issue53 我也造一个，政府替学生交大学学费

imongUID: 140258

写完第三段发现已经很长了，只好不写第4段直接收尾了
感觉自己逐渐进入一种状态，平时琢磨issue题目除了闹得心慌慌以外都没有太多结果，只有到临写现场构思才能出东西（反常？），好像是很不错的一种感觉。

53"College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."

I strongly disagree with the proposal that college and university education should be fully financed by the government and be free for all students. While it is impossible to carry out such proposal for practical reasons, this policy is also unreasonable in nature and weak towards questioning.

First of all, for all governments worldwide, it is impossible to fully fund higher education institutions and make it free to all students. The major reasons is that no government is capable of sustaining a expenditure of an exponential number all the times, since for them the cost of higher education institutions are far more than affordable. Take the nuclei magnetic resonance equipment for example, a experimental apparatus widely used in university chemistry labs, the maintenance fee of such equipment is several hundred dollars per day at least, since critical conditions are required such as moderate moisture, low temperature, consumption of liquid nitrogen and helium, and so forth. And this is only one conspicuous case, not to mention those academic conferences, seminars, investigations, experiments, to name a few; all demand financial support. Considering the average cost per day in an university and the number of higher education institutions in the country, obviously it will be a heavy burden for if the government is to pay all the bills, and the economy of the whole nations will be backfired if government draws substantial amount to pour into universities. Conversely, this miserable situation will not take place if tuition fee is continuously paid by students, and consequently the government can function well with universities providing qualified education on sufficient income, be they from students' tuition or personal endowment, yet not necessarily all from government allocation. Therefore government should not take over the bill that is out of its responsibility. The proposal may be well intended, yet the government will suffer greatly from such inconsiderate suggestion.

From another aspect, to eliminate the tuition requirement would encourage unnecessary people to attend universities, which may severely impair the effective use of limited educational resource, consequently endanger the quality of education provided. Common sense tells that people tend to take advantage of everything that is labeled "free". Behaviors such as frenetic shopping during a discount is no surprising at all, and the situation must have been much worse if anything is announced "free of charge", especially those desirable as a bachelor degree issued by certain renowned universities. In this sense, universities will have to welcome a group of people whose ultimate goals are solely the diploma, and who contributes little to the academic learning on campus, if such "free policy" is to be practiced. Consequently, time and effort will be wasted on these free-sniffers while those perspective researchers will have to receive less nurturance than necessary. That is to say, the educational resource is wrongfully allocated and the quality of education is imperiled. Hence the consequence of government's paying for all is not desirable at all.

In conclusion, while the government is unable to pay for the tremendous amount, tuition is also necessary to maintain a balance so as to ensure the quality of education. Thus I believe government should not totally pay for higher education and make it free to everyone.

53min

yellowchildrenUID: 134407

"The major reasons is that no government is capable of sustaining a expenditure of an exponential number all the times"

应该是单数“REASON”。。。还有“ALL THE TIME”吧。。。感觉没检查就发上来了。。呵呵。。。

第三段好像有点欠妥：免费教育是否意味全民教育，这个问题在HAPPYMAN也写了这个题目的文里，大家有讨论，你可参看。。。

imongUID: 140258

哈哈，谢谢了。

因为是看完了happyman的文章再写的，观点coincide也是没办法（过两天把这个论点忘光光了之后就有新的了）

看来word还是靠不住，明明没有线的……

NoChoiceButUID: 151894

imong,你原来好像写过issue 53，我有些问题，请指教
刚刚看过这篇文章，有个疑惑：
我对题目的理解是政府究竟应不应该负担大学教育的费用，而不是能不能的问题。换句话说，是一个在道义上大家能不能接受和是否公平的问题，而不是讨论政府是否有能力负担这些费用的问题。
如果这个理解大家能接受的话你第一个理由好像有些suspicious了。

imongUID: 140258

看来我的逻辑构架主要在于：Since they cannot，they should not

你的逻辑构架主要是：Althought they cannot，they should.（Whether they should has little to do with whether they can）

你的感觉呢？

NoChoiceButUID: 151894

呵呵，你表达的比我更清楚
问题就在这里Since they cannot，they should not这样的逻辑是否禁得住推敲呢？
举例来说，子女应不应该赡养父母，如果也是Since they cannot，they should not的话好像有点说不过去呀？

imongUID: 140258

你可以把这一点写到你的文章里，我觉得关于can和should的辨析会很精彩的。

至于我的那篇文章嘛，我现在感觉并没有什么问题。这可不是死要面子哦~:D

子女应不应该赡养父母-------或者从另一个角度，如果我对氯过敏，应不应该去游泳池呢？（假设是一个氯消毒的游泳池）

NoChoiceButUID: 151894

呵呵，虽然都对自己的意见有所保留，但是我觉得现在理解的比当初更清楚了。
谢谢imong了！