The proposal of free college tuition has been a reoccurring topic in recent political debates. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has been perhaps the strongest advocate of the idea stating that “every American who studies hard in school can go to college regardless of how much money their parents make…”

As a current college student myself, of course this idea sounds great on paper. However, while watching the series of Democratic debates, the only thing that seemed to come to mind when the topic was presented was the lack of feasibility.

It was not until recently, when I was reading through the New York Times, that I came to the realization that this was an overly idealistic solution. Bernie Sanders, alongside other candidates, have endorsed a resolution that does not solve our nation’s higher education problem. In her article, “Free Tuition Is Not the Answer,” Catharine Hill argued that this implementation would primarily help high-income students and have little impact on moderate and low-income students.

In this situation, there is a trade-off presented: if college tuition is made free for everyone, it would result in a shortage of approximately $70 billion tax dollars. In addition, the lack of revenue that colleges are receiving will decrease the availability of resources, including technology and financial aid, which, as Hill states, exists to help those of moderate to low-income.

There is a solution to lessening the inequalities that arise from education levels and income levels, but this is not it.

Instead of making college tuition free for everyone, the government should focus on pouring more money into resources that benefit those who cannot afford to pay full tuition, such as financial aid and federal loans.

In addition, free tuition does not account for room and boarding costs, as well as general expenses. However, the free tuition would result in lower grants to low-income students to cover these additional costs. Consequently, low income students would have more debt, while richer students would experience few negative effects because they already have the money to cover these costs.

Sanders uses countries in Europe as argument for his idea without seeing the flaw in his comparisons. Most college students in Europe live off-campus, and the campuses do not typically provide the student organizations and extra buildings that American universities do. In Europe, there was also little change in enrollment among poorer students as a result of free tuition.

In the end, making college tuition free does not increase efficiency or equality. It lessens resources and quality of universities and negatively impacts those of lower income. The amount families pay should be based on their income. This system exists in the first place so that richer families are actually helping out those with less money.

Saying this, college tuition is still not as accessible as it should be for those of lower income. A more sound, fair solution to this problem is putting more funding towards federal student loans and implementing stricter minimum requirements for financial aid for students that are need-based. Colleges should be held to stricter standards when it comes to deciding just how much money a family can and cannot pay for education.

While making college tuition free is a nice idea, these radical proposals prove not only unattainable, but could even lead to more inequality in higher education.

Facts compiled from qz.com, nytimes.com, and berniesanders.com