should education be free for everyone

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Student Loans
• Paying for College

Should College Be Free? The Pros and Cons

Types of Publicly Funded College Tuition Programs

Pros: why college should be free, cons: why college should not be free, what the free college debate means for students, how to cut your college costs now, frequently asked questions (faqs).

damircudic / Getty Images

Americans have been debating the wisdom of free college for decades, and more than 30 states now offer some type of free college program. But it wasn't until 2021 that a nationwide free college program came close to becoming reality, re-energizing a longstanding debate over whether or not free college is a good idea. 

And despite a setback for the free-college advocates, the idea is still in play. The Biden administration's free community college proposal was scrapped from the American Families Plan . But close observers say that similar proposals promoting free community college have drawn solid bipartisan support in the past. "Community colleges are one of the relatively few areas where there's support from both Republicans and Democrats," said Tulane economics professor Douglas N. Harris, who has previously consulted with the Biden administration on free college, in an interview with The Balance. 

To get a sense of the various arguments for and against free college, as well as the potential impacts on U.S. students and taxpayers, The Balance combed through studies investigating the design and implementation of publicly funded free tuition programs and spoke with several higher education policy experts. Here's what we learned about the current debate over free college in the U.S.—and more about how you can cut your college costs or even get free tuition through existing programs.

Key Takeaways

• Research shows free tuition programs encourage more students to attend college and increase graduation rates, which creates a better-educated workforce and higher-earning consumers who can help boost the economy. 
• Some programs are criticized for not paying students’ non-tuition expenses, not benefiting students who need assistance most, or steering students toward community college instead of four-year programs.  
• If you want to find out about free programs in your area, the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education has a searchable database. You’ll find the link further down in this article. 

Before diving into the weeds of the free college debate, it's important to note that not all free college programs are alike. Most publicly funded tuition assistance programs are restricted to the first two years of study, typically at community colleges. Free college programs also vary widely in the ways they’re designed, funded, and structured:

• Last-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs cover any remaining tuition after a student has used up other financial aid , such as Pell Grants. Most state-run free college programs fall into this category. However, these programs don’t typically help with room and board or other expenses.
• First-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs pay for students' tuition upfront, although they’re much rarer than last-dollar programs. Any remaining financial aid that a student receives can then be applied to other expenses, such as books and fees. The California College Promise Grant is a first-dollar program because it waives enrollment fees for eligible students.
• Debt-free programs : These programs pay for all of a student's college expenses , including room and board, guaranteeing that they can graduate debt-free. But they’re also much less common, likely due to their expense.  

Proponents often argue that publicly funded college tuition programs eventually pay for themselves, in part by giving students the tools they need to find better jobs and earn higher incomes than they would with a high school education. The anticipated economic impact, they suggest, should help ease concerns about the costs of public financing education. Here’s a closer look at the arguments for free college programs.

A More Educated Workforce Benefits the Economy

Morley Winograd, President of the Campaign for Free College Tuition, points to the economic and tax benefits that result from the higher wages of college grads. "For government, it means more revenue," said Winograd in an interview with The Balance—the more a person earns, the more they will likely pay in taxes . In addition, "the country's economy gets better because the more skilled the workforce this country has, the better [it’s] able to compete globally." Similarly, local economies benefit from a more highly educated, better-paid workforce because higher earners have more to spend. "That's how the economy grows," Winograd explained, “by increasing disposable income."

According to Harris, the return on a government’s investment in free college can be substantial. "The additional finding of our analysis was that these things seem to consistently pass a cost-benefit analysis," he said. "The benefits seem to be at least double the cost in the long run when we look at the increased college attainment and the earnings that go along with that, relative to the cost and the additional funding and resources that go into them." 

Free College Programs Encourage More Students to Attend

Convincing students from underprivileged backgrounds to take a chance on college can be a challenge, particularly when students are worried about overextending themselves financially. But free college programs tend to have more success in persuading students to consider going, said Winograd, in part because they address students' fears that they can't afford higher education . "People who wouldn't otherwise think that they could go to college, or who think the reason they can't is [that] it's too expensive, [will] stop, pay attention, listen, decide it's an opportunity they want to take advantage of, and enroll," he said.

According to Harris, students also appear to like the certainty and simplicity of the free college message. "They didn't want to have to worry that next year they were not going to have enough money to pay their tuition bill," he said. "They don't know what their finances are going to look like a few months down the road, let alone next year, and it takes a while to get a degree. So that matters." 

Free college programs can also help send "a clear and tangible message" to students and their families that a college education is attainable for them, said Michelle Dimino, an Education Director with Third Way. This kind of messaging is especially important to first-generation and low-income students, she said. 

Free College Increases Graduation Rates and Financial Security

Free tuition programs appear to improve students’ chances of completing college. For example, Harris noted that his research found a meaningful link between free college tuition and higher graduation rates. "What we found is that it did increase college graduation at the two-year college level, so more students graduated than otherwise would have." 

Free college tuition programs also give people a better shot at living a richer, more comfortable life, say advocates. "It's almost an economic necessity to have some college education," noted Winograd. Similar to the way a high school diploma was viewed as crucial in the 20th century, employees are now learning that they need at least two years of college to compete in a global, information-driven economy. "Free community college is a way of making that happen quickly, effectively, and essentially," he explained. 

Free community college isn’t a universally popular idea. While many critics point to the potential costs of funding such programs, others identify issues with the effectiveness and fairness of current attempts to cover students’ college tuition. Here’s a closer look at the concerns about free college programs.

It Would Be Too Expensive

The idea of free community college has come under particular fire from critics who worry about the cost of social spending. Since community colleges aren't nearly as expensive as four-year colleges—often costing thousands of dollars a year—critics argue that individuals can often cover their costs using other forms of financial aid . But, they point out, community college costs would quickly add up when paid for in bulk through a free college program: Biden’s proposed free college plan would have cost $49.6 billion in its first year, according to an analysis from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Some opponents argue that the funds could be put to better use in other ways, particularly by helping students complete their degrees.

Free College Isn't Really Free

One of the most consistent concerns that people have voiced about free college programs is that they don’t go far enough. Even if a program offers free tuition, students will need to find a way to pay for other college-related expenses , such as books, room and board, transportation, high-speed internet, and, potentially, child care. "Messaging is such a key part of this," said Dimino. Students "may apply or enroll in college, understanding it's going to be free, but then face other unexpected charges along the way." 

It's important for policymakers to consider these factors when designing future free college programs. Otherwise, Dimino and other observers fear that students could potentially wind up worse off if they enroll and invest in attending college and then are forced to drop out due to financial pressures. 

Free College Programs Don’t Help the Students Who Need Them Most

Critics point out that many free college programs are limited by a variety of quirks and restrictions, which can unintentionally shut out deserving students or reward wealthier ones. Most state-funded free college programs are last-dollar programs, which don’t kick in until students have applied financial aid to their tuition. That means these programs offer less support to low-income students who qualify for need-based aid—and more support for higher-income students who don’t.

Community College May Not Be the Best Path for All Students

Some critics also worry that all students will be encouraged to attend community college when some would have been better off at a four-year institution. Four-year colleges tend to have more resources than community colleges and can therefore offer more support to high-need students. 

In addition, some research has shown that students at community colleges are less likely to be academically successful than students at four-year colleges, said Dimino. "Statistically, the data show that there are poorer outcomes for students at community colleges […] such as lower graduation rates and sometimes low transfer rates from two- to four-year schools." 

With Congress focused on other priorities, a nationwide free college program is unlikely to happen anytime soon. However, some states and municipalities offer free tuition programs, so students may be able to access some form of free college, depending on where they live. A good resource is the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education’s searchable database of Promise Programs , which lists more than 100 free community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

In the meantime, school leaders and policymakers may shift their focus to other access and equity interventions for low-income students. For example, higher education experts Eileen Strempel and Stephen Handel published a book in 2021 titled "Beyond Free College: Making Higher Education Work for 21st Century Students." The book argues that policymakers should focus more strongly on college completion, not just college access. "There hasn't been enough laser-focus on how we actually get people to complete their degrees," noted Strempel in an interview with The Balance. 

Rather than just improving access for low-income college students, Strempel and Handel argue that decision-makers should instead look more closely at the social and economic issues that affect students , such as food and housing insecurity, child care, transportation, and personal technology. For example, "If you don't have a computer, you don't have access to your education anymore," said Strempel. "It's like today's pencil."

Saving money on college costs can be challenging, but you can take steps to reduce your cost of living. For example, if you're interested in a college but haven't yet enrolled, pay close attention to where it's located and how much residents typically pay for major expenses, such as housing, utilities, and food. If the college is located in a high-cost area, it could be tough to justify the living expenses you'll incur. Similarly, if you plan to commute, take the time to check gas or public transportation prices and calculate how much you'll likely have to spend per month to go to and from campus several times a week. 

Now that more colleges offer classes online, it may also be worth looking at lower-cost programs in areas that are farther from where you live, particularly if they allow you to graduate without setting foot on campus. Also, check out state and federal financial aid programs that can help you slim down your expenses, or, in some cases, pay for them completely. Finally, look into need-based and merit-based grants and scholarships that can help you cover even more of your expenses. Also, consider applying to no-loan colleges , which promise to help students graduate without going into debt.

Should community college be free?

It’s a big question with varying viewpoints. Supporters of free community college cite the economic contributions of a more educated workforce and the individual benefit of financial security, while critics caution against the potential expense and the inefficiency of last-dollar free college programs. 

What states offer free college?

More than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program, including Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington State. The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education lists over 100 last-dollar community college programs and 16 first-dollar community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

Is there a free college?

There is no such thing as a truly free college education. But some colleges offer free tuition programs for students, and more than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program. In addition, students may also want to check out employer-based programs. A number of big employers now offer to pay for their employees' college tuition . Finally, some students may qualify for enough financial aid or scholarships to cover most of their college costs.

Scholarships360. " Which States Offer Tuition-Free Community College? "

The White House. “ Build Back Better Framework ,” see “Bringing Down Costs, Reducing Inflationary Pressures, and Strengthening the Middle Class.”

The White House. “ Fact Sheet: How the Build Back Better Plan Will Create a Better Future for Young Americans ,” see “Education and Workforce Opportunities.”

Coast Community College District. “ California College Promise Grant .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Biden’s Free College Plan Would Pay for Itself Within 10 Years.”

Third Way. “ Why Free College Could Increase Inequality .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Free-College Programs Have Different Effects on Race and Class Equity.”

University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. “ College Promise Programs: A Comprehensive Catalog of College Promise Programs in the United States .”

Free College – Top 3 Pros and Cons

Pro/Con Arguments | Discussion Questions | Take Action | Sources | More Debates

Free  college  programs come in different forms but generally refer to the government picking up the tab for tuition costs, while students pay for other expenses such as room and board.  [ 50 ]  

32 states and DC have some variation of free college programs. 9 states have statewide programs with “few eligibility limits,” while 23 have “[s]tate sponsored free college tuition programs with income, merit, geographical or programmatic limitations.” 18 states have no free college programs. [ 51 ] [ 52 ]

Tuition at public four-year institutions rose more than 31% between 2010 and 2020. When adjusted for inflation, college tuition has risen 747.8% since 1963. The average student loan debt more than doubled from the 1990s to the 2010s, according to the US Department of Education . About 16.8 million undergraduate students were projected to be enrolled in college in 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. [ 29 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ]

College tuition is set by state policy or by each individual institution. Some colleges, especially federal land grant schools, had free tuition beginning in the 1860s. And some states had tuition-free policies at state colleges and universities for in-state students well into the twentieth century. According to Ronald Gordon Ehrenberg, Professor at Cornell University, “Public colleges and universities were often free at their founding in the United States, but over time, as public support was reduced or not increased sufficiently to compensate for their growth in students and costs (faculty and staff salaries, utilities etc.), they moved first to a low tuition and eventually higher tuition policy. About 2.9% of American 18- to 24-year olds went to college for the 1909-1910 school year, compared to 40% in 2020. [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 55 ]

At the national level, free college programs have been in effect for military personnel since the 1944 GI Bill . At least 26 other countries have free or nearly free college tuition: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Panama, Poland, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 42 ] [ 43 ] [ 44 ]

According to the 2022 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion, 63% of Americans supported free 4-year college and 66% supported free 2-year college. [ 56 ]

Should Public College Be Tuition-Free?

Pro 1 Tuition-free college will help decrease crippling student debt. If tuition is free, students will take on significantly fewer student loans. Student loan debt in the United States is almost $1.75 trillion. 45 million Americans have student loan debt, and 7.5 million of those borrowers are in default. The average 2019 graduate owed $28,950 in college loans. Approximately 92% of US student loans are owned by the US Department of Education. [ 57] Student loan debt rose 317% between 1970 and 2021, and public college costs rose 180% between 1980 and 2019. Students are coming out of college already buried under a mountain of debt before they have a chance to start their careers. [ 58] [ 59] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), an advocate for free college, stated, “It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades. That shortsighted path to the future must end.” [ 6] Read More

Pro 2 The US economy and society has benefited from tuition-free college in the past. Nearly half of all college students in 1947 were military veterans, thanks to President Roosevelt signing the GI Bill in 1944 to ensure military service members, veterans, and their dependents could attend college tuition-free. The GI Bill allowed 2.2 million veterans to earn a college education, and another 5.6 million to receive vocational training, all of which helped expand the middle class. An estimated 40% of those veterans would not have been able to attend college otherwise. GI Bill recipients generated an extra $35.6 billion over 35 years and an extra $12.8 billion in tax revenue, resulting in a return of $6.90 for every dollar spent. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9] [ 10 ] The beneficiaries of the free tuition contributed to the economy by buying cars and homes, and getting jobs after college, while not being burdened by college debt. They contributed to society with higher levels of volunteering, voting, and charitable giving. [ 11 ] The 1944 GI Bill paid for the educations of 22,000 dentists, 67,000 doctors, 91,000 scientists, 238,000 teachers, 240,000 accountants, 450,000 engineers, three Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist, Stevens, and White), three presidents (Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush), many congressmen, at least one Secretary of State, 14 Nobel Prize winners, at least 24 Pulitzer Prize winners, many entertainers (including Johnny Cash, Paul Newman, and Clint Eastwood), and many more. [ 8 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] During the post-World War II era, the United States ranked first in the world for college graduates, compared to tenth today. [ 14 ] Read More

Pro 3 Everyone deserves the opportunity to get a college education. Jamie Merisotis, President and CEO of the Lumina Foundation, stated, “A dramatic increase in the number of Americans with college credentials is absolutely essential for our economic, social and cultural development as a country.” [ 15 ] The rapid rise of tuition has limited access to higher education, which is essential in today’s workforce: three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations now call for education beyond high school, according to the US Department of Education. College graduates earn $570,000 more than a high school graduate over a lifetime, on average, and they have lower unemployment rates. Students from low- and moderate-income families are unable to afford as many as 95% of American colleges. [ 16] [ 17] [ 29] [ 30] Max Page, Professor of Architecture, and Dan Clawson, Professor of Sociology, both at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, stated: “A century ago high school was becoming a necessity, not a luxury; today the same is happening to college. If college is essential for building a career and being a full participant in our democracy as high school once was, shouldn’t it be free, paid for by public dollars, and treated as a right of all members of our country?” [ 21 ] Read More

Con 1 Tuition-free college is not free college and students will still have large debts. Tuition is only one expense college students have to pay and accounts for anywhere from 28.9% to 73.6% of total average college costs. [ 60] On average, 2021-2022 in-state tuition at a 4-year public college cost $10,740 per year. Fees, room, and board for on-campus housing are another $11,950 . Books and supplies are another $1,240, transportation another $1,230, and other expenses cost another $2,170. Without tuition, college still costs an average of $16,590 per year. [ 60 ] Tuition accounts for just 20% of the average community college student’s budget, which runs $18,830 annually on average. [ 60 ] Sweden has free college and yet students in that country had an average of $19,000 in student debt for living costs and other expenses in 2013, compared to the $24,800 in debt US college students had the same year. [ 24 ] [ 1 ] Read More

Con 2 Taxpayers would spend billions to subsidize tuition, while other college costs remained high. The estimated cost of Bernie Sanders’ free college program was $47 billion per year, and had states paying 33% of the cost, or $15.5 billion. According to David H. Feldman and Robert B. Archibald, both Professors of Economics at William & Mary College: “This will require tax increases, or it will force states to move existing resources into higher education and away from other state priorities like health care, prisons, roads and K-12 education.” [ 25 ] [ 26 ] According to a 2016 Campaign for Free College report, states could lose between $77 million (Wyoming) and $5 billion (California) in tuition revenue from their state colleges and universities, and have to pay an additional $15,000 (Wyoming) to $55 million (New York) to subsidize a tuition-free plan. [ 27 ] Neal McCluskey, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, calculated that free college funded by tax dollars would cost every adult taxpayer $1,360 a year, or $77,500 over a lifetime. “Why should people who want to go to college get it paid for in part by people who pursue on-the-job training or other forms of noncollege education?,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal , adding, “Indeed, why should anyone get a degree to increase their lifetime earnings on the backs of taxpayers?” [ 28 ] College costs have increased for of a number of reasons unrelated to tuition, including fancy dorms, amenities like lazy rivers and climbing walls, student services (such as healthcare), athletics, increases in administrative personnel, and cuts in state funding. [ 31 ] [ 32 ] [ 33 ] [ 46] Read More

Con 3 Tuition-free college will decrease completion rates, leaving students without the benefits of a full college education and degree. Jack A. Chambless, Economics Professor at Valencia College, said that with a free college program, “Potentially millions of young people who have no business attending college would waste their time — and taxpayer dollars — seeking degrees they will not obtain… Free tuition would dupe young people into a sense of belonging, only to find that their work ethic, intelligence and aptitude are not up to the rigors of advanced education.” [ 34 ] Under California’s community college fee waiver program, over 50% of the state’s community college students attended for free (before a 2017 program change), but only 6% of all California community college students completed a career technical program and fewer than 10% completed a two-year degree in six years. [ 35 ] Vince Norton, Managing Partner at Norton Norris, a campus marketing company, stated, “Students will enroll at a ‘free college’ and borrow money for the cost of attendance. Then, they will drop out and have a student loan – but no skills. Brilliant.” [ 36 ] Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should college tuition be free? For which colleges/universities? Explain your answers.

2. Brainstorm potential pros and cons of free college for individual students.

3. How would free college benefit (or disadvantage) college communities? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action

1. Analyze the goals of the Campaign for Free College Tuition .

2. Explore US News’ list of 16 colleges that do not charge tuition.

3. Consider Michael Poliakoff’s position that free college could raise tuition costs.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

More College Debate Topics

Is a College Education Worth It? – Proponents of college education say college graduates make more money. Opponents say student loan debt is crippling for college graduates.

Should Student Loan Debt Be Eliminated via Forgiveness or Bankruptcy? – Proponents say debt forgiveness would boost the economy. Opponents say people must be held responsible for their personal economic choices.

Should Colleges and Universities Pay College Athletes? – Proponents say colleges profit unfairly off of the athletes. Opponents say the athletes are paid in tuition.

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Should Higher Education Be Free?

by Vijay Govindarajan and Jatin Desai

In the United States, our higher education system is broken. Since 1980, we’ve seen a 400% increase in the cost of higher education, after adjustment for inflation — a higher cost escalation than any other industry, even health care. We have recently passed the trillion dollar mark in student loan debt in the United States.

Partner Center

Free college for all Americans? Yes, but not too much

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, dick startz dick startz professor of economics - university of california, santa barbara.

July 22, 2019

Promising free college has obvious political attraction for presidential candidates. From my perspective, free college is the right idea, but some of the promises go too far; in fact, exactly twice too far. There is a very strong argument for promising two years “free” at public colleges; the argument for a four-year free ride—not so much.

In a nutshell, my argument is that America has long supported free K-12 education and that two years of college is pretty much what K-12 used to be, with most Americans now obtaining at least some college education. For most people, getting some college is the key to the middle-class—creating a case for public support during the first two years after high school.

Douglas Harris has a great Chalkboard post that will bring you up to date on what candidates have said, and will give you many of the pros and cons for various higher education proposals. Harris also talks about popular support for different proposals in another Chalkboard post . Here, I’m going to stick to the narrower question of why paying for two years of public college is the right goal.

In the picture that follows I present educational attainment numbers for the American population from 1950 through the most current data. I’ve divided the population into those with a high school education or less, colored in red, those with some college but less than four years, blue, and those with four or more years of college, colored in green. (The category “some college” includes vocational training such as certificate programs at community colleges as well as more purely academic courses.

The vertical axis shows the fraction of the population with a given educational attainment—categories are stacked at each point in time to sum to 100%.

You can see that in the early post-war years, most Americans had no more than a high school education. Today the majority has picked up at least some college. I’ve also drawn in a line at the 50% point on the theory that the middle is “middle class.” Up until about 1990, the median American had a high school education or less. That’s fallen to about a third, and the median American now has some college. So “some college” has replaced high school or less as the standard educational attainment. If it made sense in the past to provide free public education through high school, then doing the equivalent today means paying for some level of college. Note that the green (4+ years of college) area is still way, way above the 50% line. Only about 30% of the population currently attains that much education. So such an appeal to the past does not provide an argument for four years of free college.

There are many motivations for increasing education, but probably the strongest is that it leads to better jobs and higher incomes. The next figure links educational attainment to income, plotting median income in each educational group against the overall national income distribution. In “the old days,” the median person in both the high school or less and the some college categories earned near the middle of the national income distribution. That’s still true for “some college.” The middle person with some college education gets to be right in the middle of the national income distribution. But getting to the middle is now much more difficult for those in the “high school or less” category. The middle person in the bottom group reaches just above the bottom third of the national income distribution. So in terms of income, “some college” has replaced “high school or less” as the middle-class norm.

Some presidential candidates propose free community college, others advocate that all public college should be free. One reaction to the latter position is that we shouldn’t be subsidizing college graduates as they typically end up with higher incomes than the rest of the population. Look at the green line in the figure above. Not only does the average person with four or more years of college have a higher income than most people—they have a much higher income. You can argue that the 70th percentile of income is still middle class. (In the United States, it seems that everyone below the top 0.1% thinks of themselves as being in the middle class.) But the fact is that the income in the top educational attainment group is a lot higher.

The argument that “some college” is the new “high school” and should be similarly free makes sense to me, but this logic doesn’t extend to a free ride for four years.

Data from census and American Community Survey from IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org.

Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Jonathan Rauch

September 6, 2024

September 5, 2024

Sana Sinha, Nicolas Zerbino, Jon Valant, Rachel M. Perera

October 10, 2023

The New York Times

The learning network | should a college education be free.

Should a College Education Be Free?

The art of the degree.

Vladimir de Jesus, a community college student, dreams of becoming an art teacher. But after first enrolling at LaGuardia Community College in 2008, he’s still working toward his degree.

Questions about issues in the news for students 13 and older.

• See all Student Opinion »

States offer children a free public school education until they complete 12th grade. After that, they have to pay tuition. President Obama recently announced his proposal to make community college free for many students. Is he onto something? Should students be able to get a free education after high school?

In “ Obama Plan Would Help Many Go to Community College Free, ” Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Tamar Lewin write:

President Obama said Thursday that he would propose a government program to make community college tuition-free for millions of students, an ambitious plan that would expand educational opportunities across the United States. The initiative, which the president plans to officially announce Friday at a Tennessee community college, aims to transform publicly financed higher education in an effort to address growing income inequality. The plan would be funded by the federal government and participating states, but White House officials declined to discuss how much it would cost or how it would be financed. It is bound to be expensive and likely a tough sell to a Republican Congress not eager to spend money, especially on a proposal from the White House. “With no details or information on the cost, this seems more like a talking point than a plan,” said Cory Fritz, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Obama’s advisers acknowledged Thursday that the program’s goals would not be achieved quickly. The president, however, was more upbeat. “It’s something that we can accomplish, and it’s something that will train our work force so that we can compete with anybody in the world,” Mr. Obama said in a video posted Thursday night by the White House. The proposal would cover half-time and full-time students who maintain a 2.5 grade point average — about a C-plus — and who “make steady progress toward completing a program,” White House officials said. It would apply to colleges that offered credit toward a four-year degree or occupational-training programs that award degrees in high-demand fields. The federal government would cover three-quarters of the average cost of community college for those students, and states that choose to participate would cover the remainder. If all states participate, the administration estimates, the program could cover as many as nine million students, saving them each an average of $3,800 a year.

Students: Read the entire article, then tell us …

— Should a college education be free? Why?

— Should students have a right to higher education, the way they now have a right to elementary and secondary education?

— Would the availability of a free college education provide a boost for the economy? Would it help erase social inequality?

— Would such a proposal be too expensive for the government to maintain? Is it unrealistic?

— Do you support President Obama’s proposal? Do you think it might ever happen?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment below. Please use only your first name. For privacy policy reasons, we will not publish student comments that include a last name.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

-Yes a college education should be free. How many people out there stop after high school just because they don’t have the money to continue their line of education? If people start arguing about financial aids and scholarships, they need to inform high school students how to get them and how to apply. The people that I’m surrounded by don’t know anything more than the basic information. These people are juniors. How bad is that? -I disagree with this question because we already have the right to a higher education. If your grades are the reason why you can’t make the cut, then you shouldn’t even bother with looking at the price yet. -No. It wouldn’t erase social inequality when people pay attention to gender and personality. Then it would depend on the job you get but what if you really couldn’t go to college. Wouldn’t that make you seem even worse and put you in a deeper pit when it comes to a “social inequality”? A free college education would provide a boost for the economy if you’re talking about more people being able to enter the work field with higher degrees so they can use that to push our society but honestly, it all comes down to worth ethic. Besides, wouldn’t the same number of people be hired anyways? I mean, the way things are now, so many of us who have graduated colleges–even those who went to universities–don’t have jobs. Would a free college education change things like this? Probably not. -Okay. Obviously. How many of us live in the US? When word gets out to other nations that we provide a free college education, wouldn’t people start pouring in? I mean, better than paying over thousands of dollars at the colleges near their homes. It is sort of unrealistic no matter how glorious this sounds. -I think it’s an amazing idea, the works that this would do is great, and it would be incredibly helpful to everyone else but how is the government planning to pay for this if it passes? Taxes? That seems a bit iffy. If they say that they’re planning on doing this themselves, I wouldn’t believe they had the strength or money to. On top of that, would this really change things in the long run?

If you didn’t have to pay for a college education which is almost necessary to acquire a respective job, many more students would be attending. College is too expensive for a lot of people which forces them to either take out student loans which will only pile up, or skip the four year deal and maybe just settle for a two year. In Europe, I know many countries offer free college education because they see the youth’s drive for education as a benefit for their country, not just a way to make a ton of money. Also by not having to pay for college, some students who are academically fit but not financially would still be able to get into prestigious schools.

Kids binge drink cause they want to drink to get drunk. Kids are just trying to have a fun college life and want to drink and want to drink to have fun sure mistakes happen but until that happens kids will still drink. They just like to get drunk and and have fun and I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do if setting the drinking age at 21 doesn’t help.

yes college should be free because theres homeless people out here that want too go to college but have no money .

The cost of college education is a tricky subject. Making college completely free for everyone would be quite the challenge. Private colleges are essentially no different than any other business. If they could no longer charge tuition, they would have no incentive to continue running. That being said, having the government pay for the upkeep of every college would cost a fortune. I don’t even want to know how high taxes would have to become to pay for this. One possible solution I can think of is placing tuition caps on private colleges. The cost of a US degree is absolutely absurd compared to the cost in any other country. I’m in favor of Obama’s proposal of a free community college education, but the problem is that associate’s degrees do not carry much weight in the job market anymore. Regarding the question of how free education would affect the economy, I do believe that in the long run, a better-educated labor force would certainly benefit the country. On the other hand, there is a need for trade workers, which I can see there becoming a deficit of in the future. High schools should expand students’ access to vocational training to help our economy from the bottom-up.

lets the low class people get an chance to get their extended education. For example, the poor could be able to go to college to get their degree so they will be able to get a job. Better life and fewer people in proverty . for example, less people will be struggling with their financual problems

lets the low class people get an chance to get their extended education. For example, the poor could be able to go to college to get their degree so they will be able to get a job. Better life and fewer people in proverty . for example, less people will be struggling with their financual problems .

For 2 years that’s alright but they also need to make money and they cant only do it off of fundraisers! Or 4 years would be nice.

Two year community colleges should be free the first year, if the student succeeds that first year and wants to go on to a second year. If a student struggles and fails and wants to go back the second year then have them pay for it. If you stay on task and are a great student, you should be rewarded

I think it would be amazing if people could get a good education without having to worry about debt. However, I do not see this happening anytime soon.

I think at least some form of higher or specialized education should be readily available to all those who have a desire for it. However, making all college tuition free seems unreasonable and unsustainable.

Yes, i think a college education to be free. People are stopped from furthering there education because they don’t have the money to pay for college. If they do they could have financial problems in the future. People would have an education they need to get a good job and more people would be able to go into the work force.

The possibility that community college could be free is a great idea. it would help so many people that may not normally even think they have a chance of going to college actually get to. there are flaws with funding but give it time and there is a real possibility that community colleges will be free.

The cost of college and higher education cost a lot. I think this will help kids want to do something better with their lives, to help their future families, and even themselves. I think that the requirements will also decrease the high school drop out rate and increase high school GPAs.

Certain Colleges should be free or at least cheaper.

I think his intentions are good, but it would be hard and expensive to make something like this work.

This wont happen if we just all sit back and see where this goes, we need to show how much it would make a difference for it to be free to go to school. Think about all the smart people in the world who cant afford to go to college, they cant be what they dreamed of/wanted to be. Is that not sad? because i think that has to be the saddest thing in the world, just think about all the parents who know there kids are so smart but cant afford for their child to go be something and live a good happy life. This can happen, but we all need to make it happen.

I think they should go to college for free, just because you turn 18 shouldn’t mean you have to pay for everything, including school, that’s ridiculous. They give us school for free until we’re 18. since we didn’t pay for school all through grade school and high school means we shouldn’t have to pay just to go to college. If we want to continue working on our plans for a career, we should be able to go to college without having to pay. instead of wasting money for more advanced school work to excel in a certain career. It’d be a lot easier paying rent, getting food, all the bills, etc. if we live in an apartment or house. but if you have to pay for college then you have to say up money for all the things you have to pay. What I’m saying is it’d make our lives easier if community college was free!

Public school is not free. American tax payers pay to maintain schools and pay teachers. The only people that benefit from “free” are those that do not pay taxes because they are already supported by the government. President Obama is not making school free, the tax payers would be giving free school to the citizens on welfare, the immigrants granted amnesty. There is no free for the hard working of the United States. The middle class supports the poor and work all the harder to stay afloat themselves. School is NOT FREE!

A free college education could undoubtedly help multitudes of people improve their lives. There is therefore no debate about whether a free higher end education should exist. There is no downside to educating people (unless someone would like to argue for the oppression of the masses) and many benefits. People born in squalor and misery would have the chance through hard work and perseverance to improve their social standing and lead a life they chose to lead. After all, isn’t this one of our basic human rights: the right to the pursuit of happiness? A free college educative system would allow some to do just that: pursue their happiness. However, if the question is simply, ‘Should college be free?’ then the answer is no. Colleges do not have to be anything, as the prompt would imply. After all, many colleges are private institutions and could not function the way they do currently with free tuition. The right to a college education has never been considered a basic human right and perhaps should not. A more accurate question would be ‘Should some colleges be free?’ and I believe the answer to that is a resounding ‘Yes’ backed by the aforementioned benefits to many people’s lives as well as a narrowing of the gaps in social inequality. One issue with government-backed free college education is that according to the Constitution, education systems are under the jurisdiction of state governments. Therefore, the White House has no right to even make plans for the creation of a free college system. Rather the White House, Congress and anyone who would see free colleges should make suggestions to individual states to create a free higher education system. In any case the federal government does not have the right to institute such a system and might instead want to plan a way to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to give itself the power to enact their current plans. Were the federal government given such power, the next question would be a financial one. How does one create a free college? Does this entail unpaid professors, volunteer work, and donation funds? Would free colleges in essence be charities susceptible to the generosity of the various sponsors? This seems rather unreasonable to me, not a very promising course of action. The money to fund over 9 million student’s education would have to therefore stem from the federal government; this would certainly spark political conflict on an even greater scale than exists currently. Unless the government were to find some clever plan to siphon the money from elsewhere, the necessary funding would come from taxes or tariffs, both of which an increase of would hurt people across the nation. Conclusively, while a free college education would be a marvelous accomplishment, the federal government seems to have neither the right nor the ability to see such a plan into action. For such a system to be created, we must instead look to individual state governments and charities or change the entire framework of high end education in this country.

I believe that in a perfect world, college education should be free for everyone, but at this time, it is simply not a viable option. The benefits of a college education are clear in both monetary benefits (college graduates make on average $20,000 more than non-graduates) and intellectual benefits. If a college education was free, more people would be able to enter the job market with better credentials than high school graduates do now. That being said, the country is only now coming out of an economic depression and the government is simply not in the position to offer free scholarships to students with a C+ average. In the stronger economic future of this country, I do believe that the plan announced by President Obama would be effective in “training our workforce to compete with any country in the world” but the plan would also need some tweaks. Offering a free or almost free college of education to students with a 2.5 GPA is unrealistic. Students who are not able to maintain at least a B average essentially prove that they do not have a right to a college education and that they will most likely not work hard to get one (provided they are not mentally handicapped). I understand that a student can be brilliant and yet unmotivated but are these the people we want entering the labor force in a higher paying or ranking job than they would have without a college education? Furthermore, I do not believe that a free college education would help erase social inequality. I do not mean to say that students who would go to college as a result of the plan (as in they would not go otherwise) wouldn’t be more educated as a result of college education, but if virtually everyone were to get a free college education, the benefits of such an achievement would be diminished. The students able to go to college without the plan either as a result of economic prosperity or academic achievement would remain at the top of the social scheme while the students with a C+ high school average would remain towards the bottom, and those unable to qualify for that would end up in the same jobs and same lifestyle they would otherwise. President Obama’s plan would be effective in raising the overall intelligence and preparedness of our labor force but it would be ineffective in changing the social scheme. A college education is not a right, it must be earned, and while the promise of a free college education may motivate some students to do better, others will fall back to where they would be without the plan. Despite the possible benefits of a free college education for qualifying students, and the fact that I support President Obama’s plan in a perfect world scenario, the economic status of the United States does not allow for the administration of more than a million $3800 scholarships to students achieving a 2.5 GPA. —

It seems to me that everyone is looking at the Benefits of free college, but not the costs. Of course it would be great to have free college. I agree there probably are great minds that are being wasted because they can’t afford to go to college. But before we get too carried away we need to stop and think about who will pay for this. First our government is already in debt. Paying for everyone’s college is not going to help. Second to raise money for this new cost the government will need to raise taxes. They will raise it on the upper class people like they usually do. But the upper class is what people are trying to get into as college students. Are people really going to be better off with free college? Norway has free college but they also have a 55% income tax rate is that really what we want.

I believe that college education should be free for students. Making college education free would result in more college students while eliminating student debt. Student debt often slows down important life events for that graduate such as marrying, having kids, and buying a house. With free colleges, more students would graduate without debt. They have a clean slate and can make money and think about buying a house instead of paying a large debt (college debts can go over $200,000). Free college education won’t exactly erase social inequality since some people naturally do better than others, but it would move more people from the lower class into the middle class. I like the proposal, but I am concerned with where the money will come from. Taxes may rise once this proposal goes into effect, but I am not sure if that would be enough. Over 8 million people attend community colleges in 2010-2011, and that number has been growing. According to the US News And World Report, there were 5.5 million community college students in 2000 (which means there was a 45% increase in just 10 years). Paying for all of these students alone would cost the government about $30.4 billion every year. Making community college free would attract more students, and that would increase the amount of money the government spends to keep everyone’s college education free. The $18 trillion U.S. debt does not help the situation. I believe that college should be free, but given the present circumstances, I have no idea how this goal will get achieved in present circumstances. Maybe the government decides to create an online college. Regardless of what the government does, there needs to be a better solution than spending $30.4 billion every year (and since community college would be more attractive, that number would go up every year).

Should a college education be free? Why?

I think it is unrealistic to try to give a free college education. There is a lot of work ahead of us before a completely free education comes into reach. With that being said, college education should most definitely be cheaper. The cost today is absurd and so many kids are digging themselves financial holes before their life truly even begins.

Should students have a right to higher education, the way they now have a right to elementary and secondary education?

Absolutely. Every student has a right to learn as much as they desire, and go as far in their education as they can. American colleges need to continue to provide scholarships and need based financial aid to allow every person to get themselves to college, no matter the situation.

Would the availability of a free college education provide a boast for the economy? Would it help erase social inequality?

I think over a period of time, having a higher educated workforce would result in an economic boast. It would give the United States smarter, more efficient workers, and because of that increase production. I don’t believe it would erase social inequality by much though. I think there will always be the existence of a lower class, based purely on a few crucial mistakes combined with some bad luck.

Would such a proposal be too expensive for the government to maintain? Is it unrealistic?

I believe that right now it would be. The tax system would have to be changed significantly {and the wealthy would actually have to pay their full tax amount} as oppose to relying on the middle class.

Do you support President Obama’s proposal? Do you think it might ever happen?

I 100% think that colleges should be free the United States. This would give more students that aren’t financially privileged the opportunity to go to college after they graduate high school. With this new idea by President Barack Obama, it would not only give these students a chance of higher education but it would also boost the economy. With more people entering college and graduating them, they will be able to get a better job for themselves. With the amount of people getting these jobs it will also at the same time increase the economy. I do think that this proposal will take a while to happen but when it does it will be all for the better. This is a chance for high schools students to enter college who can’t afford it. This is an important proposal that needs to happen indefinitely.

What's Next

19 Should College be Free Pros and Cons

In much of the developed world, an education is already free. Kids attend K-12 schools regularly without paying for tuition, books, and other educational costs. Taxes help to support the educational process through high school.

Once you receive a high school diploma, however, the price of schooling rises dramatically. That is why many have wondered if college should be free as well.

What many people may not realize is that in the mid-19th century, colleges were free in the United States. Land-grant institutions, established by the Morill Act of 1862, made it possible for states to place a college on government land to promote an advanced education. These public colleges often offered classes without tuition.

Here are the pros and cons of going back to such a system.

List of the Pros of Free College

1. It would reduce the amount of student debt being carried over time. From 2011-2015, the amount of student loan debt associated with college attendance rose by 39%, reaching $1.3 trillion. Student loans are the most common type of financial aid that is requested by college students. More than 10 million students take out loans every year to pay for their tuition and learning costs. By making college free, these costs would be shifted to other locations, like a fuel tax or a sales tax, making it easier to handle the costs of tuition.

2. It would provide more people with relevant vocational knowledge. At the moment, just 56% of students who are currently enrolled in their first year of college will earn a degree within 6 years. The highest completion rates are for students attending private, non-profit schools. The lowest completion rate is for students attending a two-year public college. By making college free, the students with fewer opportunities would be able to pursue relevant information about a career they are passionate about, giving them a chance to stay off public assistance programs.

3. It could lead to new levels of innovation. Under the current educational structure, students are forced to deal with their debt at the expense of their creativity. There are fewer opportunities available to try new ideas, pursue interesting concepts, or explore ways to use their talents because they are saddled with high monthly payments. At the very least, making college free would help people stay happier, which would mean they would be healthier. It could also lead to incredible moments of innovation that could change the world.

4. It would allow students to focus on their education. For students coming from a challenging financial situation, college is expensive, even when student loans are available. The average Pell grant in the United States currently covers about 30% of tuition costs. In the generation before, this grant covered 75% of tuition costs. When there is less debt involved, students can focus more on their school work and less on finding a job to pay for those expenses. That leads to higher grades and better job opportunities in the future, no matter what a student’s socioeconomic situation happens to be.

5. It would provide better economic benefits to society. When students graduate with a high level of student loan debt, then it reduces their opportunities to purchase a home in the future. It has even stopped some people from getting married, especially if both people have high levels of student loan debt. Couples with student loan debt put off having children. For all parties, it directly impacts wealth accumulation in a negative way.

6. It would give students a chance to try multiple majors. Many students already struggle to decide on the major they want to have when attending college. They are forced into a specific program at some point because of the per-credit cost of taking classes outside their major to earn their degree. If college were free, there would be more opportunities available to explore different majors. There could be caps placed on the number of switches allowed to prevent abuse of this type of system too.

7. It would allow more people to go to college. If college were free, then it would encourage more people to go. As long as a GED or high school diploma was earned, then it would be possible to attend college if desired. That process would also make it possible to exclude those who have not fully invested into their education, while still providing an incentive to go back to school after dropping out.

8. It would add value to certain degrees from specific institutions. Making college free would create a unique change in the value of an education from an employer standpoint. Those who want to attend a private, 4-year institution would still be able to do so. There would be more value found in a degree from such an institution when compared to one offering free tuition. At the same time, however, students with talents and skills, without money, would still be able to compete for work. Those who want added value with a degree would still be able to get it under this type of structure.

9. It would produce more economic activity. When new spending occurs at public institutions, even under the current system available to students in the U.S., then the economic activity produced from that spending is similar to what happens when a tax cut is passed. It is also similar to the economic activities generated by infrastructure spending. College graduates also generate more in tax revenues compared to the general population, smoke less, commit fewer crimes, and apply for fewer social welfare program benefits.

10. It would still permit college students to have a stake in their education. There will always be some students who are less concerned about their studies than they are the social aspects of attending college. Even under a system of free college, students would still have a stake in their education. Financial responsibility is only one form of responsibility that is possible. Maintaining a specific GPA, being expected to graduate within a specific time, or being eligible for job placement services are all possibilities that could be instituted in such a program.

11. It comes with a reasonable annual cost. In the United States, the estimated cost of paying for free college is about $70 billion per year. That could be achieved with a 10% cut to the defense spending budget and supplemental funding from each state. Although such a shift would create job losses initially, it would also create net opportunities by empowering students to pursue a career that they love. According to CBS News, 51% of workers aren’t engaged at work. These workers tend to do the bare minimum and nothing more. Allowing people to pursue something they are passionate about could change this.

12. It would equip people for a changing economy. Free college would also be its own form of a safety net for workers in an economy that is changing. As one industry winds down, another picks up. That requires workers to be retrained, which at the moment is a financial responsibility which falls on them. This structure would keep more people working and get more people back to work faster than the current system.

List of the Cons of Free College

1. It requires someone to pay for it. College tuition isn’t going to be free. Someone will be asked to pay for the expenses. It requires a shift from the individual to the society as to who will be responsible. Proposed payment options have included closing corporate tax loopholes, increasing tax rates on the wealthiest 0.1% in the U.S., implementing taxes on speculative investments, or decreasing the military budget, which is routinely over $600 billion in the U.S. each year.

2. It might encourage financial irresponsibility. One of the most important lessons learned in college is how to manage your personal finances. It is a lesson that some students are forced to learn the hard way. Having a student loan may be the first major financial transaction that someone has. Being able to pay it off without missing payments makes it easier to establish a good credit score and make future purchases. If college was free, the financial lessons would disappear and there would be fewer opportunities to establish a strong credit profile.

3. It could devalue the worth of a diploma. In the United States, student loans have already devalued the worth of a 4-year degree. To earn an upper middle class income, many students are finding that a graduate degree is becoming necessary. Free college could devalue degrees in other ways as well, from students deciding to cut classes because they have no personal investment to less involved with their studies. There is a strong possibility that free college would encourage more reckless in college learning, not less.

4. It would cause more people to go to college. When more people are infused into a system that is not used to accommodating them, bad things happen as a result. We already experienced this issue when changes to the healthcare system in the United States were implemented in 2010. With more patients qualifying for covered care, wait times at medical clinics went from 1 week to 6 months almost overnight. That lowered the quality of care available and made accessibility more difficult. If college were to be free, this issue would likely occur within the educational realm as well.

5. It might reduce state programs in other essential areas. In the United States, the costs of a public education are often fronted at the state level. By making college free, each state would be forced to come to grips as to how they would afford this option. With budgets already strained in many areas, the likely result of free college would be a reduction, or termination, of other core safety net programs which support low-income families.

6. It could reduce the efficiencies found in the public system already. When college is free, there is less of an incentive to find ways to save money in the system. Institutions would know that they’d receive funding no matter what. That might result in wasteful spending habits, especially since free colleges would no longer need to compete with private institutions for enrollment. That process would put yet another strain on state budgets.

7. It wouldn’t eliminate the costs of attending college. When discussion the pros and cons of making college free, the debate involves the tuition costs which students would be asked to pay. It does not involve the costs of living, the cost of books, and the other expenses which come with college. Some students would be able to find a job to cover these expenses. Others would not. That means the student loan economy would certainly shrink. It would not disappear.

The pros and cons of having free college show us that there would be changes to our society that would require adaptation. We enough work, it can be a successful experience. There are several countries which offer 4-year degree and graduate degree programs that are free already. The average student loan in Finland, for example, is $1,200. In the U.S., it is $15,510. It can work, but we must make it work together.

Why free college is a good investment

In this section.

• After an attempted assassination, how to turn back a rising tide of political threats and violence 
• The populism of self-destruction: How better policy can blunt the anti-clean energy backlash that threatens humanity’s future
• Public policy, values, and politics: Why so much depends on getting them right
• The Ghost Budget: How U.S. war spending went rogue, wasted billions, and how to fix it
• The Great Creep Backward: Policy responses to China’s slowing economy
• Two peoples. Two states. Why U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Palestine needs vision, partners, and a backbone
• We can productively discuss even the toughest topics—here’s how
• Legacy of privilege: David Deming and Raj Chetty on how elite college admissions policies affect who gains power and prestige
• Need to solve an intractable problem? Collaboration is hard but worth it.

HKS Professor David Deming says tuition-free public college is important for the future of work. It's also more affordable than many people think.

Featuring david deming, 25 minutes and 59 seconds.

Harvard Kennedy School Professor David Deming, whose research focuses on the economics of education, recently wrote a New York Times op-ed titled “Tuition-free College Could Cost Less Than You Think.” Making college education widely affordable in the U.S. is vital, Deming says, because a degree will likely be a prerequisite for the labor market of the not-too-distant future.

Professor Deming recently sat down with PolicyCast host Thoko Moyo to discuss not just how to lower college costs, but also how to improve educational quality and what that could mean for students across the socioeconomic spectrum. In addition to being a professor at HKS and the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Deming is also the new faculty director of the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at HKS and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He recently won the David Kershaw Prize, which is given to scholars under the age of 40 who have made distinguished contribution to the field of public policy and management.

For more information, please visit the Malcolm Wiener Center .

Produced by

Ralph Ranalli Susan Hughes

This episode is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts. 

I think in the very long run where we're headed is a world where just like we think of high school as being a prerequisite for having a good paying job, we're getting there with college. There's no law of nature, okay, that says that everybody should only get 12 years of education, but not 16. I think what's happening is we're living longer. Work is becoming more complex, the knowledge frontier is continuing to push outward. And so it makes sense to me that eventually we would want everyone to have something like a college education.

Thoko Moyo : So what exactly do we mean when we talk about free college in the US?

David Deming : Well, different people mean different things, but what I mean when I talk about it is zero tuition at all public two year and four year universities in the US.

Thoko Moyo : Okay, so that's public universities. Not touching the private universities.

David Deming : Yeah, for a couple of reasons. I think one is that most people go to public schools. And the second one is that of those people who attend private schools, they tend to be wealthier and the tuition at private schools is much more expensive. And so in terms of redistribution, sort of bang for buck, trying to accomplish the goals of expanding access to education, I think it's likely that free public tuition would draw a lot of students in who would otherwise not go to college at all. Whereas free tuition in private schools would mostly just subsidize tuition for people who are going to go anyway. And so that would just be a transfer from the tax payer to relatively well off.

Thoko Moyo : So let's come back to that. But first, let me understand. So what's the lay of the land at the moment? So most public universities offer some level of financial aid or grants. So let's talk about that a little bit and see what it looks like and then what it is that you're proposing or you're in support of.

David Deming : Sure. So I think the important thing to consider as you mentioned is that most people don't pay the sticker price of college tuition. A few do. But most families, particularly families in middle and lower middle income families who go to college don't pay the sticker price. But we often don't know that until long after a student has made the decision to go to college, filled out their financial aid forms, receive a complicated financial aid package. And so in some sense the fear of paying tuition comes long before the actual bill comes due. And so part of the design of a free college plan, I think, not just in my mind, but in the minds of many others who propose these things, is actually the transparent promise to families who are worried about college costs. That tuition will be free, you will not pay tuition. And the idea that just knowing that in advance months before you make the decision to attend a college is likely to attract many students that wouldn't otherwise come.

Thoko Moyo : But when you think about going to college, it's more than just the tuition though. When people think free, I mean assuming your child is going to stay on campus, there's room and board, there's books, et cetera. Does that come into the calculation at all? Let's just make sure we're clear about that as well.

David Deming : Yeah, sure. So most of the free college plans that are out there proposed by let's say Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren, and then also some of the plans that have been enacted in states like New Mexico and Tennessee and New York. None of those plans to my knowledge, pay for room and board. They pay for tuition and required fees. And I think there's a couple of reasons for that. One is that a lot of people live at home and they go to college and that's a decision that folks make depending on the type of school and depending on financial situations. The other thing is you'd have to pay for living expenses even if you don't go to college, right?

Thoko Moyo : True.

David Deming : And so in a sense, the tuition and fees are really the direct fee for service component of the plan. And so while no one is saying that a free college plan means there will literally be no expenses at all associated with going. I think that dramatically lowers the cost of going and has people thinking in a more forward looking way about whether or not they can afford it, right? So you might still have to borrow money to go to college, even if you weren't paying tuition because of room and board because you wouldn't be working. So the opportunity cost of going to college is still quite high because the alternative is working in a regular paying job for a lot of young people. And so none of those things are going to go away. College is still going to be a financial stretch for a lot of people if tuition were free. But this is a way to make it easier.

Thoko Moyo : So just for the benefit of our listeners who may not be in the US and sort of have a sense of what it costs to go to a public university here, do you have sort of a sense of what the numbers are?

David Deming : Sure. So for a two year college, sometimes called community college tuition is very low. Something like, oh I can't get the numbers off the top of my head. It's somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000 per year.

Thoko Moyo : Per year.

David Deming : Yeah. And then for a public four year school, tuition is less than $10,000. I want to say it's $9,000 something. I can't remember exactly. But that's the average tuition. So when you hear ... I think one of the issues here is in the public understanding of tuition, newspaper articles are written about very high tuition schools that are a very tiny slice of where people go.

Thoko Moyo : They're usually private.

David Deming : That's right. So school like Harvard, the institution here, we're charging something like $60,000 a year for tuition. But that is by far the upper end of the distribution. Most students, particularly in public schools pay much, much less than that.

Thoko Moyo : Yeah. So let's say if we stay with a price of say 10,000 a year. Now you're saying most families don't pay the sticker price. So there are some grants that come in. So how does that work?

David Deming : That's right. Yeah, so the largest federal financial aid program's called the Pell Grant and families that are roughly in the bottom half of the US income distribution qualify for some Pell Grant funding. And that, I believe the maximum is up to something like $5,000, a bit less.

Thoko Moyo : Which could be half of what you'll pay.

David Deming : Which could be half. Yeah. For the lowest income families. And so the Pell Grant works on a sliding scale. So the lowest income families get the full amount and then it gives you less as you have a higher family income. So the issue though is that you don't ... So when students go to college, they have to apply for something called the federal application.

Thoko Moyo : FAFSA. (Note: FAFSA is an acronym for Free Application for Federal Student Aid.)

David Deming : Yeah. So families have to fill out the FAFSA before they go to college and that is a complicated arrangement. It's a very long form. It takes many hours to fill out, requires a determination, not just a family income, but also assets, extended families sometimes, things like that. And-

Thoko Moyo : That can be daunting.

David Deming : Very daunting. Yeah. Not all families are financially literate. We're talking about a first ... a bunch of first generation students who have never faced this issue before. A lot of times you have young people going to college who may not know how much their parents make, may have complicated family situations that they're being addressed for the first time in filling out the FAFSA. And so that really deters a lot of people. And then you fill it out, you send it in, and then you get a financial aid package from colleges many ... sometimes many months later that lets you know how you can attend as a function of the grants you qualify for. And then also student loans and the packages really vary quite a lot. And the terms can be complicated. And so while we do have financial aid at the federal government level, it's not really working for us to lower the price of college at the time when students are most likely making that decision, right?

Thoko Moyo : Right.

David Deming : So you sort of decide to apply, you fill out the application, you fill out the FAFSA, you find out whether or not you got in and only then do you get your financial aid package, right? Which is very different than knowing, okay, if I go to the University of Massachusetts, I'm going to pay zero tuition.

Thoko Moyo : So you're more likely to attract more people. Some of whom might've been put off just by the idea of they couldn't afford college. So I have to ask you this. The idea of free tuition was tried in some places elsewhere in the world. So for instance, in the UK they used to have free tuition. But over the past decade or maybe the past 15 years, they've moved to actually charging tuition. So that seems a little different from the sort of direction that you're proposing. Why would that be?

David Deming : Yeah, so I think it's important to consider the context for something like this, and part of what's happening not just in the UK but in other countries, is that more and more people are going to ... choosing to go to college, right? And so that puts a lot of financial strain on the system. More people coming, you have to hire more faculty, you have to expand buildings, and it's expensive. And so there's kind of two parts of any calculation with free college. One is what is the price you're paying? The other one is what are you getting for the money? Right? And so in the UK and increasingly in the US as well, what we have is more and more people go to college, but the public investment in higher ed, that is dollars going directly to universities to support the educational mission are not increasing in a way that keeps pace with the increasing demand for slots.

Thoko Moyo : And this is what you talk about when you talk about quality of college?

David Deming : Yes. The quality of college, right? So a school, even a school like Harvard may charge 60 something thousand dollars a year in tuition, but is actually spending close to a hundred thousand dollars per student on the educational experience. And the difference is made up by endowment. So investments of the university's income that then goes and feeds into this experience and grants and other things, right? And so every college is actually spending a lot more money per student than it's charging. And at public schools, the subsidy rate is very high, right? So UMass might be charging 8 or $9,000 a year, but they might be spending 35 or $40,000, right?

Thoko Moyo : Per season, right.

David Deming : Yeah. And for public universities, a lot of that difference is actually made up for by direct subsidies from state governments, usually in the US. So the state of Massachusetts will give legislative appropriations, will vote to appropriate a bunch of money to the UMass system, which will then use that money to pay for the difference between the true cost of the education and what students are actually paying. And so in the UK and in the US what's happened is that subsidy, that amount, for which the public is subsidizing each individual student has gone down quite a lot. And that just puts a lot of strain on resources. And in the US what's happened is we've decided we're going to ask students themselves to cover a higher and higher share of the cost of their education.

Thoko Moyo : I see.

David Deming : Yeah. And so that's the issue faced by many countries that they're basically ... the UK is going in the opposite direction relative to what's happening in a lot of US states. But the underlying financial issue is the same, which is that we used to have a country where maybe 20 or 30% are people are going to college and now it's 40 or 50 or 60 and so who's going to pay for that?

Thoko Moyo : Right. And let's stick with that idea. Who's going to pay for that? So if we were to get to a point in the US where you get free tuition at public universities, where would that money come from? And I'm curious to hear sort of your comments about subsidies from the state going into the quality piece of college. So what's the relationship between those two numbers?

David Deming : Yeah, it's a great question. So an important piece of context for our non US listeners is that in the US, the federal government has all the money but education is regulated and created mostly at the state and local levels. And state governments, for example, the governor of Massachusetts cannot usually run a deficit. So the federal government can borrow a bunch of money and we have a large national deficit and can finance their way out of recessions and state governments can't do that, right? So usually. A lot of states have things like balanced budget amendments or laws called tax and expenditure limitations that say you can't spend more, you can't increase spending more than some percent of the tax base.

And so what that means is state governments, when there's a recession or when they have a shortfall in revenues have to cut. They can't just borrow money and wait until the good times come back. And higher education is the largest discretionary item on most states budgets. And so what that means is during bad times, higher ed budgets get cut. And state governments, I think that's a situation that's unlikely to get better anytime soon, especially because the states have other obligations like the cost of healthcare that are increasing all the time. And so what you really need I think to pay for all this increase in higher [inaudible 00:11:54] in the long run, in a way that sustainable is you need the federal government to get involved.

And so what I propose and what other people have proposed, like Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii have proposed essentially a matching grant structure where the federal government would tell states, "Listen, if you spend a dollar to increase the quality of your educational institutions, the federal government will match that with another dollar, match it with $2," or whatever the match rate could be. And that's a way for the federal government to use the power of the purse to help states increase the quality of their educational institutions, expand access to students, increase affordability while also not getting intimately involved in the details of how state governments, state universities operate.

Thoko Moyo : Right. But what's the case that you make to federal government to open up the purse strings and do the matching grants? And give me some numbers as well. I mean, what would it actually ... I know you've done some estimations of how much is currently being spent on subsidies and what it might cost to make tuition freeze. So throw some numbers in there.

David Deming : Yeah, I'll throw some numbers there for you. So in a rough calculation, it would cost about $79 billion to zero out tuition at all public, two year and four year colleges in the country. That's a big number. It's a big number. However, for context we already spend a little more than half of that subsidizing higher education only at the federal level, not considering states at all. So we spend about a third of it actually, about $27, $28 billion on tax credits for higher education.

So if you send a kid to college, you can claim it, a deduction on your taxes for the tuition expenses you pay. And the thing about that is like the FAFSA, that reimbursement comes long after the decision to enroll your kid in college. And so a bunch of people have studied this very carefully and found that essentially these tax benefits do not do anything to increase the number of people going to college. It doesn't affect people's behavior at all. It's really not a higher ed program. It's really just a redistribution program. Because it doesn't affect behavior at all. So I propose you take a ... you could end those. Now that would be painful for middle class families who are paying for college for sure.

Thoko Moyo : Because they are the ones that mostly feel the benefit of this tax credit.

David Deming : That's right. On the other hand. For those families who are sending their kids to public college, they wouldn't need to claim a credit because they would no longer be paying tuition because they would have free tuition. Right. So that's the upside of it. The point that I made in a recent op-ed in the New York Times about free college, it was not that it would be easy to do, but that actually that 79 billion is a lot less than you think compared to what we're already spending.

So we could get a long way toward just shifting the way the federal government spends money subsidizing higher education to a way that I think gets more bang for the buck, which is saying it's free or super low cost. If somebody said you can't have free but you can charge what the University of California charged a generation ago, which was something like a thousand dollars or $1,500 a semester. I think that would be fine too. I think you do get some mileage out of calling it free, but I think what families really want to know when they're making these important decisions, is that it's going to be affordable and we're not doing that now.

Thoko Moyo : Yeah. They want to know early and upfront.

David Deming : That's right. That's right. And I think we're leaving a lot of value on the table in terms of actually affecting behavior, getting a lot of families to take the plunge and say, "Yes, my child's going to go to college. I'm going to set aside some money to help them pay for living expenses because I know tuition is free or whatever." I think it's a lot of families who are just worried they can't afford that. Even if it turns out once they get the FAFSA back, they can. I think a lot of them aren't going because they just don't know.

Thoko Moyo : Right. So we'll come back to the numbers. What you're saying is that it probably won't cost that much more extra to be able to roll out free college tuition across public universities-

David Deming : Public universities.

Thoko Moyo : In the US.

David Deming : Yeah. I mean to be clear, that 79 billion assumes that nobody else goes ... that is the static cost of sending everybody who currently goes to college for free. But if the program works in the way that I'm describing more people will go. And it will be more expensive. So I don't mean to suggest that hey, everyone gets free college. No big deal. But I think if you compare the cost of zeroing out tuition to a lot of other things, like for example, debt forgiveness, which is something that both Senator Warren and Senator Sanders have proposed, that's actually a lot more expensive than subsidizing free college. Because what you're doing is you're paying off some very high dollar loans for people who are going to graduate school and things like that. The bottom line is that tuition expenses at public schools are just not that high. There are other costs, tuition expenses at fancy private schools are very high. But that's not what we're talking about.

Thoko Moyo : So remind me again, so what, when people argue against the idea of free college, what are the main arguments, what are the main concerns?

David Deming : Yeah, I think there are some understandable concerns. I think there's an idea that if you make it free, people won't value it as highly. There's an argument that we can't afford it. And I think while each of those has some merit, ultimately they don't pass muster from me just by comparison to other things that we're already doing. So for example, I can imagine people making this, we can't afford it, and people won't value it highly enough, and not everyone is college material type arguments. A hundred years ago when we expanded to universal high school in this country. So a hundred years ago, the high school graduation rate was 20 something percent. And yet what happened was local, small high school started all across the country that people were paying tuition for in small towns all across the US because people needed to get basic literacy and numeracy education to work in factories during kind of the dawn of the industrial revolution in this country.

And what happened was these local communities saw that there was a lot of demand for this education. And eventually communities started to finance it on their own. That is rather than having a situation where yeah, you might have some subsidy and lower income families get it and you just say, "Look, listen, if everyone needs this, what we're going to do instead, it's more efficient for us to tax everybody and then publicly provide K through 12 education all the way up to high school." And that's eventually what happened, right? And so now our high school graduation rate is over 90%.

Thoko Moyo : But does everyone need go to college?

David Deming : Not today, but eventually I think so, yes, I do. I think in the very long run where we're headed is a world where just like we think of high school as being a prerequisite for having a good paying job, we're getting there with college. Now, will it take a hundred years or 50 years or 20 years? I don't know. I mean, I could guess, but I think that there's no reason, there's no law of nature, okay, that says that everybody should only get 12 years of education, but not 16. I think what's happening is we're living longer. Work is becoming more complex, the knowledge frontier is continuing to push outward. And so it makes sense to me that eventually we would want everyone to have something like a college education.

Thoko Moyo : Okay. And by college education, I mean some people will argue that you don't need a go to college. You could learn a trade. You could think about the future of work. Maybe the sort of training around the type of skills that will be required are more important than going to get a college degree. What would your response be to that? I mean, how should people be thinking about that?

David Deming : Yeah, that's a great question. I think it's important to draw a distinction between education that is career focused or teaches you work skills, which I think is important for everyone. And then also the level of education, right? And so I think what happens, at least in the US context is we tend to put these two things together. So we say, "Well you can either go get a four year degree that is sort of bachelor's degree that gives you a general skillset that you then take and you get a white collar job, or you can go get a two year degree at a community college by the way, that has a lower graduation rate and isn't funded as well as the four year colleges and you can go work in a blue collar vocational job." And I don't think we should separate things that way.

I think all education, including education here at Harvard should be more focused on teaching people the kinds of skills they need in the modern workplace so that we should make education more, I don't want to say vocational, but more focused on skills that are relevant in today's workplace. But I also don't think we should decide that what people, what we need is kind of a education on the cheap for a class of people who are not kind of four year college material. I think that's a mistake. I think it's kind of class ... I think at some level, what we're talking about is if you're advocating for an educational model that is for other people's kids and not for your own, then I don't think it's ultimately going to work either politically. And I also ... I don't think it's right.

Thoko Moyo : Okay. So I mean I can see one of the advantages as you say, is that encouraging or getting more people to actually consider going to college. Because there's this guarantee or this sense that you can afford the tuition because there is no tuition. But part of the challenge when we think about college these days is not just the numbers of people going to college. You also have a lot of people dropping out-

David Deming : That's right.

Thoko Moyo : Before graduation. So how do you balance that?

David Deming : Yeah. That's right. So I think it is definitely a bad outcome to invest a lot of money in a college education and have high drop out rates, have students dropping out. So we need to also push on the institution side to increase the quality of the college education, and to implement a variety of strategies to help students get through and to help support-

Thoko Moyo : People drop out because the quality of education is not good.

David Deming : That is not the only reason that people drop out. But if you look across colleges in the US, even just across public colleges, let's leave the kind of Harvards out of the conversation. There's a very strong relationship between per student spending in the college and graduation rates. And part of that of course is because of differences in academic preparation of the students. And so there's going to be some students who would graduate no matter what college they went to. But I think it's a lot less than people realize. If I look around again at a place like Harvard or even a well-funded public university, what I see is a lot of what the money is going to is smaller classes, more tutoring, more counseling, basically adults around to help students who after all are still just 18 or 19 years old, navigate a new situation. Make sure they stay on top of their classes, make sure that they're doing well in terms of their mental health and they're getting ... they're adjusting to life in college.

And I think at a college that has less resources, you don't have those supports and students fall through the cracks. I went to a public school, Ohio State University, it was a good school. It worked out great for me. But I also had friends who I thought could have graduated if people had paid a lot more attention to them. Kind of slipped through the cracks because when you're in a 500 person lecture, nobody knows if you miss two weeks of class.

Thoko Moyo : Yeah. So you don't identify the kids.

David Deming : And it's not about aptitude. It's not about aptitude for everybody. It's also about are you allowed to make a mistake? Are you in a situation where you can be supported? And I think that's what, when you have a college that spends a lot of money, that's often what they're spending the money on is supports for students to help them get through. And there's a lot of good research evidence suggesting those supports really boost graduation rates. And so I think one answer to the dropout problem is just to spend more money on the quality of the college experience. And I'm not just talking about faculty, I'm mostly talking about supports for students. Although I think smaller classes, more contact with faculty is a big component of that.

Thoko Moyo : So let's come back to this. So free tuition and more spent on the quality of education would be the sort of-

David Deming : Yeah, so I mean I'm an education economist. Okay. So I think we should spend more money on my pet issue. There's no question about that. Okay. But I also think if you look across the body of social science evidence, and my students have heard me talk about this ad nauseum. I think there are very few findings that are more robust and have been found in more contexts and in more different ways than the fact that there's a high return to education. Education pays. If we spend money on increasing the quality of education, if we have some kind of policy that gets more people into school. They do well, they earn more money, they're happier, they live longer, they're more likely to get married, they have children in wedlock instead of out of wedlock. They pay more in tax revenue.

It's an investment in our future. And I think one that we sorely need to be making, we're not making enough. And so yeah, I mean I'm an advocate for spending more money on education. I also happen to think that higher ed is a very, very important source of inequality in the US today. Especially even compared to K through 12 education. And so I do. I think we need to spend more money both on the price side, that is subsidizing the tuition so it gets lower to attract people in. But then once they get in, it's also about improving the quality of the experience so that people can get through and graduate.

Thoko Moyo : Is there anywhere in the world that you've seen that has had success in doing this?

David Deming : Well, it's interesting you asked that. I mean a generation ago, the US was a world leader in tertiary education and now that's no longer true. So I think actually a lot of places have not figured out ...

Thoko Moyo : Asia perhaps, or?

David Deming : Sorry.

Thoko Moyo : In Asia or [crosstalk 00:24:13].

David Deming : Yes. Asia. Countries in East Asia have had some of the largest increases in postsecondary education over a generation. Places like South Korea and China. And I do think those are places that are economically thriving, that are on an upward trajectory. And I mean there are a lot of differences between those places and the US over this generation. But a big one is investments in education for sure.

Thoko Moyo : Wonderful. Well, thank you very much for your time. This was really informational and educational for me. It was wonderful to have you here. Thanks so much.

David Deming : My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

More from PolicyCast

Fixing ourselves is hard, high-stakes negotiation and authentic leadership, navigating the robot car revolution.

Music education sets up low-income youth for success

Should cell phones be banned from all California schools?

New school year brings new education laws

How earning a college degree put four California men on a path from prison to new lives | Documentary 

Patrick Acuña’s journey from prison to UC Irvine | Video

Family reunited after four years separated by Trump-era immigration policy

Getting Students Back to School

Calling the cops: Policing in California schools

Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay

Lessons in Higher Education: California and Beyond

Superintendents: Well paid and walking away

Keeping California public university options open

August 28, 2024

Getting students back to school: Addressing chronic absenteeism

July 25, 2024

Adult education: Overlooked and underfunded

College & Careers

Tuition-free college is critical to our economy

Morley Winograd and Max Lubin

November 2, 2020, 13 comments.

To rebuild America’s economy in a way that offers everyone an equal chance to get ahead, federal support for free college tuition should be a priority in any economic recovery plan in 2021.

Research shows that the private and public economic benefit of free community college tuition would outweigh the cost. That’s why half of the states in the country already have some form of free college tuition.

The Democratic Party 2020 platform calls for making two years of community college tuition free for all students with a federal/state partnership similar to the Obama administration’s 2015 plan .

It envisions a program as universal and free as K-12 education is today, with all the sustainable benefits such programs (including Social Security and Medicare) enjoy. It also calls for making four years of public college tuition free, again in partnership with states, for students from families making less than $125,000 per year.

The Republican Party didn’t adopt a platform for the 2020 election, deferring to President Trump’s policies, which among other things, stand in opposition to free college. Congressional Republicans, unlike many of their state counterparts, also have not supported free college tuition in the past.

However, it should be noted that the very first state free college tuition program was initiated in 2015 by former Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican. Subsequently, such deep red states with Republican majorities in their state legislature such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas have adopted similar programs.

Establishing free college tuition benefits for more Americans would be the 21st-century equivalent of the Depression-era Works Progress Administration initiative.

That program not only created immediate work for the unemployed, but also offered skills training for nearly 8 million unskilled workers in the 1930s. Just as we did in the 20th century, by laying the foundation for our current system of universal free high school education and rewarding our World War II veterans with free college tuition to help ease their way back into the workforce, the 21st century system of higher education we build must include the opportunity to attend college tuition-free.

California already has taken big steps to make its community college system, the largest in the nation, tuition free by fully funding its California Promise grant program. But community college is not yet free to all students. Tuition costs — just more than $1,500 for a full course load — are waived for low-income students. Colleges don’t have to spend the Promise funds to cover tuition costs for other students so, at many colleges, students still have to pay tuition.

At the state’s four-year universities, about 60% of students at the California State University and the same share of in-state undergraduates at the 10-campus University of California, attend tuition-free as well, as a result of Cal grants , federal Pell grants and other forms of financial aid.

But making the CSU and UC systems tuition-free for even more students will require funding on a scale that only the federal government is capable of supporting, even if the benefit is only available to students from families that makes less than $125,000 a year.

It is estimated that even without this family income limitation, eliminating tuition for four years at all public colleges and universities for all students would cost taxpayers $79 billion a year, according to U.S. Department of Education data . Consider, however, that the federal government  spent $91 billion  in 2016 on policies that subsidized college attendance. At least some of that could be used to help make public higher education institutions tuition-free in partnership with the states.

Free college tuition programs have proved effective in helping mitigate the system’s current inequities by increasing college enrollment, lowering dependence on student loan debt and improving completion rates , especially among students of color and lower-income students who are often the first in their family to attend college.

In the first year of the TN Promise , community college enrollment in Tennessee increased by 24.7%, causing 4,000 more students to enroll. The percentage of Black students in that state’s community college population increased from 14% to 19% and the proportion of Hispanic students increased from 4% to 5%.

Students who attend community college tuition-free also graduate at higher rates. Tennessee’s first Promise student cohort had a 52.6% success rate compared to only a 38.9% success rate for their non-Promise peers. After two years of free college tuition, Rhode Island’s college-promise program saw its community college graduation rate triple and the graduation rate among students of color increase ninefold.

The impact on student debt is more obvious. Tennessee, for instance, saw its applications for student loans decrease by 17% in the first year of its program, with loan amounts decreasing by 12%. At the same time, Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) applications soared, with 40% of the entire nation’s increase in applications originating in that state in the first year of their Promise program.

Wage inequality by education, already dreadful before the pandemic, is getting worse. In May, the unemployment rate among workers without a high school diploma was nearly triple the rate of workers with a bachelor’s degree. No matter what Congress does to provide support to those affected by the pandemic and the ensuing recession, employment prospects for far too many people in our workforce will remain bleak after the pandemic recedes. Today, the fastest growing sectors of the economy are in health care, computers and information technology. To have a real shot at a job in those sectors, workers need a college credential of some form such as an industry-recognized skills certificate or an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.

The surest way to make the proven benefits of higher education available to everyone is to make college tuition-free for low and middle-income students at public colleges, and the federal government should help make that happen.

Morley Winograd is president of the Campaign for Free College Tuition . Max Lubin is CEO of Rise , a student-led nonprofit organization advocating for free college.  

The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. Commentaries published on EdSource represent diverse viewpoints about California’s public education systems. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our  guidelines  and  contact us .

Share Article

Comments (13)

Leave a comment, your email address will not be published. required fields are marked * *.

Click here to cancel reply.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy .

Genia Curtsinger 2 years ago 2 years ago

Making community college free to those who meet the admission requirements would help many people. First of all, it would make it easy for students and families, for instance; you go to college and have to pay thousands of dollars to get a college education, but if community college is free it would help so you could be saving money and get a college education for free, with no cost at all. It would make … Read More

Making community college free to those who meet the admission requirements would help many people. First of all, it would make it easy for students and families, for instance; you go to college and have to pay thousands of dollars to get a college education, but if community college is free it would help so you could be saving money and get a college education for free, with no cost at all. It would make it more affordable to the student and their families.

Therefore I think people should have free education for those who meet the admission requirements.

nothing 2 years ago 2 years ago

I feel like colleges shouldn’t be completely free, but a lot more affordable for people so everyone can have a chance to have a good college education.

Jaden Wendover 3 years ago 3 years ago

I think all colleges should be free, because why would you pay to learn?

Samantha Cole 3 years ago 3 years ago

I think college should be free because there are a lot of people that want to go to college but they can’t pay for it so they don’t go and end up in jail or working as a waitress or in a convenience store. I know I want to go to college but I can’t because my family doesn’t make enough money to send me to college but my family makes too much for financial aid.

Nick Gurrs 3 years ago 3 years ago

I feel like this subject has a lot of answers, For me personally, I believe tuition and college, in general, should be free because it will help students get out of debt and not have debt, and because it will help people who are struggling in life to get a job and make a living off a job.

NO 3 years ago 3 years ago

I think college tuition should be free. A lot of adults want to go to college and finish their education but can’t partly because they can’t afford to. Some teens need to work at a young age just so they can save money for college which I feel they shouldn’t have to. If people don’t want to go to college then they just can work and go on with their lives.

Not saying my name 3 years ago 3 years ago

I think college tuition should be free because people drop out because they can’t pay the tuition to get into college and then they can’t graduate and live a good life and they won’t get a job because it says they dropped out of school. So it would be harder to get a job and if the tuition wasn’t a thing, people would live an awesome life because of this.

Brisa 3 years ago 3 years ago

I’m not understanding. Are we not agreeing that college should be free, or are we?

m 3 years ago 3 years ago

it shouldnt

Trevor Everhart 3 years ago 3 years ago

What do you mean by there is no such thing as free tuition?

Olga Snichernacs 4 years ago 4 years ago

Nice! I enjoyed reading.

Anonymous Cat 4 years ago 4 years ago

Tuition-Free: Free tuition, or sometimes tuition free is a phrase you have heard probably a good number of times. … Therefore, free tuition to put it simply is the opportunity provide to students by select universities around the world to received a degree from their institution without paying any sum of money for the teaching.

Mister B 4 years ago 4 years ago

There is no such thing as tuition free.

EdSource Special Reports

California School Dashboard lacks pandemic focus, earns a D grade in report

The California School Dashboard makes it hard for the public to see how schools and districts are performing over multiple years, concludes the report’s lead author.

Communication with parents is key to addressing chronic absenteeism, panel says

Low-cost, scalable engagement through texting and post cards can make a huge difference in getting students back in the habit of attending classes.

Helping students with mental health struggles may help them return to school

In California, 1 in 4 students are chronically absent putting them academically behind. A new USC study finds links between absenteeism and mental health struggles.

Millions of kids are still skipping school. Could the answer be recess — and a little cash?

Data gathered from over 40 states shows absenteeism improved slightly but remains above pre-pandemic levels. School leaders are trying various strategies to get students back to school.

EdSource in your inbox!

Stay ahead of the latest developments on education in California and nationally from early childhood to college and beyond. Sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email.

Stay informed with our daily newsletter

Why Education Should Be Free

Written by Dan

Last updated September 13, 2024

The question of whether education, particularly higher education, should be free is a continuing debate marked by a multitude of opinions and perspectives.

Education stands as one of the most powerful tools for personal and societal advancement, and making it accessible to all could have profound impacts on a nation’s economic growth and social fabric.

Proponents of tuition-free education argue that it could create a better-educated workforce, improve the livelihoods of individuals, and contribute to overall economic prosperity.

However, the implementation of such a system carries complexity and considerations that spark considerable discourse among policymakers, educators, and the public.

Related : For more, check out our article on  The #1 Problem In Education  here.

Within the debate on free education lies a range of considerations, including the significant economic benefits it might confer.

A well-educated populace can be the driving force behind innovation, entrepreneurship, and a competitive global stance, according to research.

Moreover, social and cultural benefits are also cited by advocates, who see free higher education as a stepping stone towards greater societal well-being and equality.

Nevertheless, the challenges in implementing free higher education often center around fiscal sustainability, the potential for increased taxes, and the restructuring of existing educational frameworks.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Free higher education could serve as a critical driver of economic growth and innovation.
• It may contribute to social equality and cultural enrichment across communities.
• Implementation of tuition-free higher education requires careful consideration of economic and structural challenges.

Related : For more, check out our article on  AI In Education  here.

The Economic Benefits of Free Education

Free education carries the potential for significant economic impact, notably by fostering a more qualified workforce and alleviating financial strains associated with higher education.

Boosting the Workforce with Skilled Workers

Free education initiatives can lead to a rise in college enrollment and graduation rates, as seen in various studies and practical implementations.

This translates into a larger pool of skilled workers entering the workforce, which is critical for the sustained growth of the economy. With more educated individuals, industries can innovate faster and remain competitive on a global scale.

The subsequent increase in productivity and creative problem-solving bolsters the country’s economic profile.

Reducing Student Loan Debt and Financial Insecurity

One of the most immediate effects of tuition-free education is the reduction of student loan debt . Students who graduate without the burden of debt have more financial freedom and security, enabling them to contribute economically through higher consumer spending and investments.

This financial relief also means that graduates can potentially enter the housing market earlier and save for retirement, both of which are beneficial for long-term economic stability.

Reducing this financial insecurity not only benefits individual lives but also creates a positive ripple effect throughout the economy.

Related : For more, check out our article on  Teaching For Understanding  here.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Free education stands as a cornerstone for a more equitable society, providing a foundation for individuals to reach their full potential without the barrier of cost.

It fosters an inclusive culture where access to knowledge and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society are viewed as inalienable rights.

Creating Equality and Expanding Choices

Free education mitigates the socioeconomic disparities that often dictate the quality and level of education one can attain.

When tuition fees are eliminated, individuals from lower-income families are afforded the same educational opportunities as their wealthier counterparts, leading to a more level playing field .

Expanding educational access enables all members of society to pursue a wider array of careers and life paths, broadening personal choices and promoting a diverse workforce.

Free Education as a Human Right

Recognizing education as a human right underpins the movement for free education. Human Rights Watch emphasizes that all children should have access to a quality, inclusive, and free education.

This aligns with international agreements and the belief that education is not a privilege but a right that should be safeguarded for all, regardless of one’s socioeconomic status.

Redistributions within society can function to finance the institutions necessary to uphold this right, leading to long-term cultural and social benefits.

Challenges and Considerations for Implementation

Implementing free education systems presents a complex interplay of economic and academic factors. Policymakers must confront these critical issues to develop sustainable and effective programs.

Balancing Funding and Taxpayer Impact

Funding for free education programs primarily depends on the allocation of government resources, which often requires tax adjustments .

Legislators need to strike a balance between providing sufficient funding for education and maintaining a level of taxation that does not overburden the taxpayers .

Studies like those from The Balance provide insight into the economic implications, indicating a need for careful analysis to avoid unintended financial consequences.

Ensuring Quality in Free Higher Education Programs

Merit and quality assurance become paramount in free college programs to ensure that the value of education does not diminish. Programs need structured oversight and performance metrics to maintain high academic standards.

Free college systems, by extending access, may risk over-enrollment, which can strain resources and reduce educational quality if not managed correctly.

Global Perspectives and Trends in Free Education

In the realm of education, several countries have adopted policies to make learning accessible at no cost to the student. These efforts often aim to enhance social mobility and create a more educated workforce.

Case Studies: Argentina and Sweden

Argentina has long upheld the principle of free university education for its citizens. Public universities in Argentina do not charge tuition fees for undergraduate courses, emphasizing the country’s commitment to accessible education.

This policy supports a key tenet of social justice, allowing a wide range of individuals to pursue higher education regardless of their financial situation.

In comparison, Sweden represents a prime example of advanced free education within Europe. Swedish universities offer free education not only to Swedish students but also to those from other countries within the European Union (EU).

For Swedes, this extends to include secondary education, which is also offered at no cost. Sweden’s approach exemplifies a commitment to educational equality and a well-informed citizenry.

International Approaches to Tuition-Free College

Examining the broader international landscape , there are diverse approaches to implementing tuition-free higher education.

For instance, some European countries like Spain have not entirely eliminated tuition fees but have kept them relatively low compared to the global average. These measures still align with the overarching goal of making education more accessible.

In contrast, there have been discussions and proposals in the United States about adopting tuition-free college programs, reflecting a growing global trend.

While the United States has not federally mandated free college education, there are initiatives, such as the Promise Programs, that offer tuition-free community college to eligible students in certain states, showcasing a step towards more inclusive educational opportunities.

Policy and Politics of Tuition-Free Education

The debate surrounding tuition-free education encompasses a complex interplay of bipartisan support and legislative efforts, with community colleges frequently at the policy’s epicenter.

Both ideological and financial considerations shape the trajectory of higher education policy in this context.

Bipartisan Support and Political Challenges

Bipartisan support for tuition-free education emerges from a recognition of community colleges as vital access points for higher education, particularly for lower-income families.

Initiatives such as the College Promise campaign reflect this shared commitment to removing economic barriers to education. However, political challenges persist, with Republicans often skeptical about the long-term feasibility and impact on the federal budget.

Such divisions underscore the politicized nature of the education discourse, situating it as a central issue in policy-making endeavors.

Legislative Framework and Higher Education Policy

The legislative framework for tuition-free education gained momentum under President Biden with the introduction of the American Families Plan .

This plan proposed substantial investments in higher education, particularly aimed at bolstering the role of community colleges. Central to this policy is the pledge to cover up to two years of tuition for eligible students.

The proposal reflects a significant step in reimagining higher education policy, though it requires navigating the intricacies of legislative procedures and fiscally conservative opposition to translate into actionable policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section addresses common queries regarding the prospect of free college education, its impact, and practical considerations for implementation.

What are the most compelling arguments for making college education free?

The most compelling arguments for tuition-free college highlight the removal of financial barriers, potential to increase social mobility, and a long-term investment in a more educated workforce , which can lead to economic growth.

How could the government implement free education policies without sacrificing quality?

To implement free education without compromising quality, governments need to ensure sustainable funding, invest in faculty, and enable effective administration. Such measures aim to maintain high standards while extending access.

In countries with free college education, what has been the impact on their economies and societies?

Countries with free college education have observed various impacts, including a more educated populace , increased rates of innovation, and in some instances, stronger economic growth due to a skilled workforce.

How does free education affect the accessibility and inclusivity of higher education?

Free education enhances accessibility and inclusivity by leveling the educational playing field, allowing students from all socioeconomic backgrounds to pursue higher education regardless of their financial capability.

What potential downsides exist to providing free college education to all students?

Potential downsides include the strain on governmental budgets, the risk of oversaturating certain job markets, and the possibility that the value of a degree may diminish if too many people obtain one without a corresponding increase in jobs requiring higher education.

How might free education be funded, and what are the financial implications for taxpayers?

Free education would likely be funded through taxation, and its financial implications for taxpayers could range from increased taxes to reprioritization of existing budget funds. The scale of any potential tax increase would depend on the cost of the education programs and the economic benefits they’re anticipated to produce.

Related Posts

About The Author

I'm Dan Higgins, one of the faces behind The Teaching Couple. With 15 years in the education sector and a decade as a teacher, I've witnessed the highs and lows of school life. Over the years, my passion for supporting fellow teachers and making school more bearable has grown. The Teaching Couple is my platform to share strategies, tips, and insights from my journey. Together, we can shape a better school experience for all.

Join our email list to receive the latest updates.

Add your form here

What you need to know about the right to education

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that education is a fundamental human right for everyone and this right was further detailed in the Convention against Discrimination in Education. What exactly does that mean?

Why is education a fundamental human right?

The right to education is a human right and indispensable for the exercise of other human rights.

• Quality education aims to ensure the development of a fully-rounded human being.
• It is one of the most powerful tools in lifting socially excluded children and adults out of poverty and into society. UNESCO data shows that if all adults completed secondary education, globally the number of poor people could be reduced by more than half.
• It narrows the gender gap for girls and women. A UN study showed that each year of schooling reduces the probability of infant mortality by 5 to 10 per cent.
• For this human right to work there must be equality of opportunity, universal access, and enforceable and monitored quality standards.

What does the right to education entail?

• Primary education that is free, compulsory and universal
• Secondary education, including technical and vocational, that is generally available, accessible to all and progressively free
• Higher education, accessible to all on the basis of individual capacity and progressively free
• Fundamental education for individuals who have not completed education
• Professional training opportunities
• Equal quality of education through minimum standards
• Quality teaching and supplies for teachers
• Adequate fellowship system and material condition for teaching staff
• Freedom of choice

What is the current situation?

• About 258 million children and youth are out of school, according to UIS data for the school year ending in 2018. The total includes 59 million children of primary school age, 62 million of lower secondary school age and 138 million of upper secondary age.

155 countries legally guarantee 9 years or more of compulsory education

• Only 99 countries legally guarantee at least 12 years of free education
• 8.2% of primary school age children does not go to primary school  Only six in ten young people will be finishing secondary school in 2030 The youth literacy rate (15-24) is of 91.73%, meaning 102 million youth lack basic literacy skills.

  How is the right to education ensured?

The right to education is established by two means - normative international instruments and political commitments by governments. A solid international framework of conventions and treaties exist to protect the right to education and States that sign up to them agree to respect, protect and fulfil this right.

How does UNESCO work to ensure the right to education?

UNESCO develops, monitors and promotes education norms and standards to guarantee the right to education at country level and advance the aims of the Education 2030 Agenda. It works to ensure States' legal obligations are reflected in national legal frameworks and translated into concrete policies.

• Monitoring the implementation of the right to education at country level
• Supporting States to establish solid national frameworks creating the legal foundation and conditions for sustainable quality education for all
• Advocating on the right to education principles and legal obligations through research and studies on key issues
• Maintaining global online tools on the right to education
• Enhancing capacities, reporting mechanisms and awareness on key challenges
• Developing partnerships and networks around key issues

  How is the right to education monitored and enforced by UNESCO?

• UNESCO's Constitution requires Member States to regularly report on measures to implement standard-setting instruments at country level through regular consultations.
• Through collaboration with UN human rights bodies, UNESCO addresses recommendations to countries to improve the situation of the right to education at national level.
• Through the dedicated online Observatory , UNESCO takes stock of the implementation of the right to education in 195 States.
• Through its interactive Atlas , UNESCO monitors the implementation right to education of girls and women in countries
• Based on its monitoring work, UNESCO provides technical assistance and policy advice to Member States that seek to review, develop, improve and reform their legal and policy frameworks.

What happens if States do not fulfil obligations?

• International human rights instruments have established a solid normative framework for the right to education. This is not an empty declaration of intent as its provisions are legally binding. All countries in the world have ratified at least one treaty covering certain aspects of the right to education. This means that all States are held to account, through legal mechanisms.
• Enforcement of the right to education: At international level, human rights' mechanisms are competent to receive individual complaints and have settled right to education breaches this way.
• Justiciability of the right to education: Where their right to education has been violated, citizens must be able to have legal recourse before the law courts or administrative tribunals.

  What are the major challenges to ensure the right to education?

• Providing free and compulsory education to all
• 155 countries legally guarantee 9 years or more of compulsory education.
• Only 99 countries legally guarantee at least 12 years of free education.
• Eliminating inequalities and disparities in education

While only 4% of the poorest youth complete upper secondary school in low-income countries, 36% of the richest do. In lower-middle-income countries, the gap is even wider: while only 14% of the poorest youth complete upper secondary school, 72% of the richest do.

• Migration and displacement

According to a 2019 UNHCR report, of the 7.1 million refugee children of school age, 3.7 million - more than half - do not go to school. 

• Privatization and its impact on the right to education

States need to strike a balance between educational freedom and ensuring everyone receives a quality education.

• Financing of education

The Education 2030 Agenda requires States to allocate at least 4-6 per cent of GDP and/or at least 15-20 per cent of public expenditure to education.

• Quality imperatives and valuing the teaching profession

Two-thirds of the estimated 617 million children and adolescents who cannot read a simple sentence or manage a basic mathematics calculation are in the classroom.

• Say no to discrimination in education! - #RightToEducation campaign

Related items

• Right to education

More on this subject

HerAtlas: Monitoring the right to education for girls and women HerAtlas: Background, rationale and objectives 12 March 2024

Other recent news

• Share full article

Advertisement

Should College Be Free?

With ross douthat, michelle goldberg and david leonhardt, and why are birthrates dropping.

I’m Michelle Goldberg.

I’m Ross Douthat.

I’m David Leonhardt. And this is “The Argument.” This week, should college be free?

The American college system is considered by a lot of people to be better than the college systems in Western Europe. And one reason it’s better is that it induces parents to part with their money.

Then, where have all the baby’s gone?

Women feel like men have not caught up. They have not been able to find men who have really kept pace and necessarily share their views of what a more egalitarian relationship would look like.

And finally, a recommendation.

I was just so rapt by this movie. And I was also sort of astonished that it got made at all. And I see that as an optimistic sign of where the culture is.

The cost of college is a big burden for many people. And it’s become a hot political topic as well. The big question in progressive policy circles is whether public college should be free, paid for with taxes rather than tuition payments and loans from students and their families. Pete Buttigieg has sharpened the debate in recent weeks by running an ad criticizing the idea of free college, saying it’s too much of a handout to the wealthy.

I believe we should move to make college affordable for everybody. There are some voices saying, well, that doesn’t count unless you go even further, unless it’s free even for the kids of millionaires. But I only want to make promises that we can keep.

Buttigieg favors free college for lower and middle income families. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, prefers free public college for everyone. It’s a classic debate between universal and targeted social programs. And it’s fascinating both in its own right and as a symbol of the larger left versus center debate in the Democratic primary. Michelle, I’m mostly with Mayor Pete on this one. Free college for everyone just doesn’t seem to me like a good use of resources. And it also seems to bother a lot of swing voters. So I don’t think it’s worth the political cost. But I’m really interested in what you’ve thought about this whole debate.

Well, David, I mean, you don’t think that kind of millionaires and billionaires are going to start sending their kids to public college if it’s free, right? I mean, the argument itself is sort of — it might be politically astute. But it seems sort of disingenuous. And I think Democrats in general should have been pointing out a lot more that this idea of free college is not a new thing. The UC system was free until the ‘70s. The CUNY system which produced a lot of the leading conservative minds in the country was also free until the 1970s. And so this isn’t some sort of departure like “Medicare for all.” This is actually the way public education used to be. And bringing market mechanisms into public universities has been sort of a disaster. My fear about what happens if you have free college for, say, everybody under $100,000 is that it creates incentives which you already see in some of these state university systems to really focus on bringing in the families that can kind of subsidize everyone else. I’ve been to public colleges in Arizona where, because there’s less and less money from the state, there’s more and more of an emphasis on getting out-of-state students from California, which has created this sort of arms race of amenities, while basic educational functions are ignored. I’m not sure you’d have that exact problem if you just had free college for people whose families make under six figures. But I do think that the idea that it’s obviously going to function better is untested at best.

Look, Buttigieg is obviously trying to score some rhetorical points here by talking about paying for college of millionaires and billionaires. But there is a larger point that’s true here, which is, Michelle, that the world you worry about creating is a world that I think we already have. So I don’t have a problem with getting to a world in which all college is free. But the idea that we would start now by making all college free, to me, has two really big problems. One, it really is regressive. It really is sending a lot of benefits to people like high-income professionals who don’t need the help relative to most Americans. And two, it’s not obviously a political winner. And so it might be a political loser. The polling’s sort of mixed on it. And so I guess I just prefer an approach that, one, is going to help more people that need help and, two, might actually be more popular and make it more likely that Donald Trump loses. And so that’s why I prefer the Buttigieg approach.

So I guess my question — and I’m more on David’s side, but I’ll play devil’s advocate a little bit — is that I think the strongest case for various socialistic proposals is that we’ve set up markets in health care and education in this country that just don’t work at all, because nobody knows what the prices are. I am an upper middle class professional trying to figure out what I need to save for college. And if I look at elite college tuition rates going forward, I have no idea how that interacts with these incredibly opaque financial aid systems that are there to milk just the right amount of money out of each group and so on. And that is both a deterrent for low-income people in applying to college at all, because they get sticker shock and look at these prices that aren’t real prices and don’t apply. And it’s a source of endless stress for parents and, to some extent kids. And Buttigieg’s proposal, it probably adds to some of that complexity and stress to some extent, even as it reduces it for lower-income people. There is an advantage in terms of how people interact with bureaucracy and how people interact with these systems to just say, yeah, these schools cost money. And these schools are free.

And look, we love to denigrate American high schools today. But historically, they’re this unbelievable success story. America moved toward universal high school education before Europe. And our economy benefited enormously. And that’s basically the argument that, to some extent, you each are making. And I guess I would love to get to a world in which at least two years of college are free for everyone and maybe four. But a little bit as with “Medicare for all,” the idea of saying, this is what the Democrats are really going to double down on, decide it’s what they really want, free college for all, as opposed to a really ambitious climate bill or as opposed to a wealth tax, which I like. To me, it’s just not exactly worth it. And you get a huge portion of the benefit without the downsides by doing a more targeted approach. And by the way, I prefer Buttigieg’s to Biden’s approach. Biden’s approach is free community college for all, which I’ve written positive things about. But I also like the idea that we don’t tell poorer kids that the only way to get the benefits of this program are go to a community college and we say to them, you can also get it by going to a four-year college. But you’re right, the plan that I’m talking about is more complicated. It’s cheaper, but it’s more complicated than the idea of free college, period, for everybody.

I’m willing to concede that there might be a short-term political benefit when it comes to defeating Donald Trump. But I would also say that if a Democrat gets elected, they’re going to have a much better chance, I think, of starting from the position of what they really want and negotiating from there rather than starting with a halfway measure and maybe, if they’re lucky, getting to free community college.

Yeah, and I’m skeptical that this is — I think “Medicare for all” as proposed by Warren and Sanders is very unpopular. I think this would be much less unpopular and would not be an issue that would help reelect Trump per se. I’ll now switch sides and make the opposite argument. I think there is a case, on the one hand, that the four year college model is oversubscribed, actually, in America right now and what we need is more people going to community colleges, trade school, continuing education, more investment in that space. And that makes me more sympathetic to the Biden proposal, in that it sort of very specifically directs resources there rather than towards the college system as a whole. I also think there’s an argument that seems pretty plausible, which is that, David, you mentioned how the American high school system was the envy of the Western world. Well, right now, the American college system, as horrible as it is in six different ways, is considered by a lot of people to be better than the college systems in Western Europe. And one reason it’s better is that it is well-funded in lots of ways, in part because it induces parents to part with their money. And college becomes free, and then that becomes a justification for state governments to say, look, these kids at these state schools are getting a free education. They don’t need lavish amenities. They don’t need high-paid faculty. We’re going to cut the higher ed budget. And pretty quickly, it would actually end up starving a lot of middle and lower tier colleges of revenue, even as the rich private colleges, which are the ones whose revenue you should actually be cutting would be doing fine. I think that’s actually a pretty plausible description of how free college might actually end up undercutting the colleges.

But the argument against that is that that’s precisely what happens when it is only free for the sort of bottom tiers. When free college is something that, say, 80 percent of families can take advantage of, you have much more social buy-in, just as there’s much more protectiveness around Medicare than there is around Medicaid because of who gets it. It creates a constituency for this that is much harder for politicians to ignore.

Clearly, Buttigieg is not just thinking about education here. He sees a lane to get these large number of Democrats who either are moderate or want a moderate who they consider to be electable. Michelle, how do you assess the state of the race right now? Kamala Harris has just dropped out. It feels like Biden and Buttigieg are competing for the moderate voters. And Warren and Bernie are competing for the progressive voters. Where do you see things?

I don’t think there’s any real clarity about where the race is right now. It seems extremely indeterminate. Buttigieg has gone from someone who I think a lot of people on the left found kind of interesting and thought he had a lot of compelling structural ideas. And he has now whipped up such intense ill will among the progressive part of the Democratic Party, in part because he’s doing this while accepting Republican framing of these issues in a way that I think that Democrats, or at least a good section of the party sees as really pernicious. And so it might end up helping him get the nomination. And I think it would also make it much harder to unify the party if he actually did.

I’m a little more optimistic than that. I remember when Barack Obama was outraging progressives. Our colleague Paul Krugman really didn’t like the way Obama ran against Hillary in 2008, and talking about bringing everyone together, which a lot of progressives found naive. So I don’t know. I agree with you, Michelle, that’s what he’s trying to do here. But I do feel like it’s something that he could recover from in the unlikely but not impossible event that he’s the nominee.

A quick note before we take a break. 2019 is quickly coming to an end. And here at “The Argument,” we’re thinking about the year ahead. So we want to hear from you. What are your New Year’s resolutions? We want to hear them, especially if they’re related to politics, culture, or something beyond your own life. Maybe you’re going to canvas for a political candidate for the first time. Or maybe you’re going to add a few different news sources to your reading list. Whatever it is, big or small, share your resolutions with us by leaving us a voicemail at 347-915-4324. Make sure you tell us your name and where you’re from so we can play your call on an upcoming episode. And with that, we will take a quick break.

Americans aren’t having as many children as they used to. The fertility rate in the U.S. declined last year for the fourth year in a row and has fallen to a record low. It’s not just the United States either. Fertility rates in much of Europe and Japan are low enough to be causing population declines. And in China, the end of the “one child” policy has not led to the baby boom that some expected. What’s going on here? Anna Louie Sussman is a writer who tried to answer that question in a fascinating recent Times op-ed called “The End of Babies.” And she has joined us for the discussion. Anna, thank you, and welcome to “The Argument.”

Thank you for having me.

So I was struck by your description of fertility rates being low in a really wide variety of countries, including some with really good parental benefits like Denmark and some with really terrible parental benefits like the United States. And I came away thinking that I guess the closest thing to a single explanation for this trend is a rise of what might be called individualism over communitarianism. You mentioned this notion of workism, of people focusing on their careers out of either necessity or choice. And you also talk about people being wary of bringing children into a world suffering from climate change and extreme inequality. So I was wondering whether you think it’s legitimate to think about falling fertility rates as being a reflection of the individual triumphing over the community.

I wouldn’t necessarily put it that way. I think there’s a few different parts to the issue. One, I don’t see falling fertility rates in a macro perspective as necessarily a huge issue. I think there’s loads of people in the world. We’re not suffering from an actual shortage of people. What I was more interested in is what’s happening on an individual level, which is to say, a gap between the number of children people say they want and the number of children they wind up having. Demographers call this underachieving fertility. And it’s particularly acute amongst educated women. The other issue, I think, is individual versus a kind of way of thinking that takes into account interdependence. I use this term late capitalism in the essay. People have kind of quibbled with it a bit. But I meant particular aspects of the way that our economy is conducted right now. And in particular, I was thinking of extreme inequality. I was thinking of this growth mentality that requires more resources and more raw materials and more energy and more manufacturing and creates more waste. But it’s also gone way into our psyches. And it’s affected relationships between women and men in very disturbing ways and our own self-conceptions. And all of that has made it, for a variety of reasons, more difficult to contemplate or realize this idea of having children.

Michelle, how do you think about the part of the essay in which Anna points out that fertility is really weak, even in countries that have the sort of structure that you and I think the U.S. should have? Which is, it’s really weak in Denmark, even though Denmark has really good parental leave. So it doesn’t seem like it’s just a story about the safety net.

Well, it’s not just a story about safety net. But it’s partly a story about the safety net, because the two countries that have higher fertility than America right now are Sweden and France, not that much higher and not replacement. And it might just be pregnancy and childbirth is an extraordinarily brutal experience that most women, given the choice, are not going to go through again and again and again. A society that’s kind of shrinking slowly, which you get at 1.8 or 1.9 births per woman versus 1.4, 1.5, those have really different social implications. And so the only way that we know of in which a modern society, women who have kind of the whole full plethora of economic options that modernism gives them, the only way we know in which you get fertility even sort of close to replacement is with really rich social safety net provisions and a sort of culture that enables women to combine work and family. The thing that we do know is that efforts to juice fertility by just imposing penalties on women, by trying to make gender roles more reactionary are an abject failure. So the thing that’s absolutely toxic for fertility rates is a combination of modernity and economic freedom for women but a total lack of feminism and a social safety net.

And I’ll add that I was just in Poland earlier this year doing some reporting. And it’s quite clear when I talk to single women who are pursuing fertility treatments to become parents on their own, the women feel like the men have not caught up. These are women who are independently — they support themselves. They’re ambitious. But they still have an interest in having a family, a partner, and children. But they have not been able to find men who have really kept pace and necessarily share their views of what a more egalitarian relationship would look like.

And I think it’s probably not just individual men, although you might expect that I would come to the defense of individual men. But I do think it’s sort of the structures that we have in society that basically contribute to sexism, that we have all these structures that make it really hard for people to find meaningful part-time work and that basically lead to all kinds of inequities in child rearing, which in turn make much more of the burden fall on women and make me understand why people might be reluctant to have kids into that structure.

I guess I’d start by throwing out one other example of a country that’s rich and developed and has a higher fertility rate than the U.S. that I think goes to some of the questions about the kind of cultural and even metaphysical things going on here, which is Israel. It doesn’t have a fertility rate at replacement level. It has a fertility rate well above replacement level. And its fertility rate is higher in part because of immigration by Orthodox Jews over the last 20 or 30 years or 40, 50 years that’s made Israel a more religious society. But if you look at birth rates among secular Israelis, they are also basically comparably high and much higher than in any other wealthy country. And I think that’s a really interesting fact that, at the very least, it suggests something about sort of the nature of community and feelings of, on the one hand, threat and on the other hand, possibility. Israel is a country that is historically imperiled and exists in this strange equilibrium where it’s as rich and developed as a lot of countries in Europe but is in the Middle East and has military threats on its borders and so on. And I think it suggests that there is something about a culture’s perception of its own sense of purpose, its sense of the future.

Right, but Israel is also a very special case, because there is this sort of —

Ethnonationalist.

Well, it’s not even — but it’s not even ethnonationalist, because I feel like there’s a more innocent term for it. But basically, you have Israel is this country that was sort of born from the ashes of a Holocaust. And there’s this very strong cultural imperative to reconstitute the Jewish people. I’m not sure what other countries can kind of borrow from that. I don’t think that that’s an ethos that can be constructed.

No, I think it’s very clearly not an ethos that can just be transferred. But I think the power of that ethos to shape child rearing in a profound way tells us something about how much an ethos matters, in the sense that it’s not just the structures of the welfare state. It’s not just the condition of late capitalism. It’s not just the sexual revolution. Israel has late capitalism, the sexual revolution, a full-on welfare state, and much larger families. And I totally agree. That’s related to the nature and destiny of the Jewish people after the Holocaust. But it tells you something about how much cultural belief and purpose matter.

It may not be fully replicable. And I certainly— Michelle, you know I agree with you about having the policies that make it possible that Israel has and Sweden has and we don’t. That is a little bit what I was trying to get at with the individual and community thing, that that exists. And I feel like not just in the west but also in China, in Japan, in much of the world today, this idea of individualism really has taken hold. You see it with climate change, Anna, which was a big part of your piece. You see it with inequality. And I do feel like there’s this notion of people thinking much more about the individual than the family or the community.

I mean, I will say that you can find community at different levels. But whether it’s the caliber of community that would make it possible to raise children in an absence of any government policy is a different question. So I have plants, and I have a dog. And my neighbors, when I’m away, alternatively look after my plants and my dog. But I could not do that with a child.

They’re actually surprisingly resilient. [LAUGHTER]

Right, you just drop some food in a bowl.

You get them at the hospital. And you’re sort of baffled by how you’re going to keep them alive. But then, five years later, there they are.

But I think it’s also a question of, what do you feel you can ask someone in an environment of so much scarcity. I was raised by a single mom. And some of the things that we relied on just aren’t there anymore. For example, in our neighborhood when I would come home from summer camp, from day camp, my mom would give me $3 and I’d buy a bowl of egg drop soup. And then I’d read for three hours until she got off work and could pick me up from the Chinese restaurant. There are no more restaurants in my neighborhood where you can get anything for $3. So those kind of community level supports aren’t always there anymore as a function of these larger macroeconomic forces of gentrification and housing prices.

And can I just add — also, I think the amount of supervision and cultivation that’s expected of parents has escalated dramatically.

To me, there’s also a sense in which I tend to think of it as less about scarcity and more about abundance, in the sense that this trend obviously correlates with countries getting very rich. I was joking about the ease of raising kids. But the reality is that there is an irreducible difficulty to having children that no amount of wealth can get rid of. And this comes up in your op-ed a bit, Anna. But the cost of childcare doesn’t go down in the way that the cost of a new stereo goes down, because you need a human being to watch your child if you’re not watching your own child. And in that sense, I don’t think it’s surprising that people in an age of general material abundance would find this lifelong task that the material abundance doesn’t make easier something they’re less inclined to do. And I wanted to ask you about something that we sort of went back and forth briefly about on Twitter, which is that your piece doesn’t really get into the question of marriage and marriage rates. But I wanted to ask you about that, just because one of the facts about the recent fertility decline in the U.S. is that it’s not happening among married couples. Married fertility in the last 10 or 15 years is pretty stable. And so it’s a function of rates of single parenthood dropping slightly and lower marriage rates overall. And I wonder how you fit the decline of marriage itself into the story you’re telling.

One thing that really stuck with me — it didn’t go in the piece. But when I was reporting in Denmark, I talked to this policymaker. She was concerned about the fertility issue. And my joke when I talk to policymakers, if you want to see your birth rates go up, you need to fix men. For example, you could have a law that if you don’t return a woman’s SMS within a week, you get fined $50, something like that. I find myself, for example — I’m not going out with anyone. And on any given evening, I could go out on a date, or I could you know finish a story I’m working on or write something that I’m doing for income. And you wind up getting into this very calculating mindset that I think makes it really hard to relax and go out and meet people. And that’s, I think, also what I was referring to in terms of a scarcity mentality.

What do you think is wrong with the men?

Well, I was going to offer an example from a Bumble profile that crossed my path recently. His profile reads, “Hedge fund manager that has generated top one percent returns globally three years in a row. Travel a ton for work. Like sports. Collegiate athlete. I have limited time, so don’t try to negotiate stupid crap with me. Let life happen. Let’s meet for a drink.”

That was actually in my Bumble profile before I was married.

Wait, can I say something here? Anna and I have been friends for a long time. And sometimes when we’re talking about how brutal it is out there, I’ve actually wanted Anna to talk to Ross, because the one thing that I think that you guys both hit on from different directions, that Ross has written a bunch of columns about men and women growing apart, just having less and less in common. And that’s, I feel like, sometimes what I hear from Anna about just that it’s almost like speaking a different language to try to communicate with these people.

I used to be more, why can’t they get it together. Why don’t they read more? Why don’t they diversify their interests? But it’s an environment where also men still believe in that they have to earn a family wage. And I think whether you’re a woman or a man, if you’re working 100 hours a week, you’re not going to have the time and opportunity to pursue whatever other interests you have. So what that means for me when I’m sitting across the table or sitting at a bar with someone, trying to get to know them, is that I don’t necessarily haven’t anything in common, because he’s been working a lot. And I’ve been doing the kind of interesting, fulfilling job that, as a woman, I’ve been told “pursue your passion.” I think men get such different messages. And it’s left us, especially in an era where you do need so much money to survive, in these very different positions.

I want to quickly just quickly defend the male desire to be the breadwinner, because I think one of the questions that hangs over this alienation between the sexes is a question of what are men for in a post-feminist egalitarian society where the example of the professional women who you’re talking about in Europe or America are basically saying, well, I can do everything a man can do now. But I still want a partner and so on. Men need a sense of purpose. And even in an egalitarian society, the obvious place to find purpose is, look, your partner, your female partner does this incredibly difficult but also incredibly awesome thing of gestating and bearing a child. And your role in that is a sort of protective, providing role. You want to be equipped to, if not being the sole breadwinner all the time, being the person who can carry the load while your wife is pregnant and while your kid is young and so on. And I think it’s very hard to imagine a healthy masculinity that produces the kind of guys who would be suitable spouses for you, Anna, without some element of that, without some element of, look, being a man, I’m never going to bear a child in my womb. But I can offer something to a future spouse while she does that that she can’t do for herself.

Here’s what I don’t understand. I went on a date a month or two ago someone who works at a hedge fund. And he said at first he didn’t tell women where he worked, because he didn’t want to be seen as a big checkbook. But then he said, you know what, it’s part of who I am. And I like numbers. And this is the job I chose. And I do want to be able to provide for a family and make that known. But I think what he was missing and what I find myself wondering about is, wouldn’t it be so much nicer to be wanted than needed. If you know that I don’t actually need you for your money, but I just picked you, because you’re the most fun person I’ve met to hang out with, wouldn’t that be a wonderful basis on which to form a relationship? And Ross, if you’re lucky, we’ll get married. Maybe we’ll even convert to Catholicism.

I don’t even — I’m blushing at the other end of the mic.

And on that note, Anna Louie Sussman, thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks, Anna.

Now it’s time for our weekly recommendation when we suggest something meant to take your mind off of the news of the day. Michelle, It is your turn this week. What do you have for us?

I’m going to recommend the movie “Queen and Slim” which I wrote about in my column this week. It’s this really remarkable film about this couple on a sort of very awkward and desultory first date who are on their way home. He’s on his way to drop her off. And they’re pulled over by the police. It’s the sort of encounter that we’ve seen a million times in which the cop becomes needlessly aggressive and ends up menacing black people and in some case killing them, except in this case, there’s a scuffle. The cop ends up being killed in self-defense. And this couple go on the run. It’s not a perfect film. But I was just so rapt by this movie. I was kind of ugly crying when it ended. And I was also sort of astonished that it got made at all. And I see that as a optimistic sign of where the culture is. It’s been compared to a lot of blaxploitation films. There’s also obvious comparisons to “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Thelma and Louise.” And I looked back at some of the criticism around those two movies. Those two movies were really, really hard to get made. And I assumed that this movie with a first-time director who’s a woman of color, a black woman script writer, a movie that’s steeped in the politics of Black Lives Matter— I would have thought it would have had a much harder road to the Hollywood screens than it did. But apparently, Universal basically gave the filmmakers the resources they need and turned them loose.

I’m really looking forward to seeing it, not least because I just saw— my last movie experience was Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman,” which I really wanted to like, because I’m, of course, on Scorsese’s side in the great battle over comic book movies. But “The Irishman” was, I thought, sort of ruined by having Robert De Niro play a role that he’s just too old to play and using digital effects that didn’t suffice to have him fill the part. So a more dynamic and youthful and interestingly political movie that isn’t a comic book movie sounds great to me right now.

And it’s shorter.

And it’s an hour and 15 minutes shorter than “The Irishman” as well.

Michelle, what’s the recommendation?

“Queen and Slim.”

That’s our show this week. Thanks so much for listening. And we would very much like to hear from you. Share your sociopolitical New Year’s resolution with us or your views on free college or declining fertility rates. Leave us a voicemail at 347-915-4324. And if you like what you hear, please leave us a rating or review in Apple Podcasts. This week’s show was produced by Kristin Schwab for Transmitter Media and edited by Sarah Nics. Our executive producer is Gretta Cohn. We had help from Tyson Evans, Phoebe Lett, and Ian Prasad Philbrick. Our theme was composed by Allison Leyton-Brown. We’ll see you back here next week.

Nothing made me more sympathetic for the decadent liberal elites who I like to criticize in my column than actually having a kid and realizing, my god, I miss brunch.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Play | RadioPublic | Stitcher

Should public colleges be tuition-free? Should student loan debt be forgiven? This week on “The Argument,” the columnists discuss Pete Buttigieg’s criticisms of his more liberal Democratic rivals’ plans to reduce the costs of higher education. Proponents of free college should stress that — in some cases — tuition-free higher education would be a return to form rather than a radical break, argues Michelle Goldberg. David Leonhardt thinks universal free college and universal debt cancellation are both regressive policies and bad politics. And while simplifying the costs of higher education is a laudable goal, Ross Douthat says, he favors proposals to better fund community colleges, trade schools and other alternatives to four-year schools.

Then, the birthrate in the United States and in countries around the world is falling. The journalist Anna Louie Sussman joins the columnists to debate the causes and implications of what she termed, in a recent Times op-ed , “the end of babies.”

And finally, Michelle recommends a subversive new film whose very existence is an optimistic sign about our cultural moment.

Background Reading:

Ross on marriage and declining fertility rates

Michelle on what happens when public colleges lose funding (The Nation) , feminism and the fertility rate and the thrilling shock of “Queen & Slim”

David on why free college and debt forgiveness for all are regressive

Anna Louie Sussman, “ The End of Babies ”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Home > Blog > Getting Into College > 5 Reasons Why College Should Be Free

Getting Into College , Is UoPeople Worth it , Paying for School , Tuition Free , Why UoPeople

5 Reasons Why College Should Be Free

Updated: August 15, 2024

Published: January 30, 2020

The cost of college is rising even faster than inflation in the U.S. Many students around the world face financial constraints when it comes to attending college. Because education is such a vital part of life, there are many reasons why college should be free .

Not only do the arguments for debt-free education include personal benefits, but they also show how education helps to positively impact society overall.

Thankfully, the progression in technology is making it possible to increase access to education globally.

However, there is still a long way to go and more schools and countries are weighing the pros and cons of offering an affordable education . The ability to provide free education for all is becoming more of a possibility as time progresses.

Photo by Good Free Photos on Unsplash

Here are 5 reasons that support the case for debt-free education:

1. Improves Society

When people are more educated, they can solve problems better. This means that society can progress at a faster rate.

Additionally, people with education can better understand the history of their society and its current economic conditions. As such, they may be more inclined to participate in politics and improve their country.

Also, when more people have access to a college education, the number of employable people for high-skilled jobs increases. This means that more people will join the workforce, which could help lessen the wealth gap between the upper, middle, and lower classes.

2. Widened Workforce

Along with technological progressions comes a shift in the workforce. Most automated jobs are replacing low-skill workers. Automation is spreading quickly across positions that require repetition, like back-office tasks.

However, automation is not meant to replace the entire workforce. Instead, the needs of most economies are shifting to require a more skilled workforce, with people who have good analytical skills and creative thinking abilities. These skills are both taught and honed with a college education. If more people could attend college for free , then the workforce will expand.

The workforce will also be more agile. In the case of an economic downturn when one industry falters, another generally rises to replace it. Then, workers need to be retrained and taught skills for the job. If more people could enter school and gear their studies towards booming industries, then the population will be more equipped to cope with economic changes.

3. A Boosted Economy

Most students graduate with a massive amount of debt. For example, in the U.S., the average student debt per person is $28,950.

Graduating with significant debt is common in the U.S., where the average student debt is $28,950 per person. This debt can take years to pay off, delaying major life purchases like homes and cars. Without debt, graduates could earn, save, and spend more quickly, stimulating the economy. 

Increased consumer spending boosts demand and creates more employment opportunities, creating a positive economic cycle. Additionally, the fear of debt often deters students from pursuing higher education, so debt-free education could encourage more people to attend college.

4. Increase Equality

Since affordability is a major issue for so many people when it comes to attending college, the playing field has not always been equal.

A lot of the brightest minds in the world stem from low-income households, but that shouldn’t hold them back from continuing their education. If there was an equal opportunity to attend school, then everyone would have the chance to go to school. Affordable education is a major step towards equality.

5. More Focus

When students are not worried about money, they can focus better on their studies. Even when students have loans and financial aid, they may find themselves stuck worrying about how they will have to pay them back in the future. This added stress can negatively impact their focus during the time when they are supposed to be learning.

Photo by Christian Wiediger on Unsplash

5 reasons why college shouldn’t be free.

While free college education has many benefits, there are also arguments against it. Here are some reasons why college shouldn’t be free:

Increased Strain on Government Budgets

Providing free college education would require significant funding from the government. This could lead to higher taxes or cuts in other essential areas like healthcare and infrastructure. 

Governments would face the challenge of maintaining the quality of education with limited resources, which could result in overcrowded classrooms and insufficient support services. 

For example, a First-Dollar Tuition-Free program would cost $58 billion in its first year, totaling $800 billion over 11 years. This significant financial burden could strain government budgets, making it difficult to fund other vital programs.

Devaluation of Degrees

When college is free and accessible to everyone, the value of a college degree may decrease. An oversupply of graduates could lead to increased competition in the job market, making it more challenging for individuals to stand out. 

The increased number of degree holders might also lead employers to raise their expectations, requiring higher qualifications for entry-level positions.

Reduced Accountability for Academic Performance

Students who pay for their education often have a financial stake in their academic success, which can motivate them to perform better. 

When education is free, some students might take it less seriously, leading to a decrease in overall academic performance. The lack of financial investment could diminish students’ accountability and commitment to their studies.

Implementation and Sustainability Challenges

Implementing free college programs is complex and requires careful planning and significant resources. Some countries or institutions that have attempted free college education have encountered financial difficulties or had to limit enrollment due to budget constraints. 

Ensuring sustainable funding and maintaining quality education would be a continuous challenge.

Limited Resources for Non-Academic Paths

Focusing government funding on making college free might divert resources from vocational training and other non-academic career paths that are equally important. 

Not all students wish to pursue a traditional college education, and emphasizing free college could overshadow alternative routes to success, such as apprenticeships and technical training programs. 

Providing diverse educational opportunities ensures that all individuals can find a path that suits their skills and interests.

Countries That Offer Free College

Many countries recognize the benefits of debt-free education and have implemented policies to provide free or low-cost higher education to their residents, and sometimes to international students. Here’s an overview of some countries offering such opportunities:

• Germany : Germany offers tuition-free education for both domestic and international students at its public universities. Students typically only pay a small semester fee, which often includes public transportation. This approach has made Germany an attractive destination for students seeking quality education without the burden of tuition fees.
• Austria : Austrian universities offer free education for EU residents, while non-EU students benefit from relatively low tuition costs. The Austrian education system emphasizes accessibility and affordability, making it a popular choice for students across Europe.
• Finland : In Finland, education is free for students from the EU, and non-EU students can benefit from low tuition fees in many programs. Finnish universities are known for their high-quality education and strong focus on research and innovation.
• Czech Republic : The Czech Republic offers free higher education in Czech for all students, regardless of nationality. For programs taught in other languages, such as English, low tuition fees are typically charged. This policy attracts a diverse group of international students seeking affordable education.
• Spain : Spanish universities provide free education for EU residents, while non-EU students can access low-cost tuition. Spain’s commitment to affordable higher education ensures broad access to its academic institutions, making it an appealing option for students from various backgrounds.

The Takeaway

As we continue to debate the merits and challenges of tuition-free education, we must ask ourselves: Is a future with universal access to education the key to unlocking a more prosperous and equitable society?

The money for tuition-free or cheaper universities will have to come from somewhere. Arguments against free education include potential tax increases on individuals or businesses or reallocating funds from other areas like military spending. Implementing free college programs can also lead to challenges such as maintaining educational quality and managing increased enrollment.

Despite these political considerations, expanding tuition-free education offers massive advantages. It promotes equality, stimulates the economy, and creates a more skilled workforce. Many countries, such as Germany, Austria, and Finland, have successfully implemented models of free or low-cost higher education, demonstrating the potential benefits and feasibility of such systems.

At the University of the People, we are dedicated to providing quality, tuition-free education to students globally, embodying the future of accessible and inclusive higher education. By removing financial barriers, we aim to empower students to pursue their academic goals and contribute to a more educated and equitable world.

FAQ Section

What are the potential benefits of free college education.

Free college education can increase access to higher education, reduce student debt, and promote social equality. It can also lead to a more educated workforce, driving economic growth and innovation.

Can free college increase access to higher education for all?

Yes, free college can remove financial barriers, making higher education accessible to more people, especially those from low-income backgrounds.

Can free college stimulate economic growth and innovation?

Yes, free college can lead to a more educated workforce, boosting productivity, driving innovation, and stimulating economic growth by filling high-skill job positions.

What are the potential drawbacks of free college education?

Drawbacks include increased strain on government budgets, potential degree devaluation, and reduced academic performance accountability. Implementing and sustaining such programs can be complex and financially challenging.

How does free college impact the job market and workforce?

Free college can lead to a more skilled and educated workforce, but it might also result in an oversupply of graduates, making it harder for individuals to stand out in the job market.

How does free college align with other educational reforms?

Free college can complement other educational reforms aimed at increasing access, reducing inequality, and improving the quality of education. It should be part of a broader strategy that includes vocational training and lifelong learning opportunities.

What are the long-term implications of implementing free college?

Long-term implications include potential changes in government spending priorities, the need for sustainable funding models, and possible shifts in the value and perception of college degrees.

Can free college address the skills gap in certain industries?

Yes, free college can help address skills gaps by making it easier for students to pursue education and training in high-demand fields, thus aligning the workforce with industry needs.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

The Pros and Cons of Having Free College Education for All

Whether college should be free or not has been a common question for quite some time. It’s a controversial topic as it raises many benefits and drawbacks. There are some countries around the world that do offer free, or nearly free, education. In general, the “pros” of free are: having better access to education, the elimination of student debt, increased graduation rates, and an opportunity to explore your passions/interests. The “cons” include: overcrowding, wasted opportunities, and money. PROS Better access to education: College is expensive with or without financial aid. Many people can’t afford to go to college as badly as they want. The cost of college can also cause students to drop out of college. So, if college was free, it would give everyone an equal opportunity for education. If this were the case, I feel more people would take advantage of higher education and pursue a degree. Further, if everyone had a degree, this could help people achieve their dream careers. Eliminated student debt: Roughly 43 million Americans are in student debt, causing them to be held back from pursuing other activities in their lifetime. Going to college for free would encourage more people to enroll in college or university because they would leave debt-free, and in turn, stress-free. It also increases focus because you won’t have to worry about things such as loans, financial aid, scholarships, or other financial issues. Increased graduation rates: If college was free for all, I believe more students would take colleges up on the offer of a free education. I feel that the offer will be greatly valued because with a degree, you are able to get a higher income job and open a pathway to new and more career opportunities. Explore your interests: I personally can’t relate to this one because I chose my major based on my passion, but I know people who have chosen a specific major for financial reasons. For example, some jobs require more years of schooling than others. Free college would encourage people to pursue their passion and interests. CONS Overcrowding: The lure of a free education may cause more people to want to attend college, but there is a drawback to this: there’s only a limited number of people that can attend said college or university. Having an overcrowded school can result in limited space, which could have a negative impact on meal plans, on-campus housing, and class sizes. Also, overcrowding can result in resources being limited as well, such as computers in a library or textbooks required for classes. Wasted opportunity: People might feel unmotivated to take their education seriously since their money isn’t on the line. I am motivated to further educate myself but knowing that college costs money is a motivator because I wouldn’t want it to go to waste. Funding/Money: If college is free, then how would colleges stay open? How are professors and other faculties working on campuses getting paid? If I was working on a college campus, I would not want to work for free. It could come from the government but there’s only so much that can be used. Private donors are also an option, but again donations alone would not allow all people to attend the school for free. In retrospect, free college sounds wonderful, but how would we achieve it?

Related Articles

Is facebook logging out.

Though many social media sites come and go just as fast as they appeared- I am talking to you Myspace- there are some that stick around for the long run.

Does anyone really like their job?

It’s kind of hard to say that people genuinely love their job. The only reason that I say this is because there are some people that actually enjoy the field of work that they are in, while the majority of people are just in the field because it makes them the most amount of money. […]

Snapchat Could Pay a Price for Introducing “Snapcash”

In recent years, more and more people are declaring themselves self-proclaimed photographers. First is was Photo Shop, then it was Instagram, now it’s Snapchat?

Should university education be free?

Education has positive benefits for the rest of society. If university education is left to market forces, there may be under-provision, and the economy may suffer from a lack of skilled graduates. Furthermore, in a free market, higher education would become the preserve of wealthy families who can afford to send their children to university. Therefore there is a strong case for the government providing higher education free at the point of use.

However, others argue the positive externalities of higher education are limited, and the prime beneficiaries of a university degree are the graduates who can command a higher paying job. If the external benefits of many degrees are limited, government spending may be misallocated in offering relatively expensive university education. Rather than fund 3-4 year university degrees, governments may be able to get a better return from spending money on primary education and vocational training – training which is more relevant to the needs of the economy.

More details

In recent years, the UK government has sought to increase the amount students pay for studying at university. In the UK, the government have phased out grants and introduced top-up fees. With tuition fees and rising living costs, students could end up paying £50,000 for a three-year degree, and leave university with significant debts.

Some argue this is a mistake. Charging for university education will deter students and leave the UK with a shortfall of skilled labour – and arguably this will damage the long-term prospects of the UK economy. Furthermore, charging to study at university will increase inequality of opportunity as students with low-income parents will be more likely to be deterred from going to university.

Arguments for free university education

• Positive externalities of higher education . Generally, university education does offer some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidising higher education.
• Equality . There is also a powerful argument that university education should be free to ensure equality of opportunity. If students have to pay for university education, this may dissuade them. In theory, students could take out loans or work part-time, but this may be sufficient to discourage students from studying and instead may enter the job market earlier.
• Increased specialisation of work . The global economy has forced countries, such as the UK to specialise in higher-tech and higher value-added products and services. The UK’s biggest export industries include pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, optical and surgical instruments, and nuclear technology (see: what does the UK produce? ). Therefore, there is a greater need for skilled graduates who can contribute to these high-tech industries.
• Education is a merit good . One characteristic of a merit good is that people may underestimate the benefits of studying and undervalue higher education. Government provision can encourage people to study.
• Young people facing rising costs . In recent years, we have seen a rise in the cost of living. House prices and rents have risen faster than inflation. This means young people are struggling to meet living costs – even in work. The thought of student debt on top of high living costs, may dissuade people from studying. Free tuition fees is a way to restore the income inequality across generations.
• Non-economic benefits of education . It is tempting to think of university education in purely monetary terms. But graduates can also gain skills and awareness of civic institutions which offer intangible benefits to society.

Source: Times Higher Education

Higher Learning, Greater Good: The Private and Social Benefits of Higher Education (2009) Professor McMahon examined the “private non-market benefits” for individuals of having degrees.

This includes better personal health and improved cognitive development in their children, alongside the “social non-market benefits”, such as lower spending on prisons and greater political stability.

• If you wished to evaluate this point, we could ask – is it university education which causes these civic virtues or is it because university education is dominated by middle classes who are more likely to have better health e.t.c. already?

Arguments against free university education

• Opportunity cost . If we spend billions on free university education, there is an opportunity cost of higher taxes or less spending elsewhere. Arguably, there is a greater social benefit from providing vocational training – e.g. so people could become plumbers, electricians e.t.c. There is often a real shortage of these skills in an economy. The UK Commission for skills and education report significant skills shortages in the basic ‘core generic skills’ such as literacy, numeracy and communication skills. These skill shortages are prominent in industries like building, health care, plumbing, social care and construction. The problem is not a shortage of graduates with art degrees, but a shortage of lower-level vocational skills. (See: BBC – skills shortage in the UK ) Therefore, there is a case for charging students to study at university – allowing higher public spending to tackle more basic skill shortages.
• Do we have too many graduates? In recent decades there has been a rapid rise in the number of graduates. But many graduates are now leaving university to take jobs which don’t require a degree. A study by the ONS found that nearly 50% of workers who left university in the past five years are doing jobs which don’t require a degree. ( Telegraph link ) Therefore, it is a mistake to continue to fund the public expansion of university education because the economy doesn’t need more graduates as much as other vocational skills.
• Higher quality of education . The rapid rise in university numbers means that greater pressure is being put on university resources. Since the government is struggling to increase real spending, there is a danger that university education and research may suffer, causing UK education to lag behind other countries. If universities can charge students, it will help maintain standards, quality of teaching and the reputation of UK universities.
• Makes people value education more . If people have to pay to go to university, you could argue that they would value education more. If higher education is free, it may encourage students to take an easy three years of relaxation.
• Signalling function of higher education . Arguably, higher education acts as a signal to employers that graduates have greater capacity. As a consequence, people who gain a degree, end up with a relatively higher salary. Therefore, if they financially gain from studying at university, it is perhaps fair they pay part of the cost. This is especially important for middle-class families, who send a higher proportion of people to higher education.

Another issue is whether we need 50% of 18-year-olds to go to university . The increase in student numbers is a significant contributory factor to the increased financial pressures on universities. Rather than encouraging students to automatically go to university (as some schools do), it may be better to encourage more students to take vocational training and avoid three years of academic study. If less went to university, it would mean the cost per student would be relatively lower.

Another issue is how do you charge students for going to university? If students leave university with large debts, this has negative consequences. But, if we finance university education through a graduate tax paid when graduates get a decent income then it may be less of a disincentive.

Abolition of Tuition Fees

In the 2017 and 2019 election, the Labour party proposed to abolition tuition fees. This is estimated to cost £16 billion.

• How should university education be funded ?
• Arguments for Free Education
• Arguments against Free education

48 thoughts on “Should university education be free?”

In my perceptive the government must allow free education system for two category only. One is the children comes merited and secondly for lower class people

Aka free collage to welfare state

Dear Tejvan Pettinger,

You misspelled Subsidizing*

The E-Time Guy

Subsidizing is American-English spelling. But I use British-English ‘subsidising’

I don’t think you realised/realized that EconomicsHelp is a British-founded website.

Lmao! He must have felt well chuffed with himself…until you pointed that out!

Wouldn’t it be hard to manage that sort of, uh, selection?

Just give everyone a free college degree. No debts, no tax dollars to send Timmy off for free 4 years of living. Free college = tax payer pays to get more competition for his job. Free college = college degree is pointless cause everyone has one

• Pingback: Should Higher Education be Available for Everyone? – /lacher-prisee/

The best way is to offer relatively large number of places free of charge, for instance, 80% of overall demand in the economy to be free/state paid places.

The entrance competition must be held to get the place. The rest will be private places.

Erm..we just that read that…but I guess thanks for repeating it…

I agree that education improves how productive people are in the workforce. A friend of mine is majoring in computer science and they are much more adept because of what they are learning. If governments cannot offer compensation for education then I hope that companies will.

Education has positive benefits for the rest of society. If university education is left to market forces, there may be under-provision, and the economy may suffer from a lack of skilled graduates. Furthermore, in a free market, higher education would become the preserve of wealthy families who can afford to send their children to university. Therefore there is a strong case for the government providing higher education free at the point of use. However, others argue the positive externalities of higher education are limited, and the prime beneficiaries of a university degree are the graduates who can command a higher paying job. If the external benefits of many degrees are limited, government spending may be misallocation in offering relatively expensive university education. Rather than fund 3-4 year university degrees, governments may be able to get better return from spending money on primary education and vocational training – training which is more relevant to the needs of the economy.

plagiarized from another article but great response (next time cite)

Great post and interesting argument here. I have to say that with everything there is going to be advantages and disadvantages. If you offer free university education, it will devalue those who already have a university education. I think if there is a plan to offer free university education, then there needs to be guidelines around it – such as certain state schools, specific courses, etc.

Sorry, I’m not so sure I understand what you mean by “devalue” here. I think university is an opportunity and surely the value in an opportunity is in what you gain out of it, not its availability?

“devalue” as towards the degree itself, not the user. The more of anything (“degrees”) lowers the value, supply and demand. I’m a pretty lefty guy (51. Male, UK) but this one I’m not for, students seem to think degree courses were free before the fees were started under Tony Blair, they wernt, I applied and was refused due to my grade not being good enough. Only a set number of people were given grants. Now after working my way up the slippy pole, I would feel cheated if I have to pay extra tax for someone else to go to Uni. However it this was fully funded from a wealth tax (which I would not pay as I dont have much wealth), then yer go on do it.

I think the university fees should not be free. Maybe exceptions can be made for students from more poor backgrounds and they pay lesser fees but it should not be free because then there is no point. No one would take it seriously anymore & if u paid for something you value it more and work harder You should work hard for something you want and not expect everything to be handed on a silver plater

It’s not being handed on a silver plate – you still have to work to be accepted and work to graduate. Making uni free doesn’t devalue its certification.

I totally agree when you said that it would be hard for low-income parents to send their children to universities. This is the actual problem of my cousin which is why he is lucky that his dad is a military because there might be assistance for them. I will suggest this to them since they might not be aware, and he will be going to college in two years time.

all the Arguments against free university education written here are silly and nothing to do with how things work in real life, you can see it in all quality countries that have free tertiary education, like in northern europe. or in any other europe country, you can check it out.

I don’t get the argument about too many people going to university and getting a degree? Or am I the thick one here?

We’re not handing out free degrees, we’re giving everyone an equal OPPORTUNITY to get a degree, and a higher education for their future. So many people would’ve made very useful citizens had they have had a chance to fully develop their skills, and we forget that making uni free doesn’t make it any easier to get into and to graduate from.

Making uni free doesn’t devalue its certification btw

Very interesting, good job and thanks for sharing such a good blog.

Everyone grows up going to school and unless it is a private school, the government funds it once we enroll and all we need to do is show up. Once we graduate high school or get a GED, suddenly the price for a good quality education sky rockets and everyone starts scrambling to find a job, or get as many grants, scholarships, and loans as they possibly can to cover the ever growing debt most people will have once they graduate college. The debate on whether or not to make college free or at least more affordable has grown, and more and more people including politicians are looking for ways to make this happen. With every good idea there will be problems that are solved, but new ones will arise. Some reasons people want college level education to be free is it will give everyone a chance for education past high school, it avoids student debt, and it was free when they first made colleges, but the downfalls might include raised taxes, a sacrifice of standards, and financial irresponsibility from the students. Most of the people that attend college are from wealthier families because they are able to pay the bill. When colleges were first made, they were all actually free due to the lack of students and establishments under the Morrill Act of 1862 (Beelineweb.com et al.). This act allowed colleges to be created by the state on federal lands to make a higher education system available to all who desired it regardless of class or income. Now the sum that these schools require is absolutely outrageous. Even the wealthy are not able to afford quality education without taking out a loan. With all the loans, people are acquiring more and more debt, but without the cost of tuition, that debt would decrease dramatically (Pettinger). Many people that need loans currently, would be able to attend and get a quality education without worrying about the debt that will follow them for a long time. Along with that, more people that are not able to go to college now will be able to attend just because they want to instead of forgetting about college as even an option because it costs an arm and a leg (Ayres). Free college education would open many doors that have been shut due to financial struggles. With all the good that would come from free college level education, there are quite a bit of issues that might arise with it. Although free college-level education might seem great, there quite a few things that would be sacrificed with the elimination of tuition costs. With the sacrificed costs, some of the quality of education might be sacrificed as well (Ayres). Without the constant funds coming in from the enrolled students, the facilities might go a while without very necessary updates and repairs. There is always going to be a need for money to pay for all the things colleges provide and if students are not paying for it, the costs would shift from being a personal expense to a societal expense (Beelineweb.com et al.). The reality for everyone would be the increase of taxes to cover the necessary costs. Students would have their tuition covered by the government issued taxes. Without the need for loans, students might lose their financial responsibility because they will not have needed to manage their money to pay for their classes and take their education for granted (Amit Kumar). Some might actually devalue their diploma because they did not pay for the classes. The diploma would have the same value as a high school diploma. Although these things are factors that need to be considered, having education that is at least partially free would be good to allow more people to get the opportunity for getting a better education. Hopefully we will be able to find a way where we are able to go back to when colleges were first made, give everyone an equal opportunity for their education, and avoid debt, but also avoid some of the downfalls from taxes, sacrificed standards, and financial irresponsibility.

Comments are closed.

7 Reasons Why Education Should Be Free

Besides being the cornerstone of success in a society, many barely understand why education should be free. This blog post covers that and more. 

The rise in the cost of education is one of the biggest problems to hit our world today. The rising costs make it even harder if you have limited means to get educated and compete with those who can afford it. 

What is Free Education?

Free education is  education without economic cost , tuition, fees, or other products. You could also define it as one controlled or completely funded by the state, free of charge, or free to all students.

Also, free education means expanded access to education by everyone. So, instead of education being available to certain people based on social status, it expands to everyone to ensure that they can attend for free.

Free schooling should always be available to everyone, not fee-based as with most universities and colleges.

What are the Importance of Free Education?

However, free education helps create a better and more productive future for people around the globe. Also, it provides you with the knowledge needed to succeed and allows you to take on challenges with confidence.

1. Education Empowers People to Be Agents of Change

Also, education is important to create real, sustainable change in the world. It equips you with knowledge and building capacity for marginalized or oppressed individuals. Access to free education can also make positive changes toward a more fair world.

2. It Will Stop the Brain Drain

Hence, access to free education leads to an increase in skilled workers available in your country. A country with more skilled workers will not suffer from brain drain when some move in search of greener pastures. 

3. It Increases the Choices Available to Learners

Free education increases the choices available to learners and reduces the barriers we currently face. The goal of education should be to free us from a controlled and scheduled curriculum and not to limit or define our thinking and creativity.

4. Education Is a Basic Human Right

Also, education is a basic right because it is a form of human capital that facilitates capacity building and opportunities in life. It also allows you to live a fulfilling and productive life.

In modern times, uses of this right may include public literacy programs, public libraries, open universities, and free Internet resources .

What are the Benefits of Free Education?

There’s no better way to have the tools and skills needed to succeed in today’s ever-changing world than through higher education. If the government doesn’t invest in human capital, we will end up with a workforce lacking vital job skills.

Also, an under-educated population will bring down the economy. While educational platforms like Coursera and Udemy help by offering free courses to people, more can be done to make it a reality.

Below are some reasons why access to free education is crucial.

1. Access to Free Education Increases Your Opportunities

2. it reduces inequality.

Education should be for everyone, despite your financial position. After all, education contributes to success and equality and increases your chances of prospering in a nation.  

3. Free Education Leads to Lower Crime Rates 

The argument that a more educated society has fewer crimes is one of the most popular arguments for free public education.

Studying improves human behavior and reduces government costs on law enforcement. This also means lesser costs on damage repairs caused by criminals.

4. Free Education Helps Develop the Economy

Education allows a country to grow economically as it becomes more educated. Education equips you with the skills to work in the job market, from entry-level jobs to higher-paying jobs.

The more skilled labor that exists in a country, the more economic growth that country experiences.

5. Free Education Attracts Tourists 

6. it helps prevent conflict .

Yet, when proper education is free and available for all, we can better handle social and political problems. It also helps us live together peacefully.

7. Free Education Means More Better-Educated Employees 

Education promotes critical thinking, creative development, public speaking, and resourcefulness. 

Businesses benefit by hiring educated staff who are smarter and more productive than uneducated ones. 

What Are the Challenges Facing Free Education?

Challenges facing the actualization of free learning include inadequate facilities, systematic corruption, and insufficient funding.

Free education finance is a long-term problem for governments worldwide. These challenges make it difficult for most countries to effect free schooling in the system, as their attention is usually diverted.

Corruption within the system and among the politicians in power also makes the implementation of free education a hard task to perform.

Examples of Countries with Free Education Systems 

How does education improve your life.

Education helps you by building your knowledge, improving your abilities, and getting you a good job. It also helps in making a decent living and in bringing an overall improvement in your lifestyle. 

Why is education so expensive?

Modern education models are set up to be extremely bureaucratic with different entities controlling various aspects of education. This can stifle innovation and give rise to corruption at all levels of the ecosystem. 

How does the high cost of education affect your standard of living?

It becomes harder for you to have a complete education when schools charge higher fees. While this might not affect people of higher social status, it affects the common man.

As a result, you may have to take out student loans or work many jobs to pay for your education.

What is the greatest advantage of free education?

Also, as a business owner who is better educated, you make wiser decisions for yourself and your employees.

Does lack of access to free education lead to poverty?

Education is perhaps the cornerstone for both children and adults of the future. Because most parents do not have that much money to pay for their child’s education, a college education is often neglected.

A lack of proper education means limitations to most high-paying jobs. It also means more turn to a life of crime in other to get a better life.

Education is a powerful and important tool for shaping the world. It empowers you and sets you free, allowing you to do anything you want to do in life.

Additionally, education leads to new careers, higher wages, a secure society, innovation, tolerance, better healthcare, improved law enforcement, and much more. 

You should also read more about why education is important to society . You will be convinced of the benefits of free learning if you read this.

I hope you found this post helpful. Thanks for reading. 

You may also like:

Why do waiters get paid so little [+ how to make more money], navigating workplace norms: can you email a resignation letter, difference between roles and responsibilities, does suspension mean termination, moral claim: definition, significance, contemporary issues, & challenges, why can’t you flush the toilet after a drug test.

The US should join other nations in giving public schoolkids free breakfast and lunch

Free school meals increase attendance rates, improve nutrition, help low-income students and cut down on bureaucracy

C hildren with stamped wrists . Debt collectors hounding parents . Untouched food thrown away while an adult says: “You have no money.” In a dystopian thriller, these scenes might be dismissed as on-the-nose. But they’re all real humiliations inflicted over unpaid accounts in US public school cafeterias.

Contrast these chilling scenes with a different one: a proud, middle-aged former teacher in a suit, surrounded by beaming schoolchildren, signing into law a program that will feed every student in his state. The most adorable bill-signing in US history – and a vision for how simple it could be to improve our kids’ lives – came courtesy of Tim Walz.

The Democratic vice-presidential nominee and current governor of Minnesota has made a name for himself on the campaign trail with his fiery defense of progressive policies, not to mention his deft deployment of upholstery- and breakfast pastry-related inside jokes. But his politics has a gentler side, too, as evinced by the aforementioned universal free school meals program he helped create in 2023. This straightforward reform has resulted in 2m more monthly meals being served to young Minnesotans.

Universal free school meals are clearly appealing to voters, who support it at a rate of 60% . But beyond photo ops and polling, this policy encapsulates exactly the pragmatic progressivism that Walz has championed and the Democratic party might wisely emulate – one where seemingly intractable problems such as education reform can be ameliorated with reforms that are as bold yet uncomplicated as feeding every schoolchild.

Though demagogues like Ron DeSantis continue to manufacture crises in public education, our system does face daunting challenges. The US’s schools have never been as globally competitive as our wealth would imply. But in the wake of Covid-19, children’s outcomes across a variety of measures precipitously declined and have yet to recover. By spring 2022, third- through eighth-graders had lost half a grade level in math and a third of a grade level in reading .

The rate of chronic absenteeism – students who miss at least 10% of a school year – nearly doubled after Covid-19. Moreover, 70% of educators reported that their students misbehave more than before the pandemic. While the 2022-2023 school year showed some modest improvements , it hasn’t been nearly enough to get us back on track.

Meanwhile, for a nation that prides itself on economic mobility, food security has actually decreased in the US since 2021. This regression is due in no small part to the expiration of the child tax credit . Millions of families that had been lifted out of poverty suddenly found themselves struggling again. And while it is senseless that Congress hasn’t been able to reinstate that policy , the fight over it has illuminated a simple truth: US families can do well if they have the basic resources they need to get by.

Our popular perception of schools’ utility could use similar simplification. We tend to idealize the classroom as a crucible for the consummate citizen, molding the next generation of Americans through the proverbial “three Rs” of reading, writing and arithmetic. But the fact is that schools are also distribution centers for government services: free childcare, free transportation and free healthcare . Improving them entails expanding the services they offer, including free meals for all. The “R” that matters more than any other is resources.

That might seem like an overstatement, but the data shows that free school meals help relieve most of the systemic problems undermining public education. A 2021 review found that free lunch improved students’ nutrition, increased food security, boosted academic success and essentially functioned as a pay raise for working families. Some of the studies reviewed also indicated that free school meals increased attendance levels, especially for low-income students. While perhaps not a silver bullet alone, addressing youth hunger clearly holds transformative potential for our schools.

A total of eight states – Michigan, New Mexico, Vermont, California, Colorado, Maine and Massachusetts, in addition to Minnesota – currently offer no-cost school breakfast and lunch, and expanding this policy nationwide has precedent abroad. High-income countries such as Sweden , Finland and Estonia already offer universal free school meals. In all three, these programs have improved student performance, and in Sweden, researchers estimated that free meals have even increased students’ lifetime incomes. India and Brazil have followed suit with their own variations, proving that this reform is more than feasible in geographically vast and socioeconomically stratified democracies like the United States.

While the Harris-Walz campaign hasn’t explicitly endorsed a federal program to provide universal free school meals, it wouldn’t be a stretch. Kamala Harris has long backed initiatives to aid working families, and the Biden administration already expanded access to free and reduced cost meals to low-income students.

And if no-cost school meals live up to their potential, perhaps our country can recognize the benefits offered by other educational subsidies, such as free pre-K , school supplies and college prep . Fully funding our public education system would create cascading benefits , with higher test scores, graduation rates and college attendance all leading to better adult economic outcomes.

That sounds like a potent – and popular – political program, and it all starts with one relatively uncontroversial reform. As Minnesota state senator Heather Gustafson said on the statehouse floor amid debate over the free school lunch bill: “We really don’t have to fight about everything. We can do good things together. Today, let’s just feed the kids.”

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of the Nation, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has contributed to the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times

• School meals
• US education
• Education policy

Most viewed