ahead and say that education should be paid for on a regressive basis. I.e., people who can pay for it should be obligated to, but otherwise taxes and the like should take care of it. If there's a worry about incentives for actually valuing education, a system can easily be created where those not paying for their education will lose funding if grades are not properly kept up with accordingly (just as most scholarships work).

Private schools are fine, but occasionally they're laughably ineffective and only act as safety nets for lazy rich kids (I'm basically just poking fun at a couple particular institutions in Japan here- don't read too much into this.)

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Quote from Crenshinibon

...I'll go ahead and say that education should be paid for on a regressive basis. I.e., people who can pay for it should be obligated to, but otherwise taxes and the like should take care of it. If there's a worry about incentives for actually valuing education, a system can easily be created where those not paying for their education will lose funding if grades are not properly kept up with accordingly (just as most scholarships work).

Private schools are fine, but occasionally they're laughably ineffective and only act as safety nets for lazy rich kids (I'm basically just poking fun at a couple particular institutions in Japan here- don't read too much into this.)

hmmm thats a nice idea but people who can pay sufficant fundings get less benifits in other areas, school fee's is a mundain thing that should be canceld out all together> we have tax for that.
School should be compalsory! What if they don't pay? Stay out of school? Or are you forcing them to pay like tax? It wouldn't work, school fees is something introduced in alot of 3rd world countries were funding is insufficient and hence the need for pay to the school for books and teachers pay.
In a rich country a method like yours only creates loop holes and alot ways to bypass it, remember tax varies acording to peoples earnings, thats more than enough> additional school funds is more like a slap across the face.

And for college i think pay should come with age> if you are at the right age no pay!
It won't be a good future if higher class stay > higher class and lower class stay lower class.
Getting into dept is a big draw back to be honest and if we continue to raise prices instead of drop them we will create classes withing the learning industry and create unequal oputunaty for everyone. Keeping upper class up and lower class low!

Aiming to eliminate this system and give every human being an equal shot of a capatalist life is the way. This i feel will also create higher standards in learning as the masses flood improving our proficiency and basicaly making a stronger economy.

[img]http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k528/fr33noob/on3winged9.jpg[/img]
I believe in letting people do as they wish, as do I myself. Sometimes, of course, what I wish to do is kill them and they do not wish to die. This gives life interest.
[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/26.jpg[/img]

I was mostly talking about higher education. Naturally K-12, and equivalents thereof, should be both compulsory and have a "free" option for everyone (though we all pay taxes, which in most developed countries also tend to be regressive). The idea is that people who have a substantial amount of money can actually afford to pay and still maintain additional benefits simply from having more monetary assets- the number of areas that they become "disadvantaged" in doesn't really matter as long as the charge isn't excessive. Everything's a matter of balance.

It should also be noted, though, that from a statistical standpoint class mobility in both directions remains shockingly insignificant, even in states which are theoretically more "free" like the US (or at least less regulated). If the strata of society you belong to is not going to change in the vast majority of cases, a level of equalizing force needs to stick around so that everyone can at least have a shot at a stable life. Equality isn't possible- there are always going to be economical winners and losers- so we shouldn't set that as a standard; the goal instead should just be to minimize the number of losers, or at least make things so that the losers don't have to live in constant financial turmoil.

As for 3rd world states, it should be obvious at this point that you can't impose developed systems onto them. It worked in Japan after WWII, and Japan alone, but only because development was basically constructed through statism (other Asian countries have adopted the model with varying degrees of success). Certain conditions have to be met before attempting such things in order to achieve long term success.

But, as always, those are just my opinions.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...