Essay 3 Topics- Response

Factual: How should someone obtain free college?

I would choose this question because there are definitely overlying circumstances in how someone should obtain free college. Should it go to those who are poor? To those with high test scores and GPA? Those who play sports? Those attending a STEM university? I think there are a lot of factors that should go into the decision to give someone a free education over those who would have to pay for it. 

Factual: Why should more states offer or not offer free college?

I could use this question because there are a lot of ups and downs to having free college, and each state is different. Some of the more densely populated states like California or New York, depend on the revenue and tax each state college brings in. Would it help that state's economy if more people attended college? Or would it be counterproductive and lower the competition for jobs since it's anyones game?

Factual: Should the Federal Government or the individual states decide on college tuition standards?

This question should be one of the most important factors for free college. If the government decided for all the states on how they should hand out free college, would it benefit all of the states or just a choice few? I would want to answer this question because I think there are cons of letting the states decide because that could be a factor in where majority of the people decide to go to college. If New York has the best offer then more people will flock there to attend their universities and clog the system. However if it was up to the Federal Government then there could be backlash from the states claiming that they are overstepping their boundaries. 

Inductive: Why should more people get free college?

I think that this is a broad question, but it could help decide who would be a candidate for free college. In New York there are certain requirements that a person must meet to be eligible. Their families income is one of the biggest requirement to be eligible. Should it be more than just a person's social status? Is it fair for someone who had a 2.8 GPA in high school with a score of 18 on the ACT, but their family makes less than $100,000 a year to get free college, versus someone who had a 3.8 GPA with a 26 on their ACT with their family making $150,000 a year to pay full tuition? It may lower the school's demographics if they have more people attending a college since it's more affordable. There should be guidelines to who should be eligible for free college but it shouldn't be so closed off to such a small margin. 

Inductive: How can free college be counter-productive?

There are a lot of reasons why free college could be beneficial, but there are also reasons why it could be counterproductive and people don't want to talk about it. Offering free college to those who can't afford it will bring in more students into these universities. It will higher the attendance rate and bring up the ratio of students to faculty- that is, if the universities accept all who meet their qualifications. Another downfall of free college could affect those who are trying to get into universities. If colleges higher their standards for acceptance, since more people are able to attend, then it becomes more competitive to get in, if the colleges cap off the amount of students. I feel like I could find different resources to help support this argument. 

Inductive: Is it fair for tax payers, who already went to college, to have to pay for other people's college?

I really like this question because a common thinking among liberals is that free means free. Free college means that no one is paying for it- which is a false mentality. Nothing is free in life, and to be able to give students free college, the universities will have to obtain money through a different resource. Taxes. Offering free college will raise the taxes to those who are already in the work field. A lot of people would be opposed to this, since they had to go through college to get to where they are currently. A mentality they would have would be that everyone has to pay their dues, and to get to there they want to be in life they would have to have a foot in the game. If they have no investment in their education then they could be more inclined to fail, since they have no risk of loosing anything. 

Inductive: How will free college affect the legitimacy of a degree?

The value of a college degree is already declining, since it is almost impossible to find a job without one. One of the main problems of that is because more people are attending college, since it has become the "social norm" to do so after graduating college. With states offering free college, the attendance rates would be even higher, lowering the value of a degree. Most employers don't even care about the major in which you studied, as long as you have the paper saying you graduated from a higher education you would be considered for the job. Now that everyone will be able to go to college, will there be more requirements to get a job? Like more training in a specific field, or an extension of college? It will inevitably be the same situation we are in now. 

Analytical: On what grounds do the government or state decide who qualifies for free college?

I like this question because it helps narrow down who should and shouldn't receive free college. Should there only be an income requirement? Or would that weed out those who are actually qualified? By giving those who can't afford college free admission, would it amp up the price for those who could/can afford it? If it does, would that change the atmosphere of the college from those who are merit-ly qualified to those who are below average but with a lower social status? Or should free college be based on extracurriculars and grades from high school?

Essay 3 Topic and Questions

Topic: Free College

Questions

1. Factual: How should someone obtain free college?
2. Factual: Why should more states offer or not offer free college?
3. Factual: Should the Federal Government or the individual states decide on college tuition standards?
4. Inductive: Why should more people get free college?
5. Inductive: How can free college be counter-productive?
6. Inductive: Is it fair for tax payers, who already went to college, to have to pay for other people's college?
7. Inductive: How will free college affect the legitimacy of a degree?
8. Analytical: On what grounds do the government or state decide who qualifies for free college?
9. Analytical: How does free college positively and/or negatively affect the economy post graduation?
10. Analytical: Will people be less inclined to go to college if the environment is not as competitive as it use to be?

Connection between Wiesel and Friendswood

In Eli Wiesel's speech, "The Peril of Indifference", he explains to former president Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton, the danger in people being indifferent, or not care, about imperative situations. He explained that when he was in Germany during the Nazi regime, how knowing that the United States, or any other super power in the world knew about the mass execution of a group, and did nothing about it. They were indifferent, and that was much worse than being oblivious. In conjunction to René Steinke's book, Friendswood, the people of the town knew what happened to Willa, and did nothing about it. Wiesel says, "It is much easier to look away from victims", and that is exactly what happened to Willa (Wiesel 2). She was raped at a party, and everyone in town knew it was wrong, even Cully, but it was easier for this religious community to turn an eye, and just ignore the situation. Indifference elicits no response, and the quietness of the community was enough for Willa to feel alone.

Wiesel talks about how much harder it was to have hope when everyone in the camps knew about the indifference of the United States. Both the prisoners and the US knew what the Germans were doing was wrong, but it was easier for the US to not get involved, therefore letting the Jews suffer. In Wiesel's article, he says, "Indifference is not only a sin, it is a punishment" (Wiesel 2). These people felt as if it was even more of a punishment that the rest of the world condoned the behavior of the Nazi party, instead of fighting against them for what was right. Lee has a similar relationship with the community of Friendswood. She is fighting for justice in her community for the chemical dumping in the neighborhood of Rosemont. Everyone knows that chemical dumping is wrong, and covering up unsolved chemicals is wrong, however the EPA, city council, and community are indifferent about Lee's fight for justice and does nothing to help. It is a much worse feeling knowing that other people understand what you're doing is right, but refuse to help because of indifference.

It is dangerous for people in any community to become too lazy to fight for what is right. The peril of indifference causes wrongdoing to be unaccounted for. By not doing anything is almost just as bad as advocating for the opposing side. It ruins any hope someone has when knowing the community condemns the actions of others. They believe that they are alone, and that everyone is against them. Lee felt as if everyone thought she was crazy for fighting for the health of her and others. She started to believe she was crazy when no one supported her fight. Same with Willa, and same with the prisoners at the Nazi Germany containment camps. If being indifferent becomes more commonly used, then it creates an environment of no one standing up and fighting for what is right.

Work Cited

Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. New York: Riverhead , a Member of Penguin Group (USA), 2014. Print.

Eidenmuller, Michael E. "American Rhetoric: Elie Wiesel - The Perils of Indifference." American Rhetoric: Elie Wiesel - The Perils of Indifference. N.p., 12 Apr. 1999. Web. 10 Apr. 2017. <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ewieselperilsofindifference.html>.