The cause of “free college” has become a popular rallying cry and recruiting tool for the Progressive Left. President Obama touted a proposal that would make two years of community college free during his State of the Union Address. Presidential candidate and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders has proposed eliminating tuition entirely at all public colleges and universities, and his opponent, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, has espoused a similar, albeit less extreme, plan that promises all students will graduate “debt free.”
Such promises have energized millennials and first-time voters— who have been suffering under the burden of astronomical and ever-increasing tuition costs— as well as their parents, who hope that the federal government will forgive all student loan debts. While these proposals offer enticing promises of addressing inequalities in education and income, Progressives ignore one simple truth: that “free college” is an economic impossibility. And even if “free college” was a possible solution, it still wouldn’t be a wise one.
There’s an old economic axiom that states, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” In other words, you can’t get something for nothing. Anything worth producing and providing on the market will incur a cost, whether it be in time, money, or resources— or, most likely, all three. And, sorry Bernie, but if there’s no such thing as a free lunch, then there’s no such thing as free college, either. Instead, what Sanders and his fellow Progressives have promised as the cure to rising tuition costs is a government-subsidized higher education— or, in actuality, a taxpayer-subsidized education, as the government is a public entity. Every household, even the elderly couple that decided to never have children, would be shouldering the burden of sending the nation’s youth to college.
Most proponents of “free college” take no issue with this. They claim ensuring that all Americans have access to a college degree will lead to a more educated populace and is in the best interests of the public; it is worth the corresponding increase in taxes. And, more importantly, the average taxpayer would see no tax increases, if only Congress would raise taxes on the rich. The benefits of a government-subsidized education are only not being realized because corrupt politicians are busy protecting the interests of the upper classes, or so the Progressives say.
Now, ignore for a moment that the top 1% of Americans could be taxed at 100% of their income for the next ten years, and the government still wouldn’t have enough money to pay for “free and universal college.” The truth is that the United States government already subsidizes higher education, and it’s likely that these subsidies are the root cause of the astronomical rise in college tuition over the last decade and a half.
Since the early 2000s, the federal government has taken an increasingly active interest in higher education, subsidizing students’ educations through a convoluted system grants and unbacked loans. This has thus enabled a dramatic increase in the cost of college tuition. When the government subsidizes a good or service for a specific subset of individuals, it automatically increases the demand for that good or service amongst that interest group.
However, assuming that there’s no corresponding increase in the supply of the good or service, that good or service becomes ever more scarce as more of it is consumed; thus, the price of the good or service goes up. This, and not the greed of private colleges, has been the primary factor behind rising costs, and, if the government were to promise “free and universal college,” prices would continue to rise astronomically. The only difference is that, in a public system, tuition costs would be hidden, paid indirectly through taxes and not directly by the consumer.
So “free college,” as aforementioned, is an economic impossibility, and, if anything, government subsidies only increase costs. But even if one were to momentarily believe that the Progressives’ proposals could actually make college more affordable, it would still make no sense to support such a plan.
If a college education was open to everyone at little or no cost, it would make no sense for an individual to not attempt attaining a degree. Assuming that, under a system proposed by Sanders, most college-aged students would indeed enroll at a college or university, and that a majority of said students graduated, the number of citizens with bachelor's degrees would skyrocket. And with an influx of people with bachelor's degrees into the job market, it would be harder for employers to differentiate between the candidates, thus forcing companies raise standards for job-lookers.
In other words, a bachelor's degree would be devalued— something that I like to call "education inflation"; if one can understand why a dollar is devalued when more dollars are printed, then he should understand this. This phenomena has already become apparent in the current job market— 44% of recent college graduates occupy positions which require no college degree— and would only worsen if any "free college" proposals were implemented.
Free public college is great for political soundbites and rallying millennials to a cause; yet, it does nothing to solve the tuition crisis— in fact, it exacerbates the problem— and presents a number of other complications, such as degree inflation and a decreasing return on investment as more students attend college (see, the Law of Diminishing Returns). Reform must come, but it must center around getting the government out of education, and not tying it ever tighter to the industry. Our leaders need to stop promising "free stuff" for political gain, lest our future become mired deeper and deeper in debt. And, more importantly, our voters need to learn that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
