Multiple countries around the world have made public higher education cost free, but the results vary from country to country. Here in the U.S, the cost of college has been significantly rising for the past decades. Inflation has been out run by tuition, room, and board prices, according to Time, "the typical dorm and cafeteria contract costs about $9,750 this year. That's almost triple what they cost in 1990" (Time). The increasing prices have made it very hard for the average American family to send their child through college without any help from financial aid, merit based scholarships, or loans. The presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, has raised awareness around the free tuition argument which has come up more frequently in politics. "Sander's solution" is Bernie's plan to make public higher education free to in state students. There is growing support for "free" education, as it sounds appealing to not have to pay for college but what they don't understand is how the U.S would make it cost free. What supporters of free education don't understand is where the money would essentially come from and the effects it would have on society and the economy. There are so many compelling reasons why the U.S should not make college free. Although this has worked in other countries, there are so many stand out reasons why the U.S should not make college free. Don't get me wrong, I am all for making tuition at universities and colleges more affordable for their students and future students, but making it free using the "Sander's solution" would cost the Treasury $47 billion only in its first year of installment. While a noble concept, our country is already $21.7 trillion in debt and taxation of higher social classes have risen beyond reason the last couple decades, and really can't sustain more increase. A persons point of view will derived from the party they represent. 

College is a privilege not a right. There is nothing in the amendments saying a citizen is forced to go to college, or is entitled to higher education out right.  If you cannot afford college outright, there are current methods in place to offset this problem. Merit based scholarships are one form of relief students can receive based upon their work ethic and success during high school. Making college free will essentially make a college education worthless. If college education is entirely free to any person their will be an influx of college students. With more students and degrees comes much higher competition in the job market. A college degree will become the new baseline and hold no more significance than a high school diploma does today. There is already far too much emphasis on college today. Going out into the workforce in todays society, the first thing most employers look for is a college degree. Too many students graduate with worthless degrees, or degrees in fields that are saturated with employees and/or hopeful applicants. There needs to be a shift in ideology in America. There are rewarding lives and incomes to be made via alternative routes to college such as the trades, carpentry, culinary arts, etc. People around the world travel to America for our education systems despite the availability of free education in their home countries. This is a byproduct because of the competition within our education/college system. Stronger academic universities typically cost more and kill more money because they pay better teachers higher salaries and provide attractive physical working/learning environments for both students and faculty. Making the tuition free would adversely impact the economy and raise taxes to families that are already sending their children through higher education. Teachers would be making less money and have less insentive to teach to their maximum potential. Universities need money from their students to offer the best possible situation for their students. That money going towards technology, food, teacher salaries, health centers, research etc. What believers of free education don't completely comprehend where the money would essentially come from; and the long term effects it would have on society and more importantly the economy.

The costs of tuition would fall on taxpayers instead of students, leaving the public with the brunt of college spending based off their willingness to invest. Andrew P. Kelly, a resident scholar and the director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that "middle and upper income students will gobble up many of the free public slots, rationing will hurt those who need access the most" (The New York Times). Making higher education free would affect both middle and higher income families, which has absorbed higher tuition fees in previous years. What is left out of this argument often, is where the funding would originate. Yes, free education sounds absolutely delightful but there are costs and effects that will harm the U.S economy and society. For example, the "Sander's solution", according to Time "The federal government would pay $2 in matching funds for every dollar states spend on making tuition free at public colleges and universities. Also, it would cut student loan interest rates to about 2% for undergraduates, and allow those with student debt to refinance at low rates. The pricetag: up to $750 billion over 10 years. To pay for it, Sanders would impose a 0.5% fee on stock trades, 0.1% fee on bonds and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. This would raise up to $300 billion a year, according to Warren Gunnels, his policy director, citing a 2012 University of Massachusetts Amherst report" (Time). There are many other ways the U.S could direct their limited tax dollars besides making college completely free. Neil Patrick Cavuto, a television anchor for Fox News and appointed vice president of business news, did a live interview on air with a college girl who has been campaigning for free public colleges, cancellation of all student debt and $15 an hour minimum wage for all campus employees. What a perfect world, right? Sounds great to me. But who is going to pay for this? The U.S government can't just pull money create money out of thin air. This student had no idea either, so why is she arguing for it? Cavuto challenges her with the facts and she is uncertain how to respond, embarrassing her on live television. This student believed that the wealthiest 1% of U.S.A should pay for all her initiatives. He then explains to her that even if that 1% was taxed 100%, it couldn't keep Medicare going for 3 years. That 100% taxation would give the U.S about 1 trillion dollars, free public education would cost just around 1.3 trillion (Fox News Video). That is just one of her concepts, how else will the free education plan be funded and what about all her other ideas. Neil also explains to her that other countries that have free education over seas have ran out of money, and the privileges that the citizens were promised are disappearing right before their eyes. I know that if I become wealthy one day, I wouldn't want the government taxing my money excessively. When it comes to government spending, there will always be a cause and effect in the economy, making higher education free would be harmful to our economy. 

Often the U.S is compared to other countries that have free higher education plans, and most people don't understand why it works/doesn't work depending on the country. There have been both success and failures documented to produce free education to citizens. Andrew Kelly also wrote another article for U.S News on the same topic and he takes the same position and backs it up with national statistics. It articulates common knowledge about free college tuition and gives an overview of how it would work and where it has worked around the world. Kelly focuses on three types of statistics from different countries, those being enrollment rates, graduation rates, and attainment (U.S News). Comparing other countries that have tested this system with ones that still have students pay to attend major universities gives people a good idea of the effects. "Data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development indicate that the U.S. is tied for 12th out of 18 countries with available data when it comes to the share of citizens 25 and under that enroll in college, at 47 percent" (U.S News). This is not a proud number for the U.S and needs some serious work to be improved. Although the U.S has a low enrollment rate, it compares to other countries that offer free and extremely affordable tuition. These countries included Germany (45%), Iceland (49%), and Austria (47%). Why would the government tax citizens more for a free college plan when the results are the same throughout countries that do and don't offer free tuition? On top of those countries, Sweden has a 40% enrollment rate along with Finland (41%) and their governments offer free tuition to students. When it comes to graduation rates the U.S stacks up extremely well with countries that have implemented free public universities. The U.S is 5th out of 19 countries in graduation rates, their percentage at 52%. Japan stands at an envious 68% graduation rate, coming in 1st out of the 19 countries (U.S News). This shows that quality should be over quantity, Japan citizens pay a relatively high tuition compared to the other countries 19 countries. Although Japan citizens are paying more than the average person, they are getting a higher quality education and are graduating more students then any country. Germany, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Norway, and Finland all offer free or very low tuition to their citizens and still none of them break a 50% graduation rate. Statistics don't lie, and the whole point of pursuing a higher education is to receive a degree. What's the point of free tuition if the students going there for free don't graduate? Comparing free college to paid college, the graduation rates are the same if not weigh more towards universities that cost money. It's all about producing citizens that are ready to contribute in the workforce and make a difference right away. Some of these countries are offering college so cheap but its missing the mark if not enough students are graduating. There will be less innovation or progression in their society. Educational attainment is key when it comes creating a stronger workforce. The book definition for educational attainment, "refers to the highest level of schooling that a person has reached. At the primary and secondary school level, educational attainment refers to the number of grades completed. At the postsecondary level, it refers to institutions attended and certificates, degrees or diplomas obtained" (Statcan). In Andrew Kelly's article he states, "when it comes to the share of workers aged 25-34 who have finished tertiary education, the US is tied for eighth with Sweden, Switzerland and Israel at 46 percent" (U.S News). What makes this argument interesting is that Korea (68%) and Canada (58%) are easily sitting at the top of the list and their tuition rates are just as high as the U.S. On the other side of the spectrum, countries with free tuition (Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, and the Czech Republic) all trailed behind the U.S in educational attainment. Based on these studies, enabling a plan that offers citizens free college tuition would really not make our workforce anymore educated. America, as compared to other countries on a free college plan basically produced the same results. 

Social usually influence how people feel about this topic. But why should the people that worked hard to become wealthy get taxed more for students who may not even be a good candidate for enrollment. If one day those supporters became wealthy, I know they would not want taxes to be raised as much as Bernie Sanders plans recommend. In society there will always be the short end of the stick, that's the way it goes, that's the way it has to be. Personally, my views fit in with the majority of what republicans believe, my parents are also republican so I have been influenced by them but I agree with almost everything they have said to me about politics. Republicans are against free healthcare because they support a capitalist system in which goods and services are provided by a free market economy. Private industries should create and provide higher education systems. This creates competition, which in a perfect world should drive price down while productivity and quality go up. Republicans are for small government with very little intervention. Free higher education means that's the government is intervening in yet another part of our lives. Moving away from capitalism and towards socialism. Republicans want to lower taxes but that would be impossible with free education. The money has to come from somewhere, and the individuals hoping to get free higher education are not the ones whom would see the bill. The 1% earners who already pay for their own education and high taxes would be forced to pay this free education. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland do not have a comparable economy or population, in neither size or demographic. Social, political, and economic systems that work in such a small and racially un-diverse society are doomed to fail in a country such as the United States. Democrats are for free healthcare because they support big government. They want the government to step in at situations that seem unfair or unjust, such as an individuals being restricted from getting education or bettering themselves because of financial reasons. Education is a right not a privilege. Democrats believe it is the responsibility of the wealthy and successful to give back the lower classes and help support them. They would support increased taxes on the wealthy to fund free higher education. Entitlement, i.e. people deserve the ability to attend university if they want to. Restricting the low income families from going to college due to cost is only furthering the divide between the upper class and the middle class. With solid education people would be able to enhance their lives. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland are socialistic and have free education and they are "the happiest people on average" so therefore it is a positive system and we could learn a lot from them. Socialism is a system that creates equality and a level playing field, I just don't subscribe to it. The economy would be at risk to make our public higher education free. 

It is in America's best interest to stay with the higher education system we have today, and although it is getting more and more expensive there are other ways to make college more affordable. Our society and economy is at risk if a plan like Bernie Sander's is installed here in the U.S, we need to keep progressing as a country and focus on getting rid of our massive national debt. Making higher education free will not set us down the right path to achieve our goals as a country.

