  After access to twelve years of free education through elementary school, middle school, and high school, some Americans' 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 very 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 which has led 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 his campaign platform. Even though free college tuition seems like the answer, it is not. If it were implemented in America, the country would face huge economic struggles, private universities' 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 seen these things happen with their access to tuition free higher educations. While tuition prices have risen, there are many ways and aids to help pay for school and that is the answer, not free tuition. Students have been paying college tuition for decades now 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. When he attended Brooklyn College, there was no tuition and now he wants to reinstate this because he believes high school diplomas and college degrees are equivalent in this day and age (Davis). 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)" and 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)," so it definitely would not work now with the current struggling economy. This practice "left them on the brink of financial implosion ...  relying outside sources like personal checks to bail them out (Theilen)," which then changes who is paying for school and that deters from Sanders' promise. Free tuition for students by no means would eventually not even result in free for everyone since someone has to be responsible for the bill when the government can no longer provide as much money, 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 again would not be entirely true because there would still potentially be students who could not attend school 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)" because they could not keep up nor offer the prices that public schools could. 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)," which would create more diversity. Having this wide variety of options available increases the horizons students are able to explore and taking that away would only limit students and their futures. While students are still able to 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 ...  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)," and 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)," which would result in less tuition money and these private school attendees are obviously receiving better educations since they are consistently graduating faster. Lessening 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)" in that they would not be able to provide such high such quality in the masses that would result. 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 amount 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 (Chingos)." This proves that bringing professors just to fill the need for spots would take away from the higher education's quality. Institutions would 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)" taking away from the whole purpose of educating more people to better compete with the world as a whole. Not only would society be lesser competiors in the world from a decreased education value, but it would also make it more difficult to secure American jobs if the quality and value of these educations 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 to 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. Upon completion of John Thelin's study he realized that little to no cost for students made it hard to sustain educational programs which lowered retention rates as well as changed the focus for students to put off campus event higher on the to do list. 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 trying 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)," thus creating more problems for the country. 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. Sanders received a free education, but shortly after his school, Brooklyn College and many others alike, cause New York City's finances to become shambles (Davis). Social services budget increased by 10% in 1976 due to the amount of tuition they were paying for students (Davis). Unlike Denmark and old American systems, Cooper Union, a Manhattan college, just recently decided to begin charging tuition again and to 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.

Over time where each level of education can take someone has changed because high school diplomas used to be equivalent to college degrees. Now that a costly degree is what is needed to succeed and secure a job rather than just a diploma, this too should be free. Having to pay for college is cutting people's pathways short since many cannot afford the burden of a college education. College tuition debt is higher than any other debt at 1.3 trillion dollars (Sanders). To fix this debt of families across the country, Sanders wants to "ensure that every young person in this country who wishes to go to college can get the education that he or she desires, without going into debt and regardless of his or her family's income (Sanders)" while also hoping to make America better suited and educated as a world power. Shortly after World War II college became free or very cheap throughout much of the country and this proved helpful to the economy as well, but even more currently students are traveling to Germany to take part in their free tuition programs and America is losing students (Sanders). From these occurrences and some similar, Sanders believes America "have a stronger economy and a stronger democracy when all young people with the ambition and the talent can reach their full potential, regardless of their circumstances at birth (Sanders)." While all of Sanders' claims and beliefs sound promising and helpful to the American people, the economic aspects alone have already been proven that it is not feasible to enact in the United States. He again adds no ways or reasons of who would pay for it nor how it would benefit the economy.

Sanders' promise of free tuition sounds so simple and helpful, but it would only make things tougher for people and the economy. Paying for tuition would continue the want for students to work hard on their own and also keep the economy flowing with revenue from universities rather than the struggling government. Tuition also betters the education students receive. Sanders' plan may work one day, but for now students paying their own way is what works in America. If Sanders is ever able to answer the questions he continuously gets asked of who would fund it and how it would be beneficial to the economy then it may be a considerable option, but until then it is not. 

