According to the United States Census for 1956, less than 30% of young people aged 18 to 24 attended school (Eckler). This statistic proves that a college education was a characteristic that could make a potential employee stand out among the rest. Fast forward fifty years and some lawmakers are attempting to make public college free for everyone. This proposal is hotly debated by both parties, and each side believes they represent the higher moral ground. Although there are steps that can be taken to alleviate the burden of tuition costs and student debt, terminating costs altogether is not the answer. Tuition is an investment into an individual's future, and it creates an expectation that the student will work to "get their money's worth."  Tuition exists to ensure the best possible learning experience, and is essential to finding post-graduation success.

Noted in the budget committee outline for the University of South Carolina, in 2006 the funds for the Columbia campus totaled over $626 million for the year. Over $200 million of that comes from tuition, and close to $200 million comes from the state. These funds are used for general education expenditures, instruction, research, public services, student services, facility maintenance, scholarships and many other resources(.Eckler) The yearly expenditures total roughly $500 million, which allots about $125 million for unforeseen expenses. If tuition was no longer a financial intake, this pool would be -$25 million. (Eckler) This forces cuts throughout the university system and tighter belts around the budget for the school. Considering circumstances such as the flood the university experienced in November 2015, the "rainy day" funds would be minuscule and the school would be forced to make pay cuts or cuts in campus amenities to cover the costs.

The higher education system is one of the largest and most imperative industries in regards to the United States global impact. 

With the great impact this issue has on young voters, the topic of tuition-free college has been greatly debated throughout this presidential campaign season. The state of Tennessee has implemented a system where students are not responsible for paying their tuition. The only prerequisites for a resident of Tennessee to attend university are being a high school graduate who enrolls full time and maintains a 2.0 grade point average. The state plans to fund this with a pool of $300 million that is intended to cover costs.(Weiner) As previously mentioned, the University of South Carolina takes in more than $200 million per year in tuition. This statistic decreases the feasibility of the state of Tennessee to continue to provide this service. The endowment will not be able to subsidize itself yearly with unpredictable markets and the rising costs of education. This can be especially intriguing to minorities and lower income students, but the belief that they will benefit from this plan is incorrect. The proposal to do away with tuition does not benefit students already enrolled in financial aid programs through scholarships or FAFSA. The opportunities given through these systems would be done away with completely and the playing field would be even for all applicants.

 This proposition comes with many variables, including where the funding would come from and how a plan like this would be able to keep pace with the cost of tuition that rises every year. Throughout his campaign, Senator Sanders has promised that tuition-free public college is feasible. In an interview conducted by CNN, Senator Sanders outlines his approach to offering free higher education. His research claims that the annual budget would need to begin at $70 billion per year, although with the rising costs of higher education this is assumed to grow every year. In the plan, two thirds of this would be federal subsidies and the states would be responsible for covering the remainder. The federal funding would come from a new tax on Wall Street speculation.(CNN) With this proposal, "trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5." (Zarroli). In theory, this plan could raise hundreds of billion dollars over the next 10 years, but it also opens the floor to creative business practices that find ways around the tax (Zarroli). This funding would also be reliant on a profitable market with active investments, thus fluctuating annually depending on the market. This proves to be an unreliable source for the millions who would be dependent on it. 

The federal subsidies would also have a negative effect on the industry of higher education. One repercussion is that the government gains more control over the university. For example, money given to the university cannot be used for non-academic scholarships or any improvement to the school not deemed "academic." This affects overall desire for students to attend, as well as a billion dollar industry for large state schools, such as U of SC, that rely on sports for income.(Carey) Ticket sales, endorsements, and television air time are all sources of income for universities that belong to large sports conferences. University policies would be then be reliant on the current presidential legislation, leaving room for change as frequently as every four years. 

As previously mentioned, the state of South Carolina already allots close to $200 million per year - a number that grows annually - to the university. If the plan suggested by Senator Sanders was put into effect, the state would be forced to add their share of the $23 billion the plan expects from the states to that already impossibly high number. This would limit the amount of money available for out of state scholarship opportunities. Speaking from personal experience, I would not be attending this school if it had not been for the scholarship I received. I consider academic scholarships to be an incentive to excel throughout schooling to earn a higher education. This has always been an American mantra; the idea of "earning" a degree. A degree can lead to a career and success and ultimately the American Dream that so many individuals strive for. Without the incentive of a scholarship opportunity or a Pell Grant, there is no need for a student to exert the extra effort. If everyone was to receive a college education, the social system in our nation would fall. It is proven that a college degree makes an employee more desirable, but what if a degree was the new norm? If everyone has a college degree, regardless of skill set, all wages could potentially increase. A college degree was once a symbol of hard work and determination, now it could potentially be expected and tossed aside.

There are a few significant details left out of the Free College for All Act, the official name of the plan by Senator Sanders. The first is the distinction of which colleges are included. This proposal would apply to all public colleges and universities, such as the University of South Carolina and the College of Charleston. The schools not included are private universities. This means that colleges such as Notre Dame and Providence, who currently enroll about 20% of college students, would still be charging full tuition. There is a significant possibility that the idea of tuition-free versus upwards of $60,000 a year could have a negative impact on enrollment into these highly traditional and renowned institutions. Susan Dynarski of the Brookings Institute backs these claims. In an article she authored, she backs up the claim that Bernie Sanders' tuition-free college plan would not work. Although public universities account for 80% of college attendance, the "tuition-free" aspect does not account for private universities and graduate school. More people would be graduating with bachelor's degrees, but that would be the extent for those who rely on the financial aid proposed by Sanders.(Dynarski) This article points out that by making public universities free, private colleges will be forced to shut down if they are unable to subsidize the excess cost. This would result in years of traditions and culture being destroyed. It also points out how if the government gains control of higher education it can manipulate it to be more financially beneficial.(Hanley) Hanley also cites Pell Grants as a more effective and success-based way to provide assistance.

Those who would benefit from the plan also make up a small percentage of university attendees. According to an academic at The University of California at Berkley, there is a need to better our education system, but she acknowledges the fact that free higher education is not the answer. There needs to be more public interest in the events leading up to higher education and academic planning. It is also stated that the plan for tuition-free college would not assist the poor, as it seems from the outside, but those who's families earn an income over $140,000 and no longer qualify for financial aid.(Christ) With the current system, there is aid available to those who fall below. The problem is more directly linked to the astounding rate by which the average cost of tuition increased. In a study linking the proportion of rising costs of living,  "the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education found that the total increase in college tuition from 1983 to 2007 (439 percent) far outpaced the rise in median family income (147 percent)."(Carey) This is main reason college remains financially unfeasible for so many prospective students.

However, "there currently are four principal federal vouchers in higher education -- educational benefits under the G.I. Bill, federally sponsored student loans. Pell grants, and two tuition tax credits enacted in 1997, entitled Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally (HOPE) and Scholarship and Lifetime Learning" (Hauptman). Throughout our nation's history, the ability to make social advances has been a personal prerogative. In the past, it has been up to the student to earn an education when they could not afford one. There are numerous options for students whom experience success in the classroom and on the athletic field, as well as those who better their community or take steps toward creating a better future. It was not until recently that students began to demand what used to be considered an honor. It degrades the value of striving for success when the opportunities are handed out. For more than fifty years,  soldiers returning home have received aid in the process of reintegrating into civilian life. These benefits, that fall under the G.I. Bill, "were first created to help returning World War II veterans pay for the costs of readjustment for housing, health, and education, including the federal payment of college tuition and related expenses."(Hauptman). The selfless act of serving one's country was rewarded with the opportunity to create a successful life post-deployment. Today, many returning veterans are turned away from aid because of the massive amount of applicants who qualify for tuition assistance. The current legislation offers education to immigrants, both legal and illegal, minorities, and less qualified applicants regardless of who else is striving for the opportunity. The ease with which our current system is manipulated has negatively affected those who are receiving a higher education, as well as those who miss out on the chance due to these restrictions. 

The Pell Grant system was enacted by legislator Claiborne Pell. "Pell Grants are the quintessential progressive policy, dedicated to helping low-income students cross into the promised land of opportunity and higher education."(Carey) However, this relies on the individual's willingness to pursue success. A frightening statistic that generally goes under the radar involves the current success of lower-income student in higher education. In 2009, "less than 40 percent of low-income students who start college [got] a degree of any kind within six years."(Carey) Many critics place the blame on the institution and lack of resources, but it can also be on the general attitude of the current generation in America. 

Many supporters of tuition-free college compare our current situation to those in several European nations. Countries such as Denmark, Germany and Norway are able to offer free higher education due to the differences in financial responsibilities they face compared to the US. According to Business Insider, "Europe traditionally has higher taxes than the US, which allows those countries to offer additional social services."(Jackson)  Due to the sheer enormity of citizens in America who are able to attend college, it is not feasible to provide every individual with free tuition. There are other factors that make it easier for these countries to provide free higher education, for example, "their college enrollment percentages, for example, are much lower than in America."(Jackson) Approximately 94% of Americans receive some type of higher education, which is astronomically higher than that of any European nation. Compared to the nations that offer free higher education the US has much lower income taxes, so"if the US were to go the route of European countries that finance free college by taxing the income of citizens, the tax wedge of 31.5% would likely increase." (Jackson) It is important to prove to those who support free higher education that there is a general commonality of student debt, and the fact that it is not detrimental to success. According to an article from the News Reporter, the average amount of student debt for a college graduate is $10,000. (Bruenig) That is manageable to be paid off the first year with a premium income, discrediting the societal claim about student debt being a burden that is carried for most of a lifetime. 

There are many societal benefits that come from an individual's investment into their education. Studies have shown that other nations with the highest college graduation rates charge comparable tuition to the average in the United States, reiterating the need to advance globally. As with any investment initiative, buying into an education comes with risk. "The key to giving students a better, more affordable education turns out to be focusing less on college financial aid and more on college itself."(Carey) This would result in graduates that are better prepared to enter into the workforce, therefore able to repay the student loans that have been accumulated.

As strong as my opposition to tuition-free higher education is, I am aware that some qualified students are still unable to afford the burden. That being stated, terminating tuition altogether would be detrimental to these institutions. Forcing states to impose additional taxes to subsidize the costs of tuition, the burden is merely being reallocated to tax-payers. So "free" college is less of a possibility and more of a naive dream. It costs money to run an institution, pay administrators and professors, and advance opportunities available to students. Paying tuition is investing in a university that invests in their students. To combat the proposition of tuition-free college, I propose a merit-based student debt forgiveness program. Students should still be responsible for funding their own higher education, whether it be out of pocket or loans taken out in good faith. Effectively, institutions are in need of the funds to allocate back into the education they offer. When the individual is aware of the cost and effort necessary to succeed, there is a greater understanding of the severity of taking advantage of the opportunity to further an education. Tuition exists to provide for willing students, and if that seems unfair it only makes sense that the US will drop down on the global success scale.

