You know when you see a car advertised? It's a nice, new car and the price in the newspaper says $6,500? "Wow, what a great deal." Well, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. The car actually costs $30,000 and the down payment is what was advertised. This is also true of the mindset that college should be free.
I am a college student. High school was a time of trying for high test scores, taking college-level courses, and setting myself up to get scholarships, just as it was for anyone who knew that they wanted to pursue a higher education and took it seriously. There is absolutely no denying the high price tag that comes with college and this is why Ramen Noodles and peanut butter & jelly sandwiches are college staples. They do say you have to “learn to live poor in college, that way you don’t have to live poor after college” for a reason. Making college free is not the answer.
Roads benefit everyone. National defense benefits everyone. K-12 education aims to create productive members of society. These are instances in which our tax dollars reap benefits for everyone in one way or another. The steep price of making college tuition obsolete shouldn’t fall on the backs of the family who has started saving from the daughter’s college fund since she was born or your grandparents who sent their children to college 25 years ago. Getting a higher education is your decision. The state mandates K-12 education. The choice to attend college is based upon the individual.
On top of this, countless options exist for financially-unstable students. The goal isn’t to put a cap on who can get a college education, but rather do so in such a way that doesn’t involve handing the taxpayers the bill. Florida Bright Futures awards students achieving the highest test scores over $1,000 a semester. Joining the armed forces ensures for free college in payment for the sacrifice made. Student loans and grants are always a fallback option for struggling students. Part-time jobs can help cover additional costs. Work-study programs exist to help students in need. FAFSA is need-based and aims to ease the financial pressure felt by these students. Collegiate institutions hand out merit-based scholarships, along with many scholarships awarded by local organizations and high schools. All of these options, and now we are demanding free tuition?
Taxpayers already foot the costs of maintaining federal universities and colleges, while even adding additional facilities or new programs to these schools for students to take advantage of. Over 10 years, Hillary Clinton’s proposal is estimated to cost $500 billion over 10 years. Any student coming from a family with a yearly income of less than $85,000 would be permitted to attend state schools without paying tuition. As Robbie Soave pointed out, "a family living off of $85,000 in New York City, Los Angeles, or Washington, DC might be in much more precarious financial shape than a family living off $85,000 in the suburban Midwest. Does this plan not punish people whose higher incomes are offset by higher living costs?" If the ultimate goal is to make college more widely accessible, how does this accomplish this?
Awarding merit is one thing. Awarding entitlement is another. The supporters of free college tend to hold the mentality that it’s not fair that people who have parents that can support them have an easier time paying their way through college, and it’s true, these students do have lesser financial constraints. The same people that are saying “it’s not fair” are probably not the ones working themselves crazy because they have the drive to better themselves and be proactive. Saying “it’s not fair” is far easier. But what’s key here is that these student’s parents are deciding how they are spending the money that they have worked hard to earn. They have elected to invest in their own child’s education. The government is not telling them “we are going to make you pay higher taxes long after your own children have graduated from college so other students don’t have to pay tuition”. The government’s job is not to tell hard-working people where to invest their money.
This could also have the perverse effect of causing tuition rates to skyrocket. This policy has the potential to be a financial disaster. Any public university president with an ounce of sense would simply raise annual tuition by $2,000, $5,000, or more, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayers are there to bear the costs.
Sure, Clinton’s promise to “make college free” many have won the loyalty of reluctant Bernie supporters, but it hasn’t won me over. The problem boils down to the consequences of building higher education policy around a single price: $0. If that’s a given, Clinton will have to choose between a tremendously expensive and unfair policy that actually fulfills her highly publicized promise, or a more affordable and reasonable policy that leaves hundreds of thousands of students with more than $0 to pay for their own education.
