Making college free in has been debated for many years in politics in the U.S and all over the world. I'm interested in this topic because it has been proven to work in other places and yet the U.S has not adapted it yet. It is a huge problem here in America, tuition has increased dramatically over the last couple decades and Americans are confused why it is occurring. Since it has become so much harder for kids and their parents to afford college, I was interested to dig deeper to see why the cost is rising.  Also I wanted to look into other countries that have adopted this method and have made it productive for their country. This research question affects me because I am a full time college student and pay full tuition at a large state university. I am lucky enough to have parents that can pay full tuition without any loans and don't ask me to pay for any. Some kids aren't as lucky and have to take out loans or don't even go to college because them or their parents can't afford it. I am qualified to write on this topic because I have preformed the proper research and their enough information on this topic for me to arrange my argument.

My first source is from The New York Times, the author claims that free college isn't actually free for many reasons. The costs of tuition would fall on taxpayers instead of students, leaving the public with the limit of college spending based off of their willingness to invest. A major point is this article was, "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). Kelly backs up his side in the agreement with many facts and statistics making him more credible that he has proof. The value of education is at stake because if everyone can now afford it, there will be much more competition for enrollment. This ruins the interest of college ready students who cannot pay such high tuition rates. The New York Times is a very well known news source nationwide, it is very credible and very respected. The author of the article, Andrew P. Kelly, is a resident scholar and the director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute. Being apart of an organization like that automatically makes the author seem more intelligent and credible. The author is very credible because he is writing on something that he works with everyday, giving him more knowledge than the after person on higher education reform.

An article I read from The New York Times on free high education called "Public Higher Education Should Be Universal and Free," written by Sara Goldrick-Rab. Goldrick believes that higher education should be made more affordable, and eventually free for U.S citizens. Her main thesis is "It helps students focus on learning rather than working so that they complete degrees faster and having acquired more skills." She has a problem with the Federal Student aid for many different reasons and doesn't think it is help at all. There are 2 groups that struggle affording college, students who deserve extra funding and the middle class. The middle class is expected to deal with affording college with just loans and it is unrealistic for most middle class families. Sara Goldrick-Rab teaches sociology and education policy studies at the University of Wisconsin. She also happens to be the lone founder of the Wisconsin HOPE Lab, which is America's first research lab designated for college affordability. As a writer she is some what credible considering her opinion is on The New York Times, and Goldrick has an up coming book coming out on college adorability. 

The final article I used was from a website called newrepublic.com, it is against having free tuition and supports it very well. The article is written by Matt Bruenig, I tried to find information on the author but there was little to no information on him or his profession. I have never heard of New Republic and this is the first time I have read anything from this site. This makes the source and author not as a credible to me, but all the facts inside the article have matched with other sources I have found. Bruenig takes a republican approach to the argument of free college tuition. He believes that making tuition free will give students from wealthier families more money than those from a poorer background. It will benefit richer families and won't affect anything besides make enrollment have more competition. Republicans tend to have the same views on topics that have to deal with money.  

This research question is arguable because there is too sides to it and they both can be supported with facts. College tuition prices have risen a lot in the past and has become and issue for families to afford sending their kids to college. Therefore, there is a problem at hand and people are trying to fix it, but there a reasons why the U.S. can't make it free. Also there is a lot of things could go wrong if it did happen. Both sides agree that there are social classes that struggle or prosper more than others and that is has a huge effect on affording postsecondary education in America. There is a lot of disagreements and different beliefs when it comes to making college free. When it comes to this argument the most controversy is in politics, on each side of the the political spectrum there are contrasting opinions. So when researching an argument like this sources will be extremely biased based on where the intel ins coming from. I could revise my research question in many ways, one being asking how and why instead of making it a yes or no question.
