
  After access to twelve years of free education through elementary school, middle school, and high school, some American's feel college tuition should come free as well. A college education was something that was not always needed in society, so paying the somewhat hefty price tag was not viewed as an issue to most. More recently, securing a job that can support entire families is seemingly impossible without some sort of college degree. Higher education has become so important. High school students focus and work so hard on getting into a university and older people have even been going back to school to obtain a degree.  The increased need for a degree has changed society's opinion about paying for college leading to the huge push for free tuition. Bernie Sanders' current presidential running has really added to that push as well because free tuition to public universities is a major part of Sanders' campaign platform. Even though free college tuition seems like the answer, it is not. Free tuition is really only a surface level solution because it sounds so simple and what American does not like the word free. If it were implemented in America, the country would face huge economic struggles, private university's attendance would dramatically drop, the value and quality of an education would decrease, and most importantly students would lose their drive in the classroom. Some European countries have already been seeing these things happen with their access to tuition free higher educations. While tuition prices have risen, there are many ways and aids to get help to pay for school and that is the answer, not free tuition. Students have been paying college tuition for decades and it is a very doable thing and keeps America strong; free tuition would do a lot more harm to multiple aspects of the United States.

With the current presidential race, democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has pushed his ideas and promised free tuition at four year public colleges and universities to the entire United States under the "College for All Act" if he were to win the candidacy. This has resulted in the issue becoming a more realistic option, rather than just a thought, but "Sanders' pledge has come under attack because it is not clear how he would pay for it" (Westervelt, NPR). As he continues to be questioned in debates and interviews, his answers only become fuzzier. The reason behind Sanders' thought for free tuition is a very sensible one in that he thinks "in a global economy, when our young people are competing with workers from around the world, we have got to have the best educated workforce possible. And, that means that we have got to make college affordable, (James)" but really he would be bringing in more trouble and confusion to the country with cost being a huge issue. The whole point of free college tuition is to help promote students achieving a higher education, but leaving out who is supposed to cover the costs of all these kids going for free is a problem. When it comes down to it, the government will get stuck footing the bill.

Although tuition costs are frustrating to so many, decades ago when tuition was much cheaper people still complained, so universities tried to lower the price. Later it was proven that "the widespread practice of low price combined with low costs was neither effective nor efficient" (Theilen). This practice "left them on the brink of financial implosion ...  relying outside sources like personal checks to bail them out" (Theilen).  Free tuition for students by no means would result in free for everyone since someone has to be responsible for the bill, so it too would not be any more effective than trying to lower costs. First off, the biggest question skeptics ask is who would pay for it and ultimately that would be left to the government and the people's tax dollars. Implementing free tuition to every American is no cheap task as "the idea would cost $70 billion per year, more than twice what the federal government spends on Pell grants" (James) and also it would result in "students flood[ing] the system and drive[ing] up costs  --  requiring further federal subsidies" (Lane). The government already faces enough debt and piling more on top is absurd. Aside from the government covering most of the costs, public tax dollars would contribute to the funding as well since "Sanders would have Washington pay two-thirds of the funding and state governments the rest" (Lane). This could only go so far because "you make college free, you're making institutions entirely dependent on public dollars, whatever the public is willing to spend determines how many students are able to go to college" (Westervelt, NPR). If this were the case, Sanders' promise would not be entirely true because there would still potentially be students who could not attend and continue their education. Currently in the United States there are plenty of "upper-income people who are perfectly willing and able to fund their children's college," (Lane) so these students would be taking tax payers' money and underprivileged student's chance to have their schooling paid for when they do not even need the assistance that would come with the "College for All Act."Most importantly from the economic aspect, "many free college proponents would likely point out that by providing aid directly to institutions, the government can actually exert more direct control over how they operate," (James) like keeping students in-state and at public schools rather than them having ability to attend universities elsewhere.

The requirement to attend an in-state public school if free tuition were to become implemented in America takes away from the vast opportunities students are currently presented with since they have the choice to go to any school. Keeping students in-state at public institutions would dramatically decrease attendance rates at private college causing "many private institutions ...  likely struggle to survive" (James). If private institutions attendance drops so would their revenue. Without the free tuition plan, "students can take much of their student aid with them to the institution of their choosing. This enables a wide variety of organizations  --  public and private  --  to offer a range of different educational programs" (James). Having this wide variety of options available increases the horizons students are able explore and taking it away would only limit students and their futures. While students could still go to out of state or private schools, their tuition would just not be covered. The Kalamazoo Promise, "fully funded by a set of anonymous donors, the Kalamazoo Promise is an urban revitalization program that offers up to four years of free tuition to any public college or university in the state of Michigan for graduates of the Kalamazoo Public School system," (Andrews) found that the promise "increased the likelihood that students from Kalamazoo Public Schools consider public institutions in Michigan" (Andrews). A plan very similar to Sanders' promise would most definitely result in very similar results. Historically overall, private institutions have shown better results in their graduates. For example, students who attend public college typically follow a "six-year graduation rate ...  and private institutions have lower rates" (Scott). Lessing the appeal to attend these private institutions can also take away from the quality and value of educations.

 Besides students losing their attraction to private universities where they are open to a smaller, more involved college life, free tuition would also lessen the overall value and quality of higher education in public institutions as they would have to try less to get the attention of students. Ultimately this would stem from the number of students able to attend colleges and universities. In order for public institutions to adjust and cater to the influx of admission rates, the United States risks making "higher education more accessible but less excellent" (Lane). Higher education's value would see a decrease as a result from curriculum being dumbed down to ensure atypical enrollees can still understand and follow along, class sizes would be larger lessening the opportunities for more intimate, meaning class discussions, and the need to bring in more professors, much of which would not be of quality that the institutions usually bring in. The confusing aspect of Sanders' plan is that he wants to get rid of adjunct professors and bring in more tenner professors which would be more expensive and harder to find in the mass that colleges would need to fill spots (Lane). Instructional quality tests have been done comparing student's performances in classes based on the professors' standings and degrees. In Matthew Chingos study, he discovered, "that fulltime instructors outperform part-time instructors, on average, suggests that providing full-time employment either attracts better employees, retains them for longer, or enhances quality by enabling them to focus on their teaching responsibilities at a single institution rather than cobbling together work across multiple institutions ... that instructors with master's degrees are more effective in the classroom, on average, than instructors with doctorates." This proves that bringing professors just to fill the need for spots would take away from the higher education's quality. Institutions also lessen their education quality because free tuition would put more of a focus to "meet enrollment targets and pass students through than to help ensure they are successful after graduation" (James). This takes away from the whole purpose of educating more people to better compete with the world as a whole but also in securing American jobs if the quality and value is going to be seen as less than it is now.

Along with lessening the value and quality of an education with the free tuition plan, student's drive to do well would also decrease. Now kids can receive twelve years of free public education that can adequately prepare them for college which they will then work hard for in order to try for scholarships and aid awarded for high performers. Once there is no need to work hard for aid anymore because they will gain the ability to attend a university for free the want to do well will be gone. On top of no longer needing aid, college students will not have to worry about carrying the burden of all the money their parents are paying for their education that does not get covered from financial aid. Charles Lane states it best, "a financial stake encourages students to study hard; it encourages families to monitor their kids' schools and hold them accountable. By contrast, "free" tuition, regardless of need, may breed entitlement, indifference or both. If there's anything young people don't need, it's that." The Kalamazoo Promise is great evidence to support Lane's claim because in Andrews' article, he points out that after the Promise was put into effect Michigan's ACT scores saw a drop. It can be assumed this is a result of the high schoolers not try as hard nor studying as much in preparation for a college entrance exam since they knew they were guaranteed tuition.

Much like what was seen as a result of the Kalamazoo Promise, European countries have had tuition free higher education policies enacted for a while now and some countries are not seeing many positive results. Denmark in particular is a country that has struggled from free tuition and "many, in both industry and politics, feel it's become a free lunch that's giving indigestion to Scandinavia's already weakest economy" (Business Insider). Where Danes are facing issues lies in what people are studying on the countries dime. Instead of majoring in subjects that have job availability after graduation, students are more so deciding to study something they enjoy. This comes from the fact that they are not paying for it, so when they come out of college with no job prospects there is not as much remorse since they paid for nothing. Denmark is paying for college tuition but is not getting much back since people struggle to find jobs so they add no revenue to the economy. Eventually what skeptics hope is that: "if there are some courses that don't lead to jobs, students will eventually avoid them arguing that unemployment benefits are no longer as cushy as they once were in Denmark. (Business Insider). Denmark's failing system that could potentially be put into action in the United States should send fear to the Sanders' followers, but also proves the repercussions of tuition free college. Unlike Denmark's system, Cooper Union, a Manhattan college, just recently decided to begin charging tuition again and stray away from their no charge historic past. After just one term of charging tuition, Cooper Union became "more economically diverse than previous classes were. In the four years before the new policy, the average number of students eligible for Pell Grants, awarded to needy undergraduates, was around 16 percent. In the first class under the new policy, it is 22.4 percent," (Fabris) proving free tuition does not make higher education more accessible. The Manhattan arts and science based school has rerouted their way of doing financial aid while still charging tuition so the poorest and neediest students get more than those who can afford schooling. This is something that really helps to stand financially sound.

Rebuttal

While Sanders' promise of free college to tuition to American's sounds like a simple, easy plan it comes with a lot of negative impacts on the country. The already struggling economy would take an even bigger hit. 

