Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Schools should start implementing economic classes


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 4
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.
Round 1
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.

Thank you.
Hello, to you too, thanks for this debate.

Which classes are going to be replaced?

There are usually 6-8 periods in middle school [1], 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.

Thank you
Round 2
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.

Thank you.


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 [1] and don't need to teach it in middle school as it won't benefit middle schoolers.


Thanks for the debate.
--> @WaterPhoenix
Good debate man. I really enjoyed it. Hope to see you soon!
bump x2
--> @Trent0405
Ok then.
--> @DynamicSquid
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!
--> @WaterPhoenix
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.
--> @Trent0405
Thanks for your vote Trent! You really did make it insightful.
And thank you Phoenix for this wonderful debate.
--> @Trent0405
"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 :(
--> @WaterPhoenix
I'm currently writing one, will be done tomorrow.
bump vote plz
--> @PaulVerliane
i dont understand why they dont already it s important people understand economics
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
DS=Pro WP=Con
for my evaluation…
I feel as though it was a very close debate. WP points to the potential loss of jobs as a result of a course being replaced. But, as DS pointed out, you’re creating jobs by creating a new class. I thought WP countered this sufficiently by looking to many classes that will lose traffic from this new mandatory class, which may lead to a teacher being fired. So, for unemployment I felt it was a tie. Frankly, it appears the new competition may merely create jobs and get rid of jobs, making it neutral, or the introduction of a new class won’t drive enough competition, and it’s a net positive. Overall, it was too controversial at the end of the day and both held water but neither made an argument to prove the opposing scenario was less likely. 1-1 a tied point.
WP then argues it’s bad that students will now not be learning a different subject, but DS in R1 proved that economics were just as important as math, language, and science, so this new class is vital. But, you are limiting choice which mitigates the argument from importance but doesn’t completely flip it in his favour. Overall I deem this to just barely be a tie. I see no reason why the importance of economics ought to override a student’s choice or visa versa. 2-2 a tied point.
The point that really help seal the argument victory for DS is his contention about the positive impact an economic class will have for the populous. As DS points out, Americans aren’t doing great financially, so setting the class to grade 7 will help this. WP attempts to address this by stating that people in grade 7 shouldn’t learn the class because it’s too premature. However, DS flips this brilliantly to his favour by citing the positive impacts introducing money management early has. WP’s refutation of this falls flat, he merely states the impact is minimal from grade 7 to high school, even though DS cited how introducing economics earlier was good. DS must win this. 3-2 for DS.