I’m all for free college for every American but why put a cap at $100K? Why punish someone because their parents make more or less? Why punish a parent who works two job to earn more? Why put one group financially back to move other ahead?
If there is a free college plan, it should be for every kid. If there isn’t enough money, make colleges lower their cost, stop giving financial aid to non-citizens and put a small tax on everyone who gets free college so they can pay it forward with a small percentage of their income.
Would you support a cap based on parental income or oppose? Explain why?
Regardless of who is eligible, any plan needs to examine unintended consequences. I assume this will apply to public schools only. Will it be for every public school? What will that do to admissions for state schools that are already hard to get into, even for in-state students (e.g., Michigan, Illinois, UC system)? If anyone can go at no cost, wealthier kids with access to better schools and test prep are still going to have an advantage.
IMO, “free” college for all only works if you have a European model where students are tracked very, very early and the majority don’t have an option of even thinking about university. There is no way “free college” would work with the current US model.
To avoid making free college just an other form of welfare for the rich.
Let’s look the plans, shall we? Most have some sort state/fed combination of funds. How much more is your state willing to fund higher ed? And will your state find the money so that every student has a spot? Of course not. That cost would be astronomical. The state at the very least would have to greatly expand existing facilities if not construct new ones. No money for that, so what would happen?
Well, public schools with their limited spots would become increasingly competitive for admission. We know that wealth and hs academic success are strongly correlated, so who would get those spots? And there you go, welfare for the rich.
Because of the heavy dependence on state funds, there’d be no free tuition out-of-state. And the government doesn’t get that kind of control over private institutions (and if you want to argue the tiny amount of federal aid that goes to students should give the government that power, well, let me start talking about farm subsidies and bail outs and how much power the fed should have over private farmers and over other private industries that get some level of government funding).
This generalization is not accurate. While this is true for Germany, it is not at all accurate for the rest of Europe. The UK, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Ireland have a higher percent of their students attend a university (non-vocational) than does the USA, while Norway, Holland, Sweden, Iceland, Belgium, and France have very similar rates to the USA. The EU average is around 43%, versus the USA’s roughly 50%.
The Russian Federation and Canada both have far higher rates of University attendance than does the USA, and the price of higher education is far lower in both of those countries.
French students need to declare a “major” in HS. There is definitely tracking that happens, albeit not as early as in Germany. They also have a high stakes college entrance exam (as do many other countries) that is only given once/year.
UK schools are relatively expensive for their residents as well.
I would assume that the “free college” would be a public college (with some average set price limit)—so that states with expensive tuition would have to contribute if their colleges cost more or lower their in-state prices to the limit. And, I guess that the cost would be “portable” so you could take your state public “money” and give it to a private college—but there really would be no further need for federal loan guarantees for costs of a private college that exceed that amount? Or, do you just force everyone to go to public college (economies of scale)? Private schools are only for the wealthy? And, does everyone get to go? Or, is there a grade/test threshold? And, how many semesters do they get to complete? If there is “free” college, it should definitely be a public benefit, like K-12.
Y’all made some good points. What about ending all freebies, lowering college cost for all and a college repay income percentage tax for everyone who wants free college? What are the pros and cons of that model?
You just described what Purdue is trying to do. They’re on year 8 of a tuition freeze and have a Back a Boiler Program (income sharing instead of a standard loan).
I’m supportive of “Promise Programs” that pay for a year or two of CC (and often have minimum GPA, attendance, and community service requirements). That followed by the Back-A-Boiler or the Clarkson types of plans ought to put college within reach of most.
However, I do believe that if four year college becomes “free” it becomes valued accordingly. A bachelors will become what a high school diploma is today, and the masters will be the new “must-have”. At the end of the day, our nation has many, many unmet basic needs, and I’m in the camp of taking care of those before paying for everyone’s college.
I think it’s generous for someone to offer $100,000 in college costs to everyone.
I personally think that if you want your student to attend more costly schools, then you as parents should be prepared to pay the extra costs…if you don’t qualify for need based aid.
Our state (CT) is starting a new free community college program called CT Pact. It’s a great initiative open to HS graduates who are residents of CT. By doing this, students can save thousands of dollars. There is a GPA requirement to get and keep the award. I think this is very generous and makes college a reality for many students who otherwise wouldn’t be able to attend. Our CCs have some terrific two year degree programs as well that can lead to employment.
I do not support a bottomless well of money so that students can attend $250,000 or more colleges. That is a choice, not a necessity. Nice if you can do it…but it’s not necessary.
@CupCakeMuffins IIRC, you had issues with how need based aid was calculated for one of your kids…at an expensive LAC. I don’t know where this young student went to college…but if it was a less costly college, I’m quite sure he is getting a great college education.
I think the free college initiatives are really aimed to help students who might not otherwise find college possible. $100,000 is a nice amount. That and the federally funded student loan could probably fund a public university in every state.
If you want your kids to attend a more costly school (choice, not need) I think you should be prepared to help foot the bill if you don’t qualify for institutional need based aid.
CT also has the Connecticut Commitment, where college students in CT with household incomes less than $50,000 can attend UConn for free. Not sure if this applies to the state directionals or not. @thumper1 any idea?
Ok, let’s say the government were to pay for a bachelor’s degree for everyone. 3 6 million high school graduates a year x 4 years x $25,000 per year would work out to 360 billion dollars a year. That’s about one tenth of the current federal budget on top of what already is paid. Approximately 3.5 times what is currently spent on education or 4 times what is spent on transportation by the Federal government. That’s a little over $1,100 extra for every man woman and child in this country every year. Of course these numbers are approximate and many families would have to pay much more and many would pay close to nothing.
Where does the taxation of all stop? What is fair? Would all schools be free? Where would all the money come to build new schools and hire new staff for the new demand? When is enough, enough? Do we just tax the rich more? What about all the other things we want for everyone? Where does it end?