Free College Tuition

Advanced Argumentative Essay Prompt Your Advanced Argumentative Essay (AVE) should be about a contentious issue that you have a stance about. At the end of the day, you may want to persuade subtly or in a forceful manner or simply stand midway but with the scales tilted with your bias. Make sure you conduct research on your topic by collecting primary or secondary data. Compose your essay based on the paragraph allocation below. In your essay, you do not need to mention the argumentation style you employ.

In this essay, you will follow this format: Paragraph allocation (Rogerian Argumentative Style)

■ Introduction: With hook and thesis ■ Background: Definitions, clarifications, history, contextualization, etc. ■ Con argument one ■ Con argument two ■ Con argument three ■ Pro argument one ■ Pro argument two ■ Pro argument three ■ Pro argument four ■ Resolution ■ Conclusion

Supporting Evidence: Grounds, Warrants, backing, Proofs, etc. These should be presented in forms like statistical data, facts, logical reasoning, quotes, examples, anecdotes, etc.

Sources of information for essay 1. Primary sources: interviews, observations, archival data, etc. 2. Secondary sources: Books, journal articles, newspaper articles, blogs, podcasts, news reports, etc.

Paper Format 1. Font size: 12 2. Font style: Times New Roman or Arial 3. Font Color: Black 4. Margins: 1” on all sides 5. Line Spacing: Double 6. Word count: 7. Minimum: 1800 8. Maximum: 2500 9. Paragraphs: Minimum of 9 and maximum of 12 (The minimum should be

distributed based on the above allocation. In case your paragraphs exceed the minimum, all extra paragraphs should add to the elements above.)

10.Citation of sources: Both in-text and Works Cited page

Rubric (Grading) This will be based on:

1. Appropriate structuring of argument 2. How well do you support your arguments/claims with evidence 3. Your use of at least two media (pictures, charts, graphs, etc.) to illustrate points in

your essay 4. Citation of sources in MLA 5. Formatting documents in MLA 6. Grammar

Topic: Free College Tuition

Title: Debate on The Moral Imperative for Free College Tuition

Outline (Rogerian Style):

1. Introduction:

a. Hook

b. Thesis Statement

2. Background:

a. Maybe I could discuss the prevalence and consequences of student loan debt.

Provide statistics on the national student debt in the United States has risen.

3. Body 1 (Con argument)

a. Basically, why is it an obligation for the government or institutions to provide free

college tuition?

4. Body 2 (Con argument)

a. The perception of a college education's value is diminishing as a result of the

implementation of free college tuition.

5. Body 3 (Con argument)

a. Not all individuals desire to pursue a college education, and for some people,

college may not be the most suitable or preferred path.

6. Body 4 (Pro argument)

a. Free college tuition can remove certain financial barriers, making higher

education more accessible, especially for those from low-income families who

were unable to afford college.

7. Body 5 (Pro argument)

a. Encourage higher education. Many people I know want to pursue higher

education but aren’t willing to due to financial circumstances.

8. Body 6 (Pro argument)

a. As a nation gives education access to its citizens, it allows a more educated

workforce that can lead to economic growth (investment?)

9. Body 7 (Pro argument)

a. I can continue this pro argument from the 3rd pro argument by saying that it can

also enhance national competitiveness. A well-educated populace can lead to an

increase in innovation, research, and development, contributing to a country's

global competitive stage.

10. Resolution

a. Loan forgiveness and debt relief. Something the Biden-Harris Administration has

done. I could talk about this as one of the resolutions to the complex situation of

free college tuition.

11. Conclusion

a. Restate the thesis, and summarize key points of the arguments

b. Hint a side

c. Offer a final impression?

Genre Analysis of “Why Free College Is Necessary” by Tressie McMillan Cottom and “The

Problem with ‘Free’ College” by Joe Rogan & Andrew Yang

Education is widely recognized as a fundamental right that should be accessible to all,

irrespective of their socioeconomic status. Through a critical analysis of Tressie McMillan

Cottom's article, "Why Free College Is Necessary," and a podcast conversation between Andrew

Yang and Joe Rogan, this examination explores the concept of free college tuition as a means to

ensure universal access to education, while considering the limitations and potential drawbacks

associated with this approach. While acknowledging the appeal of free college in addressing

rising costs and student loan debt, the analysis highlights the constraint that not all individuals

desire to pursue a college education and emphasizes the necessity of broadening career options

beyond academia. Furthermore, the analysis examines the rising cost of college without

commensurate improvements in quality, the burden of student loan debt on graduates, and the

challenges faced by many in securing suitable employment opportunities despite having a

college degree. By analyzing these sources, this study aims to provide a comprehensive

understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue of free college and its implications for

students and society at large.

The article appeals to a diverse audience interested in higher education policy, access to

education, student debt, social justice, and educational equality. It engages educators,

policymakers, researchers, students, and individuals advocating for equitable education. The

article critically examines free college tuition, highlighting limitations and emphasizing the

importance of broader discussions on educational access, public goods, and social justice.

Similarly, the YouTube video featuring Andrew Yang and Joe Rogan aims to foster a dialogue on

"Free College" by addressing alternative career paths, rising college costs, student debt, and

employment challenges faced by graduates. Its audience comprises individuals invested in

education policy, higher education reform, student debt issues, and alternative career

opportunities. The video appeals to students, educators, policymakers, researchers, and those

concerned about the accessibility and affordability of higher education. Supporters and critics of

Andrew Yang's proposals, as well as Joe Rogan's podcast audience, are likely part of the intended

viewership. Overall, both the article and the video cater to a diverse audience seeking to explore

and address the complexities of college education and its associated challenges.

In this article, the author predominantly employs the rhetorical appeal of logos to support

their arguments. They use logical reasoning and evidence to present their points, relying on

factual information and logical explanations to support their claims. Examples include discussing

college access complexities, the limitations of tuition elimination, and cultural and social barriers

in higher education. The author's arguments are grounded in logical analysis, providing readers

with a clear understanding of their viewpoint and rationale. They use data and real-world

examples to demonstrate the challenges and complexities of the current higher education system.

By appealing to logic, the author aims to persuade the readers through well-constructed

arguments and evidence-backed claims, making their case for the importance of addressing

educational inequalities effectively.

In contrast, the YouTube podcast, Andrew Yang and Joe Rogan also employ rhetorical

appeals of ethos, logos, and a subtle touch of pathos. Both individuals establish credibility and

expertise through their professional backgrounds and public profiles. Andrew Yang's experience

as a former presidential candidate and entrepreneur, along with Joe Rogan's popularity as a

podcast host and commentator, contributes to the ethos appeal, lending credibility to their

arguments and perspectives. They rely on logical reasoning, evidence, and data to support their

claims, discussing rising college costs, student loan debt burdens, and employment challenges

faced by graduates. Their logical analysis and factual evidence strengthen the logos appeal,

making their arguments more persuasive. While the statements in the video may not explicitly

evoke strong emotional responses, elements within their arguments, such as the mention of

student loan debt burdens and employment challenges, can evoke empathy and concern. By

highlighting the struggles associated with the current college system, they may aim to engage the

audience's emotions and create a sense of urgency for change.

The article follows a well-structured format, beginning with an attention-grabbing

introduction that highlights the growing appeal of free college as a solution to rising education

costs and student loan debt. It then delves into a logical analysis of college access complexities,

emphasizing the cultural and social barriers that hinder broader participation in higher education.

The author employs a predominantly Classical argumentation style, presenting a clear thesis in

support of free college while using logical reasoning, evidence, and personal experiences to build

their case. Throughout the article, the absence of visual elements, such as images and charts, and

the lack of sound and movement in the written medium might constrain the emotional appeal

(pathos) and audience engagement. The YouTube podcast featuring Andrew Yang and Joe Rogan

adopts a conversational and engaging tone, influencing the topic they discuss. Andrew Yang's

passionate and enthusiastic delivery adds urgency to his arguments on higher education reform,

while Joe Rogan's inquisitive questioning fosters a well-rounded discussion. The predominantly

Classical argumentative style is evident as they present clear theses, use logical reasoning and

evidence, and address counterarguments on "Free College." Their expertise and engaging tone

establish credibility and appeal to a broad audience, making the complex topic accessible and

encouraging open-minded consideration. The combination of passionate delivery, inquisitive

questioning, and an inviting tone enhances the podcast's message on the challenges and potential

solutions related to higher education, fostering meaningful discussions.

In conclusion, the analysis of Tressie McMillan Cottom's article and the YouTube podcast

featuring Andrew Yang and Joe Rogan provides valuable perspectives on the concept of free

college tuition. Both sources acknowledge the appeal of this approach in addressing financial

barriers to higher education, yet they also highlight the need for a more comprehensive

discussion on educational access and social justice. The article's emphasis on broadening career

options beyond academia and the podcast's engaging tone and diverse rhetorical appeals

contribute to their effectiveness in presenting compelling arguments. To create a more equitable

and inclusive educational landscape, stakeholders should consider the complexities surrounding

free college and explore comprehensive solutions that encompass diverse perspectives. By

fostering open dialogue and collaboration among policymakers, educators, and advocates, we

can work towards a future where education is truly accessible to all, regardless of socioeconomic

status, paving the way for a more just society.

Debate on The Moral Imperative for Free College Tuition

Whether college tuition should be free has been a contentious and polarizing issue in

educational policy debates. The concept of free college tuition raises various moral, economic,

and social concerns that demand careful consideration. This literature review aims to explore

different perspectives from various authors to answer minor research questions surrounding the

moral imperative for free college tuition.

Impact on the Value and Perception of Education:

The debate over the moral need for free college tuition has far-reaching implications on

how people value and perceive education generally. Some people oppose free college because

they believe it will lower the value of a university degree. Author and sociologist Yeager is

concerned that students will not put in the same effort in class if they do not have to pay for it

themselves. Since there is nothing for them to lose if they do not graduate, students may not put

forth the same effort if college is free. This might lead students to lose interest in their studies,

which can harm their academic performance and their appreciation for the value of a college

education.

However, proponents like Goldrick-Rab and others who support free college tuition argue

that doing so would encourage people to see higher education as a human right rather than a

privilege (Goldrick-Rab). Free tuition can potentially increase college enrollment, especially

among people who may have previously considered higher education out of reach due to cost.

According to this theory, well-educated people can only be achieved by making education

available. Eliminating monetary obstacles to higher education increases the visibility that

education is a public benefit and a way to promote social mobility.

Additionally, it is worth considering the impact of free college tuition on workforce

readiness and societal benefits. A more educated workforce often leads to increased productivity

and innovation, driving economic growth and prosperity. By removing the financial barriers to

higher education, individuals from diverse backgrounds can pursue their passions and contribute

to society in meaningful ways. This aspect highlights how free college tuition can lead to a more

inclusive and equitable society, where talent and potential are nurtured, regardless of economic

circumstances.

Furthermore, free college tuition can also contribute to breaking the cycle of poverty for

many individuals and families. By providing access to higher education without the burden of

exorbitant tuition fees, students from low-income backgrounds can envision a brighter future,

ultimately leading to better economic opportunities for themselves and their communities. This

positive cycle of educational empowerment can have cascading effects on social mobility and

reduce income inequality.

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks:

There has been a lot of study and policy debate on the pros and cons of making college

tuition free. The possible decrease in student loan loads and enhanced accessibility to higher

education for low-income students are two main advantages identified by economists Göksel and

Enyuva (Göksel and Enyuva 44). By removing the financial barriers preventing many students

from attending college, free tuition expands possibilities for underprivileged people to access

higher education. Those who would have been financially prevented from attending college now

have a better chance of achieving their educational and professional goals.

Moreover, proponents argue that free college tuition can lead to a more educated and

informed citizenry. In a society where access to knowledge and education is readily available,

individuals can make more informed decisions as responsible citizens. This, in turn, can

contribute to a more engaged and participatory democratic society, fostering a sense of social

responsibility and collective welfare.

Another significant benefit of free college tuition is the potential reduction of student

loan debt. As college tuition costs have skyrocketed over the past few decades, student loan debt

has reached unprecedented levels, leaving many graduates burdened with substantial financial

obligations. By eliminating tuition fees, students can focus on their studies and future career

paths without the fear of drowning in debt after graduation. This financial relief can lead to

increased mental well-being, enabling graduates to pursue their passions and career aspirations

without being solely driven by financial considerations.

However, critics argue that while free college education may have its benefits, it may not

be the most effective solution for reducing educational inequality. As David points out, focusing

solely on free tuition neglects the underlying issues that contribute to disparities in educational

outcomes. Economically disadvantaged students may still face challenges beyond tuition fees,

such as inadequate preparation in K-12 education, lack of guidance counseling, and financial

constraints in covering living expenses during college years. Therefore, addressing the root

causes of inequality through comprehensive educational reforms and support systems is equally

crucial to ensuring meaningful and lasting change.

Additionally, critics raise concerns about the potential strain on educational institutions

and the need for proper funding. Implementing free college tuition without sufficient financial

support could lead to overcrowded classrooms, overburdened faculty, and diminished resources

for academic and extracurricular programs. Adequate funding is essential to maintain the quality

of education and ensure that students receive the support and resources they need to succeed

academically.

Ethical Obligation and Targeted Policies:

Important ethical and practical problems arise from the debate over whether giving free

college tuition to everybody is morally obligatory or if it should be tailored to select groups.

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum is among many who have argued that access to higher education

should be guaranteed to all citizens rather than considered a luxury. According to Nussbaum,

regardless of family income, everyone should have the opportunity to pursue higher education.

From this vantage point, free college education is an issue of social justice and equitable

opportunity. Removing monetary constraints is a statement about society's dedication to giving

people of all socioeconomic backgrounds an equal opportunity to further their education and

improve their lives.

Moreover, when considering targeted policies, it is essential to assess the effectiveness of

need-based scholarships or support programs in addressing disparities in college access and

success. Research by academics such as Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2013) reveals that

need-based financial aid can indeed play a vital role in improving college enrollment and

completion rates for underrepresented students. By focusing on supporting individuals with

financial needs and academic potential, targeted policies can create a more inclusive and diverse

learning environment, fostering creativity and problem-solving through a broader range of

perspectives.

Additionally, targeted policies can prioritize fields of study that are critical for societal

development and progress. For instance, providing free tuition in areas such as healthcare,

engineering, or environmental sciences can incentivize students to pursue careers in fields that

address pressing societal needs. This strategic approach aligns educational policies with broader

national and global goals, enhancing the overall impact of free college tuition on societal

advancement.

Conclusion:

Values, ethics, and practical factors all play a role in the heated discussion around the

moral need to make higher education available without cost to students. It forces us to reevaluate

our ethical responsibilities and pinpoint our intervention methods, changing how we see the

worth and purpose of education. There is no silver bullet for improving college access, but we

can get closer by looking at different approaches and gaining insight from the practices of other

countries.

By considering the impact on the value and perception of education, exploring the

potential benefits and drawbacks, and evaluating ethical obligations and targeted policies, we can

form a more comprehensive understanding of the moral imperative for free college tuition. This

multifaceted discussion serves as a catalyst for shaping educational policies that reflect our

shared commitment to equity, opportunity, and social progress. In striving for an educational

system that values inclusivity and diversity, we must continue to learn from each other, adapt our

strategies, and work collaboratively to build a brighter and more equitable future for all. By

addressing educational inequality through targeted policies, and simultaneously fostering a sense

of collective responsibility, we can pave the way.

Works Cited

Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. "Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family."

Ethics, vol. 117, no. 1, 2006, pp. 80-108.

David, Deming, et al. "Report: For-profit colleges more concerned with executive pay

than student achievement."." 2020.

Goldrick-Rab et al. "Making college affordable: Rethinking voucher-driven approaches

to federal student aid."." UT Faculty/Researcher Works, 2013.

Göksel, Asuman, and Özgehan Şenyuva. "European Youth Cooperation Schemes in the

Southern Mediterranean Context: One for all, all for one?" SAHWA Policy Report, no. 1,

2016, pp. 1-56.

Nussbaum, Martha C. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal

Education. Harvard UP, 2008.

Yeager, David S., et al. "A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset

improves achievement." Nature, vol. 573, no. 7774, 2019, pp. 364-369.