Schools should start implementing economic classes
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Schools should start implementing classes (mandatory courses) that talk about money, and how to utilize it appropriately. These classes would also include topics about finance, macro and microeconomics, and different types of bank accounts. These classes would be preferably taught staring in grade 7.
Hello and thank you for accepting.
How are we going to implement this system? Starting from grade 7, students will now have an extra mandatory class talking about money. This will be taught by a certified teacher and will be added to the student's course. This course will be half year. He or she will now have potentially one less option to chose from, but none the less, the benefits are there.
What is the status quo?
40% of American's don't have more than $400 in their emergency savings, and 25% don't have anything saved for retirement. And schools don't do anything to teach us about this. Even experts agree that
Lessons on lending and credit are just as important as English or science classes.
How will these classes help?
If students are exposed to this knowledge at an early stage, then they don't need to figure this stuff out through the hard way. Many studies have confirmed this, and it is highly recommended by parents and experts a like.
Hello, to you too, thanks for this debate.
Which classes are going to be replaced?
There are usually 6-8 periods in middle school , usually comprised of Math, English, Science, Social Studies, Music, Language, and some sort of elective. If we were to implement economics as a mandatory course then we would have to replace one of these courses, which would: 1. Cause many teachers to lose their jobs, creating unemployment 2. Create students uneducated in many academic fields, making it harder for them to get into college or find a job.
This wouldn't help middle schoolers
Middle schoolers don't need to learn about money, they don't even have a bank account yet! Plus, it's not as if economics isn't taught, economics is taught in high school and college, where some students have side jobs and economics would be useful to them.
Hello and thank you for following up.
replace one of these courses [...] creating unemployment
This is not true. School schedules are varied, but generally have space for 4 half year option courses. We could simply reduce this number down to 3, with no serious consequence. As a matter of fact, this would increase the number of jobs present.
uneducated in many academic fields
I have just proven that this could be implemented without much consequence. And even if it did make a student lose out on an opportunity, financial lessons are arguably more important than the rest, and besides, you would still have 3 other option courses to fill your timetable with.
Why this would help students
Why are we taught Math at a young age? So we can build on learning the material. Same goes for financial education. If we start teaching young kids the importance of money, we can then build on that knowledge, and improve their understanding.
If we start teaching young kids the importance of money, we can then build on that knowledge, and improve their understanding.
I don't see how that logic would work, the difference between learning economics in 7th grade and learning economics in high school is very minimal. Economics isn't something that needs to be taught at an early age because it can't be taught later, because it can and it is.
We could simply reduce this number down to 3, with no serious consequence. As a matter of fact, this would increase the number of jobs present.
How would not learning a subject not be a serious consequence? And no, it would not increase the number of jobs present because whatever teacher was teaching the subject that got replaced by economics would be fired.
We already teach economics in high school  and don't need to teach it in middle school as it won't benefit middle schoolers.
Thanks for the debate.
Good debate man. I really enjoyed it. Hope to see you soon!
It was fun debating with you too, I just recommend you make the character cap larger in future debates for longer more vivid debates. But other than that this was a great debate!
I'm aware that is what you were stating, and that's what I said you stated(or at least what I meant to say), Squid stated how starting to learn economics early was better, meaning, even if the difference was minimal from starting to learn economics in grade 7 vs high school, it's a net positive nonetheless.
I did reread my vote and realized many grammatical issues, it was late at night when I wrote this VOTE.
Thanks for your vote Trent! You really did make it insightful.
And thank you Phoenix for this wonderful debate.
"from grade 7 to high school"
"learning economics in 7th grade and learning economics in high school is very minimal."
I was talking about how the difference starting in grade seven and starting in high school was minimal. Normally, I wouldn't comment on a vote but seeing as to how this misinterpretation was the deciding factor I did :(
I'm currently writing one, will be done tomorrow.
bump vote plz
i dont understand why they dont already it s important people understand economics