Public college tuition fees need to increase and not have a ceiling set on them

because over time instructional costs increase due to rising wages, salaries and
inflation. If there were a ceiling government taxes would increase, and last many
amenities would have to be subtracted.
First, over time instructional costs increase due to rising wages, salaries and
inflation. If tuition does not increase the salary of employees will decrease and jobs
will have to be cut, because there will not be enough money. Along with a smaller
faculty there will also be less class choice and increase in class size. Both of these
things will result in a lower quality of education because there would not be enough
money due to a tuition ceiling. The tuition that students and families pay goes
towards the students education. According to Karen Arenson of theNew York
Times some colleges are already cutting back, taking such steps as eliminating
faculty positions and reducing class sizes. These things are already happening
without a tuition ceiling. Just think that all colleges would have to do this instead of
some if there was a tuition ceiling.
If a ceiling was set on tuition at all public colleges in the united states there
would be a drastic increase in government taxes. Tuition at public universities is
usually shared between the government or taxpayers, and the parents and student.
As student costs increase such as maintenance, room, board, travel, laundry, and
entertainment taxes would have to increase to cover the additional expenses. The
failure of tuition to increase at the same rate as the increases of wages and salaries
in the economy will require additional government revenues.
College isn’t all about bookwork. College is a place to have and experience new
things. If a ceiling was set on tuition there would be almost no money to fund
extracurricular activities such athletic and cultural facilities and other programs.
Also colleges would not be able to pay for extensive libraries and new technology
for students without tuition. Students want to do more than work at college and if a
ceiling is put on tuition many of these amenities will be taken away.
Overall tuition needs to increase. Tuition does not go up so the college can
make more money. Tuition goes up for the benefit of the student. If a ceiling was
set many jobs would be lost, taxes would be raised and many college amenities
would be subtracted. So I urge you to vote against this bill.

Is it fair to charge one customer a higher price for the same product because they
have more money? Most people would say no, just because they earn more money
doesn’t mean they should have to spend it. This is one of the reasons why it’s not
right to consider basing college tuition prices on income. Determining how much a
student pays for college based on income could give everyone an equal opportunity
to go. However, it would create budget issues, unfair pricing and a lack of student
motivation. Therefore, college tuition prices should remain the same.
1. Setting college tuition prices differently for every person would create budget
issues for many schools. 2. If colleges must make budget cuts it affects what
classes or even school a student will choose. 3. Budget cuts have definitely put
much more pressure on the registration process for all students,” says Kalyani
Phansalker, student at The College of William and Mary (Phansalkar). 4. Students
don’t need anymore stress than they already have, so worrying about the school
won’t do any good for them or their grades. 5. Without as much money as a college
would like to have, they would have to cut some classes. 6. Citrus College has had
to cut its course offerings by fifteen percent this fall (Baumfeld). 7. With all the
budget cuts schools have to turn somewhere to make it up. 8. Some may say
people paying more money would make up for the students paying less. 9. This is
not true though because there are not enough families making enough money to
support a college. 10. If colleges want to avoid shutting down and cutting class they
need to keep tuition prices as they are.
1. Pricing college tuition differently is unfair in many ways. 2. Naturally the price of
college tuition will rise, but it shouldn’t rise more for some people than others. 3. A
public, two-year college tuition has gone up 7.3 percent since last year and will no
doubt continue to rise (College Costs). 4. For some families making a higher income
doesn’t mean they can afford a rise in what it is costing them to pay for college. 5.
People whose families are wealthier shouldn’t have to pay more just because they
were smart in their savings and planned ahead. 6. About forty percent of families
last year were able to pay for college without borrowing anything (Clark). 7. That
means sixty percent couldn’t pay and, with a new system, would have their tuition
lowered. The other forty percent could be raised. Doing that is completely unfair
because the middle and lower class get a break while the upper class is forced to
pay too much. 8. An argument can be made that basing tuition on income is good
because it give everyone a fair chance to go to college. 9. However, they fail to
realize the same amount of people go to college. Colleges cannot accept more
people just because they can afford it. 10. Different college tuition is unfair because
everyone gets the same education and deserves to pay the same amount.
1. Making college affordable for everyone will cause a lack of student motivation. 2.
Without being depended upon to get good grades students wouldn’t feel the need
to. 3. Unfortunately, as children grow their passion for learning frequently seems to
shrink (Student Motivation). 4. Without having that extra incentive to save money
students naturally don’t have a big desire to do well in school. 5. Parents won’t
push students as hard in high school to do well to earn a scholarship because they
know they can already afford to pay for college. 6. “I push my daughter to earn a
scholarship because I know I’m not paying for college,” says Joe Connolly, father of
a sixteen year old daughter (Connolly). 7. If Joe knew he could pay for his
daughter’s college he wouldn’t push her to earn a scholarship. 8. Some people
believe taking the financial pressure off students will allow them to focus more on
grades and school. 9. While this is true in some cases less motivated students
wouldn’t have the desire to keep up their grades if it wasn’t costing them money.
10. Student’s wouldn’t have much motivation if they didn’t have to worry about
money and their parents wouldn’t push them to keep up their grades.
The price of college tuition affects many people and shouldn’t be based on income
because of the consequences. This system would create budget issues, unfair
pricing and a lack of motivation in students. Change is not always a good thing,
especially in this case. Keeping the current prices is the best way to go for college
tuition prices.

Works Cited
Baumfeld, Amanda. "Budget issues top concern for Citrus College trustee
candidates - SGVTribune.com." Home - SGVTribune.com. 26 Oct. 2009. Web. 06
Dec. 2009. http://www.sgvtribune.com/elections/ci_13646181.
Clark, Kim. "Families Look All Over for College Cash, Survey Finds - On Education
(usnews.com)." US News & World Report - Breaking News, World News, Business
News, and America's Best Colleges - USNews.com. 21 Aug. 2008. Web. 06 Dec.
2009. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/08/21/families-look-all-
over-for-college-cash-survey-finds.html .
"College Costs - Average College Tuition Cost." Web. 06 Dec. 2009.
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html .
Connolly, Joe. "Should I Push My 10th-Grader to Play Sports? - Social skills |
GreatSchools." GreatSchools - Public and Private School Ratings, Reviews and
Parent Community. Web. 06 Dec. 2009.
http://www.greatschools.net/parenting/social-skills/push-10th-grader-to-play-
sports.gs?content=1311 .
Phansalkar, Kalyani. "College budget cuts add another headache to class
registration | Flat Hat News." Front Page | Flat Hat News. Web. 06 Dec. 2009.
http://flathatnews.com/content/69422/college-budget-cuts-add-another-headache-
class-registration .
"Student Motivation To Learn." KidSource OnLine Welcome Page. Web. 06 Dec.
2009. http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/Student_Motivatation.html .
Government has to provide primary and secondary education, but for university
education, either stds or their parents should pay. To what extent do you agree?

It goes without saying that education assumes great significant for children’s future.
There has been heated debate about who is responsible for tuition fee. I strongly
agree with the belief that Government must pours money into primary and secondary
education, but tuition fee should be self-paid by student or their parents.
To begin with, proliferation of primary and secondary education brings a source of
blessings. In fact, many children from financial adversity are struggling with life to
make ends meet let alone paying tuition fee. Therefore, with Government’s
subsidization on education, the less well-off, in all probability, are bestowed upon a
chance of keeping on par with the better-off thanks to knowledge and life skills
acquisition. To be more specific, when all children is in position to afford academic
pursuit, they will gain basic knowledge such as the three Rs, and crucial life skills
namely communication skill, team-working skill, problem-solving skill, which not only
lays foundation for studying in higher level, grasping street wisdom, but also helps
them to fit in and work with people around in workplace, deal with changing event in
their life. On a wider scale, educational proliferation creates an intellectual society
and establishes a high-quality work force.
However, regarding to university education, it is responsibility of students themselves
and their family to pay tuition fee. There is a truth which has been generally
acknowledged that providing tuition fee for all students is very likely to exert financial
burden on government budget due to expensive training cost, while students who
already possess basic knowledge and skills can take a part time job and pay for their
own studies if their parent cannot afford it. Furthermore, school attendances will be
more responsible for their academic performance when they must charge for it.
All things considered, budgets spent on primary and secondary are indispensable
these days, but for university education, students should pay for their own studies.
From my point of view, Government might lend a hand in help tertiary education by
student loan policy for student of poor originality or awarding scholarship for who
have outstanding academic performance.

Dear teacher, please help me check one more essay. Thanks a lot!

In the days leading up to 10 December, International Human Rights Day, student

protesters in the Philippines attempted their own version of the global Occupy
movement and camped out in a place called Mendiola to protest the prevailing
system of government.

But for four days up to Human Rights Day itself, authorities in the capital, Manila,
prevented the students from occupying Mendiola, the street that leads to the seat
of political and economic power – the very same street named after a student
activist who constantly spoke against wrongdoing in government.

The students meant no harm, they said. They merely wanted to air their grievances
against perennial tuition increases and the deteriorating quality of education in the
Philippines.
Instead, the hundreds of student protesters were prevented from reaching Mendiola
and were violently dispersed by police forces using water canons.

Here in my country, the education policies of government are geared to fit the
requirements of transnationals and business process outsourcing centres.

In short, the education curriculum in state universities is meant to support the

government’s labour export policies.

The collective group of students, dubbed as Campout, stressed that education is a

right, not a privilege and should therefore not be commercialized. Its website
states:

‘Education is a right, not a privilege. It is easy to understand this point, but the
Aquino administration cannot grasp the idea of a quality and affordable education.
For [President] Noynoy Aquino, quality education has a price tag, and is exclusive
to those who can pay. Year by year, tuition rates continue to rise and dubious
miscellaneous fees are approved and in many instances, miscellaneous fees are
higher than the base tuition. Year by year, more and more students drop out of
school because they can no longer afford the cost of education.’

University of Philippines (UP) Student Regent Krissy Conti, the student

representative to the university’s highest policy-making body, called on the Aquino
administration to rethink its policies, especially in education.

She also questioned the government’s decision to block the students from
occupying Mendiola.

‘A campout in Mendiola against the prevailing system of government, like the

Occupy movement in Wall Street against corporate greed, has the “power of place”.
We students were there last September, last May and the year before, in
December, as were many others before us. Why has President Aquino closed down
the area to activists this time?

‘Mendiola is named after Enrique Mendiola, a lawyer, textbook author, and member
of the first Board of Regents of UP. The bridge that Mendiola Street crosses is
officially named after Chino Roces, a journalist, libertarian and Martial Law critic.
Both men made assiduous efforts to record and comment on all happenings of their
time, in the hope that the future could make sense of their work. How fitting then
that Mendiola shapes the politics of protest in our urban landscape.’ Conti said in a
letter addressed to the government and released to the media.

And this is what the government keeps on forgetting. That for as long as the calls
for genuine change remain unanswered, the citizens – the people, the students –
will continue to shout for reforms.
- See more at: http://newint.org/blog/majority/2011/12/12/philippines-education-
protests/#sthash.0XPlhPgC.dpuf

The issue of raising fees in universities becomes one of the most controversial
topics in our society.Some people think that raising fees means improvement in
training quality while some others do not support this idea because of many
drawbacks of this move. From my point of view, raising fees has both certain
advantages and disadvantages.

Firstly, raising fees means that more money is invested in course books, reference
books, teacher quality, teacher's lives, educational facilities and other services.
Universities will have chance to upgrade their infrastructures, study room systems,
libraries and even hostels as well. Universities can For example, university can use
the money to update course books' content, widen libraries , increase teachers
'salaries, buy new facilities , repair old study rooms and hostels. As a result,
 students can get benefits from these changes and the training quality may be
improved remarkably.

On the other hand, we can not mention to disadvantages of raising fees. Clearly,
raising fees creates a burden to students especially those from poor families. Some
students can not enter their dream universities because they cannot afford the
fees, which seem to affect educational socialization considerably. In addition, if the
money is not managed wisely, it will be used for private purposes of some authority
people. For instance, a headmaster of a university may use the fees for his own
sake instead of using them to improve training quality.

In conclusion, raising fees can help to improve training quality if they are used
suitably for the purposes of teaching and studying. However, raising fees can bring
big problems to students and management. It is recommended that the universities
should have necessary adjustments so that both universities and students can take
advantages of raising fees.

Rising tuition costs make it difficult for college students and their parents to
maintain budgets they've set aside for college expenses. Increased costs often
mean more school loans and greater out-of-pocket expenses. However, these rising
costs also provide funds for colleges to make quality improvements and undergo
building projects. Schools say they can also hire additional professional staff to
meet students' administrative needs.

Other People Are Reading

A Competitive Edge
o Increased tuition costs allow colleges to stay competitive in the industry. Some
schools use funds to improve technology, such as computers, technical equipment,
Internet services and classroom visual aids. Others use the money to hire qualified,
experienced teachers, instructors and support staff. Increased tuition costs help
schools maintain their facilities, make repairs, build sports arenas, conduct research
and upgrade classrooms and academic laboratories. According to "Forbes," state-of-
the-art facilities attract more students and give schools a competitive advantage.

Necessary Improvements
o Colleges say the benefits of rising tuition costs often outweigh the negatives; more
money equals more programs and better campus security. According to David
Hodge, president of Miami University in Ohio, some schools use the money to
improve career centers or develop programs for students with physical, emotional
or mental disabilities, as reported in "U.S. News and World Report." They might
install more ramps and elevators to aid handicapped students or add innovative
technology to help deaf or blind students with academic coursework. Schools also
use additional tuition funds to improve security systems, emergency notification
systems and campus safety measures.

Financial Stress
o Increased tuition costs can lead to financial stress for students who have limited
resources. Students often set their budgets based on current tuition expenses and
aren't prepared for rising costs. They might not qualify for additional college loans
or increased loan amounts to cover tuition increases. Many scholarships don't
increase even when tuition costs go up. Students may need to apply for more
financial aid, federal grants, school-issued grants and scholarships to cover rising
costs.
 Lifestyle Changes
o Unexpected tuition costs might force some students to settle for undergraduate
degrees even if they originally wanted to pursue advanced degrees. Others might
take classes at community colleges rather than enroll in four-year bachelor degree
programs. Increased costs will deter some students from completing their college
coursework. They might have to work for several months or years to save up for
rising tuition costs, delaying long-term, postgraduate career opportunities.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5445035_advantages-disadvantages-

rising-college-tuition.html

t is not that difficult to understand why, despite the additional costs the program
would entail, the public generally appears to take President Benigno Aquino III's K
to 12 basic education program sitting down.
That is if state-sponsored surveys are to be believed. The House Committee on
Basic Education claims majority of the public surveyed during its consultations
favored the K to 12 program, while separate consultations by theDepartment of
Education (DepEd) showed 77 percent of the 1,417 people consulted nationwide
supported Aquino's flagship education program.
For one, DepEd tried to make the lengthening of the basic education cycle palatable
by saying the additional junior and senior high school levels would make students
ready for the world of work when they graduate in high school.
Even as public elementary and high school education continues to be free under the
new system, other expenses such as transportation, allowance, food, school
projects and other school expenses would still burden families and take up a
significant portion of the family budget. However, what apparently makes parents
willing to shoulder such costs is the empty promise of employability after their
children receive their hard-earned diplomas.
In the present scheme of things, the function of education is already reduced to the
individual's mere employability. The K to 12 program reinforces this societal
function of education. Society also continues to regard education as essential to
social mobility, an “investment” worth undertaking as the “costs do not outweigh
the benefits.”
Owing to its highly commercialized character, tertiary education has also become
inaccessible for many Filipinos. Dominated by the private sector, higher educational
institutions charge students with sky-high tuition and miscellaneous fees that
remain unregulated and unchecked. Even as college education gives the student an
advantage in the vicious and highly-competitive search for job opportunities, many
youths forgo college schooling simply because they cannot afford it. This makes the
K to 12's employability factor more appealing and acceptable to the parents, who
are made to believe that under the new education system, college education is a
path which is not for everyone to tread.
Lastly, any educational reform almost always appeals to many especially since
there is a general consensus that our present state of education is in disarray. The
word “reform” is always easy for the public to swallow because any move to veer
away from the present arrangement of things is viewed as a welcome development.
Government officials and other advocates who are so insistent in adding two more
years in the school cycle should thus join the clamor for higher wages and the
regulation of prices of basic commodities and services, push for the expansion and
institutionalization of student financial support systems and scholarships, and more
importantly, fight for greater state subsidy to education at all levels. Any education
reform program that does not take into account economic and other social factors
that affect a person's schooling is bound to fail especially when its supposed
beneficiaries cannot keep pace.
The public should not take the K to 12 program as a bitter pill to swallow. It should
not pass judgment on the program based solely on its glittery promise of honing
the student for employability, and the additional costs that parents have to
shoulder. The heavy financial burden that comes with the implementation of the
program is just one of the many issues on the surface. Basic problems such as lack
of teacher training and the failure of the government to address input gaps are also
considerations that if left unaddressed may imperil the full implementation of the
program.
But a fundamental flaw of the program that merits equal attention is its inability to
address the problem of decreasing access to education. Aquino's K to 12 is
anchored on improving the competencies of in-school youths but fails to consider
the situation of the growing number of out-of-school youths in the country who
should enjoy the universally-acknowledged right of access to educational services.
Furthermore, school survival rates are not merely influenced by the student's
mental and cognitive abilities. Poverty, the peace situation, and other societal
factors all contribute to the increasing drop-out rates that cannot be remedied by
mere curricular reforms and additional years of schooling. What use does a more
“enjoyable” learning experience have when the student cannot even afford to go to
school due to his or her financial woes?
The K to 12 is marketed as a program wherein the student is given the option to
pursue different paths upon graduation: employment, entrepreneurship, and higher
education. This freedom of choice touted by the K to 12 proponents, however, is
illusory since the student's choice is actually limited by the reality that higher
education has become a privilege and that the worsening economic conditions in
the country are pushing Filipinos to seek jobs instead of pursuing higher education.
The program's objective to produce “globally competitive graduates” also run
counter to the supposed freedom that the student possesses in choosing his or her
career path. In reality, under the present economic set-up, the prescriptions of
market dictates shape our choices and decisions, be it in the brands we purchase,
the artists we subscribe to, the course we take in college, and even in the
profession or occupation we wish to have. With the government systematically and
aggressively promoting the export of labor and the dependence on external sources
of jobs and economic growth through its economic policies, it can be expected that
majority of the jobs and fields of learning that the students would be pursuing are
those that are in tune with the demands of global market—call center jobs,
technical-vocational jobs abroad, etc. It is contemptible, how at a young age people
are told to pursue whatever dreams they have but education agencies would be
coming up with a list of courses that are highly discouraged simply because they
are not what the global market demands.
Thus, the observation that the real motive behind the K to 12 education reform
program is to further intensify labor export by systematically targeting the
country's young labor force, and further service the demands of multinational firms
is not without basis.
As seen from the K to 12 curriculum, there is a noticeable focus given to technology
and livelihood education (TLE) during high school, with the learner even obtaining a
certificate of competency required by industries. In Grades 7 and 8, TLE subjects
are exploratory, which means that the learner is given the opportunity to learn 5
basic competencies: 1) mensuration and calculation, 2) use of tools and equipment,
3) interpretation of plans/drawing, 4) occupational health and safety in the
workplace, and 5) maintenance of tools and equipment. In Grade 9, the learner
chooses one course to specialize in from among the exploratory courses and in
Grade 10, he/she pursues the TLE specialization that he/she has chosen in the
previous grade in order for him/her to obtain at least a National Certificate Level I
or Level II.
There is completely nothing wrong with developing the technical and vocational
skills of the citizens if these are oriented towards genuine economic development
through national industrialization. However, the present economic orientation of the
country shows that tech-voc courses supply either the demands abroad or the pool
of skilled reserve labor servicing multinational firms which take advantage of the
country's cheap skilled labor.
While the intentions seem laudable at first glance, the underlying context of the
implementation of the K to 12 program could be best understood by looking at the
government's problematic general development framework that is the Philippine
Development Plan, which seeks to reinforce the country's adherence to the flawed
development paradigm of neoliberal globalization. The K to 12 program's thrust of
producing “21st century graduates” is nothing but an affirmation and a
reinforcement of the country's role in the uneven world order where economies
such are ours are molded according to the interests of the powers-that-be. Thus,
the K to 12 education program can be considered a sine qua non for the fulfillment
of the government's agenda of trawling the path of the globalization project, which
has only made the country vulnerable to the world economic crisis and has yielded
the very crisis that plagues Philippine education.

Sumber : http://philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012/06/problem-with-aquinos-k-
to-12-program.html#ixzz3Ttbd6e6n

Like any other individuals, we are pursuing our right in every ways, delivering our
thoughts and standing for what is due. We live side by side of our political system;
adhere to what is implemented, grasp what has been told and act supposedly. The
people is the basic unit of the nation that should be valued, cared and needs be
sustained to augment their knowledge and skills in order to have cooperation in
uplifting the economy and the living situation of every individual.