"Get a C, it should be free," said Mike Kelly, the director of Real Estate Commingled Funds, Head of Debt Capital Markets, and Global Real Assets at J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. "I think tuition should be reasonable for all but it should come with an obligation to work hard and maintain good grades." With over 20 years of experience in finance, he has quite a lot of knowledge and credibility to discussing this topic. Nonetheless, he is also a father of two girls, my 22-year-old sister and me. Luckily, we are privileged that our father is able to pay for us both to go to college without the need to take out any loans and have the possibility to be in debt when we are out of college. He says, "I do not mind paying tuition because I am thankful to be able to but is that really fair to parents who already pay so much in federal and state taxes or should some of that payment in taxes be used to pay for school?" Basically, his main idea is that some of the money already being paid for in taxes should also be going to education. Also, students should have to finish school within a reasonable amount of time and maintain above average grades to earn the tuition provided for them. When discussing the idea of the changes that might be made in the higher education system, my dad also included the thought of how much debt some students leave college with because of the loans they needed just to get a good education. He continued, "Student loans are making it very difficult for your generation to start lives of their own, they cannot save money or afford a place to live because of the debt they are in from needing student loans." 

So what should come about in the debate over the cost of tuition for higher education? 

In the 1600s education was only provided to those who were wealthy enough to afford it. In the 1800s education was given only to whites until the late 1800s when people of all color were allowed. As you can see, education has gone through many changes in the United States since the first grammar school opened in 1635 (Sass). Talking about the different reformations and changes in education could take an extremely long time but the most current debate in the United States election is the topic of free tuition. Many steps have already been taken toward whether or not tuition for public and community colleges should be free. In his State of the Union in January of 2015, President Obama first introduced his proposal of free community college called America's College Promise (Morris). Tennessee has already adopted the Tennessee Promise, which pays for higher education with the state's lottery funds (Morris). Under both America's College Promise and Tennessee Promise, students would be required to have and maintain at least a 2.5 GPA (grade point average) and attend school half time. Personally, I believe that that is a very good set up and I think that those requirements are definitely achievable and if a student has at least a 2.5, which is an above average grade of a C+ in their courses, then they should be given the opportunity to get their education paid for. The Tennessee Promise has opened up opportunity in Oregon with the Oregon Promise that the Central Oregon Community College plans to use (Morris). The option of free tuition will allow many more people to earn a degree allowing a lot more competition in the job markets. But, the Central Oregon Community College President Shirley Metcalf said, "I think the more that we can identify that education is the key to our challenges with creating a more globally competitive workforce, the better America will be" (Morris). Metcalf's statement is completely agreeable; with more people earning these degrees and receiving education, people in the workforce will have to be pushed more and work harder to do the jobs that they wish to succeed in. This would create a better workforce because of everyone constantly attempting to out-do the other, which will allow businesses and companies to hire the best people for each job. 

Outside of the United States, many countries have given their students the opportunity of free tuition. One that seems to have mastered this concept is Denmark. In "Why Danish Students Are Paid to go to College," a Danish student, Louis Moe Christoffersen, talks about his experience when he came to study in the United States for a semester. He explained,  "Everything was so much more expensive at U.S. college than at home" (Noack).  Christoffersen studied in Baltimore when he came to the United States, and he was hit by surprise when he realized how much he really had to pay when coming here. In Denmark, students receive about 900 US dollars per month, as Christoffersen describes "In fact, were all being paid by our government if we're enrolled in a University. It's like someone is paying you a salary for going to your classes" (Noack). Yes, Denmark is a completely different country and they have other things that have been set up differently than the United States for decades, but that doesn't mean the United States cannot build their education system up to a system like they have. In fact, US states mentioned before, Oregon and Tennessee, have begun to reform their education costs and are emulating.

 Another issue is that people believe that the only people that will truly benefit from free tuition in the US are wealthy people, and that the working class will still not be able to truly benefit. Andrew Kelly, writer of "The Problem is that Free College Is Not Free," believes that middle and upper-income students will gobble up many of the free public spots and will hurt those who need the access the most. Agreeing with that idea is Tressie Cottom, author of "Why Free College is Necessary" who stated "College is the domain of the relatively privileged and will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future." This may be true but these things have the possibility to be changed and as we can see from Christoffersen, " ... Students understand what is at stake: the scheme's existence is crucial to enable an excellent education for everybody, no matter how much their parents make." Although it seems like these students have the best of both worlds, they do have to succeed and have requirements to be able to receive this money, whether it be not living with your parents, or getting money for academic success (Noack). "The aim of the support scheme is to ensure that it is not the social and economic standing of potential students but abilities and interests that decide about educational success." (Noack).  The Washington Post also posted about seven countries that allow United States students to study there, in English, for free. These countries have different policies in these plans so not all of them guarantee free tuition but have a payment when you enroll and that would be it or only a certain program like getting your PhD would be free (Noack). These countries have several different plans that could possibly help frame what the United States can do in the future. 

Agreeing with Tressie Cottom, I believe in free tuition but can also understand the opposing side that many argue. Cottom has a good belief that although she thinks that college will continue to benefit privileged people no matter the cost of tuition that "free college would likely benefit an outlying group of students who are currently shut out of higher education because of cost." In an article published in the same series as this, Matt Bruenig writes in "The Case Against Free College," and states that the typical argument you hear is that free college should be a right of passage for students because they have made it to that point and have worked hard to do everything right. As for me, I believe that yes, free college is a right but I do not believe that it just be given to anyone who graduates high school. Hard work needs to be put in and the proper grades are needed in order for someone to gain the privilege to have free tuition. It is likely understood that those who get poor grades end up dropping out and those who do drop out are from the lower-income class and do not receive the support they need. HyeSook Chung, executive director of DC Action for Children, an advocacy and research group, stated "Money saved not doing a universal program could go toward making sure more low income students actually succeed in college once they're there" (Garland). Now, this means that these lower income students must work toward college first, it should be believed that those who come from lower income will work hard enough in high school if they want to make it and get the chance to go to college. If they are given the chance and also receive the grades that will get them into a public university, they should have the right to go. Although this does sound a lot like the cliche argument for free tuition, it does make sense. People who want the degree and want the chance for higher education should be able to have that opportunity no matter which background they come from. People in the lower class who are getting the same grades or even better than kids in the middle and upper classes should have equal opportunities when it comes time for them to receive higher education. 

Why is this important? 

Although the 2016 presidential election is months away, the campaigning and debates have been going on for quite some time now and a key debate is what each candidate is going to do in regard to financial issues including whether or not higher education should be paid for by the government. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is a stand out because of his promise to "make every public college and university in this country tuition-free. And by the way, I want Wall Street now to help kids in this country go to college, public colleges and universities ... " (Sullivan) Sanders stated many of his opinions as well as the other candidates as it is summed up in an article written by Maureen Sullivan published in Forbes Magazine. Sanders continues in explaining that the only way his proposition could be made possible is that people simply need to come together and demand it and create an offer that no one can resist (Sullivan). Hillary Clinton, another democrat, states her similar ideas in this debate when she brings up her idea about working through college and that way, they would be earning the money that will pay for their own college education. Clinton stated, "As a young student said to me, the hardest thing about college should not be paying for it.  ...  Maybe it's because I worked when I went through college ...  I think it's important for everybody to have some part of getting this accomplished ...  But yes, I would like students to work 10 hours a week." (Sullivan). This would be a good plan allowing students to have to earn their tuition along with working to get the proper grades needed to maintain to stay in school. 

Branching off of Rowan University is Rowan College of Gloucester County (RCGC) in New Jersey.  RCGC has a pilot program, seeming to stem off of Clinton's ideas allowing the chance for students to get free tuition if they work during the time they attend school. The pilot program is basically a test run but it gives twenty to thirty students the shot at free tuition in exchange of 20 hours a week of unpaid work for the county (Romalino). This seems reasonable and the good part about it is that they would be doing work that is relative to the field they are studying and not just doing jobs for the sake of doing a job. Rowan University's trustee Chad Burner says, "These internships must be meaningful" (Romalino). This makes perfect sense and will allow the student to receive even more knowledge because of where they are working. These jobs do not require 60-hour workweeks but simply 10-20 hours, which split over a 7-day week is not too much each day, at least coming from my perspective of working everyday for a few hours after school in high school when the school day was much longer than a regular college day. I'm well aware that college is definitely more work than high school was but the experience that a student can get from working will help them and their knowledge on the career that they want to pursue. 

Where do we go from here? Think about the rest of your college career, and in the future your possible children's college tuition and maybe even grandchildren and so on. There is a lot of thought and many different aspects to take account of that goes into the process of who people think should be in the upcoming election but first, you have to think about what you want. College tuition should be free for those who need it and of that population of people, who will work for it.  Opposing arguments are definitely out there, as mentioned before, "free college is not free, it simply shifts costs from students to taxpayers ... " (Kelly). And arguments like that will be found everywhere, which yes are true but there are not many reasons for tuition to cost what it does. In The Case Against Free College, Matt Bruenig writes "the typical line you hear about free college is that it should be a right of students because they have worked hard and done everything right." Bruenig explains a common conception of the argument for free tuition. Although common conceptions never seem to be true, this one is. If someone has worked hard enough and are able to be accepted into a public college or university, regardless of their economic class, they should have the right to be able to attend that public school of their choice. Andrew Kelly says, "because middle and upper-income students will gobble up many of the free public slots, rationing will hurt those who need access the most." In the plan I am thinking of, everyone (no matter the class) will be given equal opportunity at a slot in these schools and that money will not be the issue. Of course with free tuition, food and shelter might not be included but if students are maintaining their grade above a C, their classes should be paid for. When the idea of more people with degrees means more competition was mentioned, it should be accounted for in the future of our business world. More people with education will create competition but without competition in the working world, what would we work for? Our reformations have all been based on competition. It all starts by each state gaining ideas from places like Tennessee and Oregon and creating ways that they can help their student financially. With more degrees, there will be more educated people in our world. 

