Winston Churchill once said, "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" (Quotesgram). Socialism is a philosophy feared by many, and adored by many. It has been around for over 200 years, and has been very successful in countries like Canada and Sweden. The conversation has been very persistent however if implementing more Socialist policies into the United States would be beneficial to the country. People across the the entire country have been opposed to different Socialist policies due to many citizens believing that socialism has aspects of communism or could lead to communism if implemented enough, or more importantly, many people believe that Socialism would not be as beneficial as the current system. However, every country has mixed systems to some extent. For example, things like public education, interstates/highways, and social security, are all things that the United States has been using for years that are in fact Socialist practices. The aspect of the individual giving up something for the community, in this case, money for these facilities to be maintained, falls under a Socialist ideology. With this in mind, the United States does have aspects of Socialism within it, however not nearly to the extent of countries like Sweden and Canada, who are considered much more close to pure socialist societies. One of the biggest changes that especially in recent times that has been brought up would be changing the public education system for Universities to instead of being paid by the students that attend the schools, it would be paid for by the government. However, due to the competitiveness that a free college educational system would create, the tax increase among citizens, and the overwhelming debt that the United States is currently in, free college education would not be beneficial to the United States.  

First, currently in America we have a somewhat socialist policy when it comes to public education. Citizens pay taxes and it goes towards building schools and paying teachers. Taxes taken by citizens in the community go to the local public schools funding. However, through implementing more Socialist policies, kindergarten through high school students would not be the only people affected. Public colleges would become free as well under these policies. Citizens of the country would pay higher taxes in order to fund public universities across the nation. This would be a massive change in our society today, as college tuition is something that causes students and parents to take out humungous loans for the tuition, and it sometimes takes students and parents tens of years to pay off the loans. Out of state schooling is extremely expensive as well, and for many people is impossible to attend due to the price. Students also come out of college with a huge burden of debt from taking out student loans, while making a minimal salary in their first job. And to add onto this pressure, in our current society, college degrees are pretty much a necessity if one is striving to be successful. In the generation before the millennial generation and even more so in the generation before that, one could get by without a college degree and still make a decent living. But with the surges in technology, and productivity in the economy, the need for a college degree is higher than ever. According to the Center on Education and the Workforce, currently 35 percent of jobs require at least a bachelor's degree, and 36 percent of jobs do not require a degree (CEW). Also, obviously the jobs that require a bachelor's degree pay very much more than those who do not require a degree. So, obviously the sound of free college education immediately catches the attention of current college students, as the problem of heading out of school with the looming feeling of thousands of dollars over their head, while making a minimal salary out of college, would no longer be an issue. Obviously, the money to pay for everyone's tuition does not come out of nowhere. The tuition for students would be paid for through the taxing of citizens. Currently, the United States is in a massive hole of debt. Right now, the national debt of the United States is over a staggering 19 trillion dollars, the highest in the history of the country (US Debt Clock). A proposed plan states that free college education could cost 70 billion dollars per year. The country cannot afford a jump into possibly lead to another trillion dollars in debt within the next 15 years. 

This also raises the question of who is paying what for how much they go to college? It seems as though the answer would obviously be that it would be easier for the richer to pay for college than the poor. Although it is easier for the richer to pay for college due to their income, the wealthy do not get as many benefits that the universities provide while paying for tuition. At age nineteen, only around 20 percent of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent of families, the same number is around 90 percent. "In between these two extremes, college attendance rates climb practically straight up the income ladder: the richer your parents are, the greater the likelihood that you are in college at age nineteen" (The New Republic). In recognizing this, it may be easy for one to say, "See, this is why college should be free! It's not fair to the poor people in this country!" However, in looking at more information from The New Republic, one may think otherwise. "At public colleges (the type we'd likely make free), students from the poorest fourth of the population currently pay no net tuition at either two-year or four-year institutions, while also receiving an average of $3,080 and $2,320 respectively to offset some of their annual living expenses. Richer students currently receive much fewer tuition and living grant benefits" (The New Republic). This would mean that given the current circumstances, richer people would receive more of the benefits of free college more than poorer people, because richer people have more access to benefits that will allow them to get into college in the first place, like tutoring, extra help, and even college counseling is offered at some schools. The best solution to this issue would not be to make college free, but to start going into communities where many people do not think of college as an option, or don't think they have enough money, and enlighten them on the opportunities that are currently present in the country. Through multiple options like in state tuition, financial aid, and many different scholarships, college can be cheaper than many people think. It is about changing the stereotype that poor people can not go to college as it would be to just make college free for everyone. 

However, this is not the biggest problem. Making college education free would obviously open opportunities for students that may not have enough money to pay the heavy tuition, however it would make college extremely competitive to a point where students would be left out. For example, in Georgia, there is a scholarship called The Zell Miller Scholarship within The Hope Scholarship. The Zell Miller Scholarship states that if a student receives a 3.0 GPA in high school, and a 26 on their ACT score, their tuition will be 100 percent paid for. This sounds pleasant to many, as this means all they would have to receive an admission letter from the university of their choice in Georgia, which for most is the University of Georgia, and their college would be paid for by the state. However, the competiveness of admission into UGA skyrocketed once the scholarship was put into place. Although all one needed to be eligible for the scholarship was a 3.0 GPA in high school, and a 26 ACT score, the admitted class into UGA of this year averaged a 3.9 GPA and a 29 ACT score (UGA Admissions). This caused the admissions percentage to drastically increase, especially over time. The current rate of admission is 54.8 percent, however from 1981-1986 the percentage ranged from 72 to even 79 percent (UGA 1986 Fact book). Of course percentages vary each year based on the university's needs, however a 20 percent drop in admissions can be credited to the Zell Miller Scholarship. The scholarship, although very beneficial to many students, caused many students to miss out on the education at their first choice school due to the competitive nature of the admissions process. Thousands of students that pushed themselves to the breaking point in high school taking AP courses missed out on the opportunity that would shape their lives forever, and this was due to something they could not control. Many students who wanted, but most likely did not necessarily need, the Zell Miller Scholarship, received it, while many people who needed it had to settle with another in state school. The added benefits of being richer, and having the ability to a better education allows these students the edge over others who may not be able to afford the extra help, or attend a school where the academics are not as strong as another. 

A similar concept can be applied to free education. Although the free education would help many people greatly, the competitive nature of free education would cause many schools to increase their acceptance rate, or lower it to a point where the credibility of the University would be questioned. The American Enterprise Institute states, "Providing a free public option might actually diminish some students' chances of finishing a degree. Tuition caps might result in rationing, not increased enrollment. And imposing new federal rules would sap the system of what little creative energy and innovation do exist" (AEI). There are some schools that offer programs to where students can attend free, or they charge no tuition at all. Free schooling options are out there, however if college was free for everyone it would completely alter the admissions process in very negative ways. So, overall, the two largest issues with the socialist aspect on education, particularly in colleges is the fact it would raise taxes for all people, even those who do not have enough money to pay for their tuition, and it would incredibly raise the competiveness of admissions for Universities across the nation. 

Next, in looking at the global use of socialistic elements in education, most people initially jump immediately to European countries like Denmark and Germany. Many people, especially wonder why if they can do it, why can't the United States? Finland runs their education completely different than the United States in a few ways. One of these ways is that Finland bases their education more on learning over testing (Finnish Board of Education). While there are no national tests for students, in the United States there are many tests like the SAT, ACT, and many others that test students on many abilities to see if they can get into college, and with the advanced placement programs to see if they can pass the class and receive credit. Another huge difference is tuition, as in the United States many people pay for their own education, books, and housing, while Finland covers many of these cost. The Finnish government will even cover one's costs to commute to class. It is only when a student gets to their upper secondary level of education do they have to pay for their transportation and books. 

Another huge difference between Finland and the United States is the percentage of the population that attends college. Although the percentage of students enrolled in the country at the tertiary level is equal to the United States at 94 percent, the United States has a significantly higher population of students than Finland. While there are roughly 5 million citizens in Finland, there are 318 million citizens in the United States. This alone is one of the big reasons it is easy to provide this free education to all students, because the population is much lower than that of the United States. That brings up the question however of how Germany is able to provide this, as their population is 80 million people, which is significantly higher than that of Finland. The tertiary enrollment in Germany is only 62 percent, which means again that a significantly smaller amount of people than in the United States. The United States is too large for a system like this to be put into place. Although the taxes would be smaller because there is a higher population, the amount of money it would cost to put that amount of people through college would be too much due to the population, and the cost to send that entire population to school for free. So looking to countries like Finland and Germany in comparison to the United States is not accurate due to the massive differences of each country. 

