Equal Education

[#M|A#Wolf]

I'm writing an essay on whether or not there should be an equal, excellent, and state-funded public education (public and private education would be the same quality, meaning to put more effort into public education to rise it to the level of private education) in Mexico, and I'm taking the position that Mexico is not ready for that due to corruption.

My first claim is that the corruption in Mexico will not let public education progress and any effort toward it will be hindered by the corrupt politicians that want to fill up their pockets.

I'm trying to search for two other claims as to why Mexico would be better off not wasting their time on public education. Any ideas would be immensely appreciated.

[GDM]

If the question is precisely "If there should be an equal, excellent, and state-funded public education", I think you are approaching it incorrectly.

When we discuss whether it should be or not, I think that changeable feasibility concerns can't be part of the discussion. As far as actual impossibilities, I don't know (e.g. For "Should there be a unicorn at the Berlin zoo?", is "No, because unicorns don't exist" a valid argument?).

Here's an analogous scenario which may help clarify what I mean:
Question: "Should #M|A#Wolf complete and turn in his persuasive essay?"
Answer: "No, #M|A#Wolf is lazy and even if he tried, he would fail."
That answer is not answering the given question. The question doesn't ask "Can #M|A#Wolf. . ." or "Should #M|A#Wolf try to complete. . .". Defending the negative requires explaining why it would be better for #M|A#Wolf to not complete and turn in the essay.

Similarly, in the essay you have to write, defending the negative requires explaining why it would be better for Mexico to not have "equal, excellent, and state-funded public education". The feasibility of that is assumed in the question.

Here's a way to alter your argument to fix this problem:
Argue that while raising the level of public education to that of private education is possible, the cost will be greatly increased by corruption such that it is not worth it. You will have to figure out how to quantify and compare these costs and benefits of raising/not raising public education.

Other arguments for the negative:
- quibble over the meaning of 'equal' - does that mean equal coverage as well? Is school required up to a certain age in Mexico? How would that work if we make public 'equal' to private education? How about geographic coverage? How about acceptance exams?

I can't think of anything else good right now. However, the exact wording of the prompt you were given would be very helpful and you should examine it more closely to figure out precisely what it means before you continue answering it.

[Waffles]

claim: the world needs good burger cooks. done-zo

but i would argue just because corruption is a hindrance to education, it does not mean that educating people in lower socio-economic classes is not beneficial.

[#M|A#Wolf]

...

The complete question is: "Should all students in Mexico have equal access to an excellent, state-funded education - regardless of region, race, social class, or family income?

[GDM]

The complete question is: "Should all students in Mexico have equal access to an excellent, state-funded education - regardless of region, race, social class, or family income?

So there is no part about private education and its relation to public education. That's pretty important. Mexico could have a private education system much better tor much worse than the public system as long as the public system is still excellent and equally accessible.

Something new for you to think about:
- How are we defining 'excellent' ? I suppose we could use the current 'best' countries' educational programs. We can also, from them, get the costs of those other countries' programs and use that in the comparisons I was talking about before. A sub-part of this cost comparison would include evaluating the tax increases that would likely result from this.

In general, arguing questions like this starts immediately from your interpretation of the question statement. Your might start your essay with a definition of terms (e.g. equal, excellent).

[ElCrema]

...

The complete question is: "Should all students in Mexico have equal access to an excellent, state-funded education - regardless of region, race, social class, or family income?

Yes they should! But is possible to argue as why this should not be done. Corruption is not the best counter argument, thou (you can use it, but as GDM so nicely put it, is not a very logical one). It is hard to go against excellent state funded education for all, but I can think of a few things that could make it not practical or ideal: Estate bureaucracy is the most obvious one (the argument goes in the same line of the one about corruption) as it would make it extremely hard to oversee, maintain and especially change something (or fix an obvious problem) mid term having to go trough all the red tape and proper channels of state funded initiatives. I don't know how that works in Mexico, but if is anything like Brazil and USA it would be a huge problem and it would cost a shit load of money.

The most serious problem I see, that really goes against state funded education is those relative to curriculum. In such scenario who would decide what will be teach to children? In what extent an newly elected government would influence the curriculum? Would they give more emphasis to technical education or a more liberal one, and most importantly, why?

You can go from here, I wont do the damn thing for you, not free of charge at least :P

Buena suerte nena!

[Waffles]

ill do it for 1300 pesos

[Marti]

ill do it for 1300 pesos

Ill do it for 1000 pesos , AND ill be high as fck so itll be great

[Edward]

how can someone not part of the elite be opposed to public school? in France the only difference between public school and private school is the money you will waste :p

[Alien]

it is illogical to have them equal. Public is for free, for all. You cannot give the service for all people in the level of the selective service. The private service would lost the sense. :P From your taxes you want to pay only necessary education. It is some shitty (Chavez's kind) idea. :D

[Cemer]

It is some shitty (Chavez's kind) idea.

rip

anyway, if this was to actually take place, the private holders would be furious, and may/would try to improve their services (provided that it isnt forever equal, only made to be so). If they cant, they will just fight for it