Deliberation Reflection

The deliberation I chose to attend was titled “The Price is Right. What is the true cost of a college education?” This is a subject I am very interested in. For one I am a college student who is currently trying to balance the financial burden. Also, my civic issues blog is on the cost of a college education, so I am decently educated on the subject. The deliberation was split into three approaches; free public education, implementing differential tuition, and revising scholarships.

The first approach on free public education is a currently a highly debated topic, as the population is split between people for it and against it. Even within the deliberation, there were people on both sides. The benefit of free public education is, of course, access to higher education for those who would be unable to afford it otherwise. The drawbacks discussed included decreasing the value of a college education, a spike in competitiveness for college admission, and a decrease in technical jobs. Personally, I do not believe that publicly funded college is a good solution because of the reasons above and I think it is too much money to ask taxpayers to pay for someone else’s education.

The second approach narrowed the focus to policy in individual schools in the form of differential tuition. Differential tuition is when the tuition charged to students depends on the major they pursue. The difference would be based on the resources used at the college or the expected income after graduation. For example, an engineering student would be charged a higher tuition that an education major. This would reduce the amount of debt graduates are unable to pay off. A main drawback to differential tuition is that it assumes that students will receive a job in their major field, and they will make the expected income.

The final approach was on scholarships in the form of federal aid, aid from the school, and merit-based aid. One question discussed is the exclusion of the middle class from federal aid. A few students shared their story of how the estimated family contributed was much higher than what their family could afford. There was also a man there who working in finance that brought up a good point that the government cannot appease every special case and that they try to include the most people they can.

Overall, I thought the deliberation was very interesting and engaging. There were adults from places like admissions staff and finance offices as well as students that provided a wide array of perspectives. I believe the deliberation was very beneficial to me and the community as a whole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *