Free college tuition is NOT too expensive.

[Othelos]

Just a few numbers.

In 2014, the federal government provided $160.78 billion in loans, and $61.08 billion in tax deductions, work study, and grants, putting the total at $221.86 billion in aid.

What would the cost of free tuition be at public universities? $62.6 billion, leaving $159.26 billion in aid left over for housing subsidies for poor students, and anything after that for private school students.

Yes, free college or at least free tuition is entirely possible and all it requires is reallocation of funds. No new taxes.

Anyone who says it isn't possible is wrong, especially considering that we already spend $1.3 trillion (38% of the federal budget) on medicare and social security alone.

[Alyakia]

much like universal healthcare this honestly just seems like a question that could have been answered years ago by pointing at other countries and going "uh.........."

[Imperium of the Gliusor Species]

Just a few numbers.

In 2014, the federal government provided $160.78 billion in loans, and $61.08 billion in tax deductions, work study, and grants, putting the total at $221.86 billion in aid.

What would the cost of free tuition be at public universities? $62.6 billion, leaving $159.26 billion in aid left over for housing subsidies for poor students, and anything after that for private school students.

Yes, free college or at least free tuition is entirely possible and all it requires is reallocation of funds. No new taxes.

Anyone who says it isn't possible is wrong, especially considering that we already spend $1.3 trillion (38% of the federal budget) on medicare and social security alone.

As long as the colleges don't get to upwards-adjust their tuitions to eat through that entire aid package, I support this statement. At least with current tuitions, it's free.
Shame there doesn't seem to be any favoring of that system amongst people who think that equitable treatment is slamming people with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

[British Prussia]

It's to the American education the Death Star, both of them, to the Empire. No other country in the US has this nonsense.

[Hladgos]

Nope. That money does better when allocated to the military. I mean, what's cooler, 3 credit hours of advanced technical composition, or an Apache attack helicopter?

[Caninope]

It's to the American education the Death Star, both of them, to the Empire. No other country in the US has this nonsense.

What nonsense? Fees? Let's look at Britain:

At the University of Bath, fees are 9000 pounds in 2016. This is also the same as at the University of York. This is roughly equivalent to 13000 USD, but given the rise in the dollar's value in the last few years, it would have been equivalent to about 15000 USD only four years ago.

Typical fees at the University of Toronto look to be just as much, if not more than the typical in-state cost for American students.

[Vassenor]

Isn't this one of those things that could be funded easily if Apple actually paid tax like it's supposed to?

[Alyakia]

It's to the American education the Death Star, both of them, to the Empire. No other country in the US has this nonsense.

What nonsense? Fees? Let's look at Britain:

At the University of Bath, fees are 9000 pounds in 2016. This is also the same as at the University of York. This is roughly equivalent to 13000 USD, but given the rise in the dollar's value in the last few years, it would have been equivalent to about 15000 USD only four years ago.

Typical fees at the University of Toronto look to be just as much, if not more than the typical in-state cost for American students.

i wouldn't suggest using britain as an example if you wanted to avoid nonsense

[Othelos]

Isn't this one of those things that could be funded easily if Apple actually paid tax like it's supposed to?

probably.

[Notbotswana]

Interesting OP. As compelling as the idea of "free college" for everyone is, I had to vote "No." Here's why:

1) It's a bit elitist. Everyone would pay for it, but many/most will not be allowed to receive the benefits. That is, entrance to college must be restricted to applicants who demonstrate the potential to succeed (high school GPAs, ACTs, etc.). If everyone were let in for free, it sets up a lot of people for failure and waste a lot of time and effort by all involved.

To solve this, we'd probably have to create other voluntary training and service options that would benefit nearly all high school graduate (e.g. vo-tech trade schools, experiential learning programs perhaps through sophisticated national and community service organizations, military training and service with higher pay, etc.). This will raise the cost of the whole "free college" program by billions since all of these other programs would be included. I would actually support this comprehensive multi-option program despite its higher costs, however.

2) It might lead to greater inefficiencies. Students and their families need "some skin in the game." If college is "free," students and parents have nothing to lose other than time if the student slacks off and fails. Believe me, capable-but-lazy students waste both family and college resources and cause all sorts of inefficiencies within colleges themselves.

Therefore, college operating costs can certainly be better subsidized and/or scholarships can be boosted to higher levels than they are now. But, higher ed should not be entirely free. If parents or the students themselves have invested and therefore risked some of their own money, there will still be some motivation to make sure the students graduate within a timely manner.

3) It will federalize and further bureaucratize higher ed. If the federal government becomes the sole source of income to higher ed institutions, then there will inevitably be all sorts of new laws to make them conform to uniform guidelines. We've learned through No Child Left Behind that this doesn't work for K-12 all that well. Similar damage will occur to higher ed.

Let's improve financial support for high ed but still somehow keep as much of the federal gov't out of this as possible. The current diversity of and competition between private and public universities has created a wonderful array of high ed options. Current accreditation organizations are able to make sure that, regardless of missions and specialties, each college or university meets basic standards.

[DBJ]

And why should some of the most privileged people get more freebies stuffed up their ass?

[Faustian Fantasies]

And why should some of the most privileged people get more freebies stuffed up their ass?

Who are the privileged people in this case?

[Caninope]

And why should some of the most privileged people get more freebies stuffed up their ass?

Who are the privileged people in this case?

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that people who go to colleges tend to come from wealthier families than not. I'm certain that this would hold even after accounting for the people who would go to college if they could otherwise afford it.

So this would essentially be a handout to the middle and upper-middle classes, especially in the short-run (and possibly in the long run).

[Faustian Fantasies]

Who are the privileged people in this case?

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that people who go to colleges tend to come from wealthier families than not. I'm certain that this would hold even after accounting for the people who would go to college if they could otherwise afford it.

So this would essentially be a handout to the middle and upper-middle classes, especially in the short-run (and possibly in the long run).

I see it from a different perspective.

I see it from the vantage point of people like myself, who have lived slightly above the poverty line, struggled greatly, and need help affording college at the expense of those who have more money than they need anyway. (And yes, I am willing to defend the determination that most rich people have more money than they need.)

[Caninope]

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that people who go to colleges tend to come from wealthier families than not. I'm certain that this would hold even after accounting for the people who would go to college if they could otherwise afford it.

So this would essentially be a handout to the middle and upper-middle classes, especially in the short-run (and possibly in the long run).

I see it from a different perspective.

I see it from people like myself, who have lived slightly above the poverty line, struggled greatly, and need help affording college at the expense of those who have more money than they need anyway. (And yes, I am willing to defend the determination that most rich people have more money than they need.)

I say this as someone who's on near-complete financial aid at a private university (I only have to cough up a few thousand for room and board per year).

It would help you, and it would certainly help others like you or myself. When we ask "Cui bono?", we have to recognize that there are plenty of poor for whom this, sadly, might not make a difference. It is almost certainly harder for those who come from parents without college degrees to get in to college (because of both lack of familiarity on part of the parents and generally reduced resources). What this could (not necessarily) do is then make it easier on these middle class parents who have already achieved degrees. Let's be real here- that is exactly who we are supporting. 68% of undergraduates are not 1st Gen college students.

That's why it would be a handout to middle class families, as opposed to the poor, on the whole. Now, we can argue over whether it's worth doing to support those who are poor and are going, and if the marginal effect of people who were formerly shut out justifies it. This all may very well be true. But let's not kid ourselves on a lot of this.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I think that if we wanted to reform educational systems in ways that benefited the poor or first-generation college students (which might not necessarily be our primary goals), I think that we should start earlier. There are far too many high school dropouts, and far too many 1st generation college students drop out for various reasons, including poor preparation. Fixing the primary and secondary systems would, imo, do more good to the poor than the tertiary system.

[Faustian Fantasies]

I see it from a different perspective.

I see it from people like myself, who have lived slightly above the poverty line, struggled greatly, and need help affording college at the expense of those who have more money than they need anyway. (And yes, I am willing to defend the determination that most rich people have more money than they need.)

I say this as someone who's on near-complete financial aid at a private university (I only have to cough up a few thousand for room and board per year).

It would help you, and it would certainly help others like you or myself. When we ask "Cui bono?", we have to recognize that there are plenty of poor for whom this, sadly, might not make a difference. It is almost certainly harder for those who come from parents without college degrees to get in to college (because of both lack of familiarity on part of the parents and generally reduced resources). What this could (not necessarily) do is then make it easier on these middle class parents who have already achieved degrees. Let's be real here- that is exactly who we are supporting. 68% of undergraduates are not 1st Gen college students.

That's why it would be a handout to middle class families, as opposed to the poor, on the whole. Now, we can argue over whether it's worth doing to support those who are poor and are going, and if the marginal effect of people who were formerly shut out justifies it. This all may very well be true. But let's not kid ourselves on a lot of this.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I think that if we wanted to reform educational systems in ways that benefited the poor or first-generation college students (which might not necessarily be our primary goals), I think that we should start earlier. There are far too many high school dropouts, and far too many 1st generation college students drop out for various reasons, including poor preparation. Fixing the primary and secondary systems would, imo, do more good to the poor than the tertiary system.

I agree with your contention that most of the people who would benefit from free college tuition would be middle/upper class students. I think it should be pointed out that any kind of reform to the student debt crisis will be mostly beneficial to the middle class. If most of the people receiving college degrees aren't first generation, and we lower interest rates, then we're largely favoring the middle class. Our current FAFSA program provides money to the middle class (those privileged people) to attend college. However, I'd definitely move in the direction you hinted at, which is to say it's worth it for those who are poor and attending university. In order to account for these people, while still ensuring that we do not fund the educations of those who do not really need funding, I wonder if some type of hybrid solution is possible. We could implement a tier system, where those who fall in income brackets that cannot pay for college will receive full funding from the government, and anybody who makes more will receive gradually less amounts of aid. Although this already sounds like FAFSA, it would be different in that it would offer full funding for those who can't afford tuition, as FAFSA often doesn't cover the full costs of tuition. It would be similar to how some private universities offer free tuition to low-income students.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

That's why it would be a handout to middle class families, as opposed to the poor, on the whole. Now, we can argue over whether it's worth doing to support those who are poor and are going, and if the marginal effect of people who were formerly shut out justifies it. This all may very well be true. But let's not kid ourselves on a lot of this.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO, given the growing problem with debt facing middle class families throughout the Western world and the big part educational debt plays in that issue.

[Othelos]

Interesting OP. As compelling as the idea of "free college" for everyone is, I had to vote "No." Here's why:

1) It's a bit elitist. Everyone would pay for it, but many/most will not be allowed to receive the benefits. That is, entrance to college must be restricted to applicants who demonstrate the potential to succeed (high school GPAs, ACTs, etc.). If everyone were let in for free, it sets up a lot of people for failure and waste a lot of time and effort by all involved.

To solve this, we'd probably have to create other voluntary training and service options that would benefit nearly all high school graduate (e.g. vo-tech trade schools, experiential learning programs perhaps through sophisticated national and community service organizations, military training and service with higher pay, etc.). This will raise the cost of the whole "free college" program by billions since all of these other programs would be included. I would actually support this comprehensive multi-option program despite its higher costs, however.

Someone would still have to apply to get in and go through the process of demonstrating that they are academically ready to attend. Free tuition =/= everyone getting in, I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

2) It might lead to greater inefficiencies. Students and their families need "some skin in the game." If college is "free," students and parents have nothing to lose other than time if the student slacks off and fails. Believe me, capable-but-lazy students waste both family and college resources and cause all sorts of inefficiencies within colleges themselves.

Therefore, college operating costs can certainly be better subsidized and/or scholarships can be boosted to higher levels than they are now. But, higher ed should not be entirely free. If parents or the students themselves have invested and therefore risked some of their own money, there will still be some motivation to make sure the students graduate within a timely manner.

This is about free tuition. Students/parents would still have to pay housing and other fees, which you can consider their skin in the game.

3) It will federalize and further bureaucratize higher ed. If the federal government becomes the sole source of income to higher ed institutions, then there will inevitably be all sorts of new laws to make them conform to uniform guidelines. We've learned through No Child Left Behind that this doesn't work for K-12 all that well. Similar damage will occur to higher ed.

Let's improve financial support for high ed but still somehow keep as much of the federal gov't out of this as possible. The current diversity of and competition between private and public universities has created a wonderful array of high ed options. Current accreditation organizations are able to make sure that, regardless of missions and specialties, each college or university meets basic standards.

The federal govt. already provides tons of aid to students. It doesn't need to oversee the schools, all it needs to do is pay for every state school student's tuition like it does now for some students when they apply. Someone wants their tuition payed for > they apply through fafsa > get a grant.

[Othelos]

Who are the privileged people in this case?

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that people who go to colleges tend to come from wealthier families than not. I'm certain that this would hold even after accounting for the people who would go to college if they could otherwise afford it.

So this would essentially be a handout to the middle and upper-middle classes, especially in the short-run (and possibly in the long run).

If you read my OP, you'd see why that isn't the case. The middle and upper class would still have to pay for housing and other fees, whereas the poor would still receive grants that would cover those things.

[DBJ]

EDIT: For what it's worth, I think that if we wanted to reform educational systems in ways that benefited the poor or first-generation college students (which might not necessarily be our primary goals), I think that we should start earlier. There are far too many high school dropouts, and far too many 1st generation college students drop out for various reasons, including poor preparation. Fixing the primary and secondary systems would, imo, do more good to the poor than the tertiary system.

This. The money would be better spend on primary and secondary education, especially in poor neighborhoods. And if you want to help poor people who could go to college, there are other ways of doing it that target specifically those groups.

[Othelos]

And why should some of the most privileged people get more freebies stuffed up their ass?

It's not a "freebie" considering they'd have to pay for everything besides tuition.

[Sentinel Optik]

If you want "free" college, go join the military and you can earn tuition assistance while you are active duty plus the GI Bill and vocational rehab when you get out.

If you cannot be bothered to contribute to the country prior to wanting your "free" college, please explain to me why I should pay for your education?

[Othelos]

If you want "free" college, go join the military and you can earn tuition assistance while you are active duty plus the GI Bill and vocational rehab when you get out.

If you cannot be bothered to contribute to the country prior to wanting your "free" college, please explain to me why I should pay for your education?

Free tuition =/= free college. And it's already payed for through taxes you already pay (no new taxes).

Next time, read the OP.

[Sentinel Optik]

If you want "free" college, go join the military and you can earn tuition assistance while you are active duty plus the GI Bill and vocational rehab when you get out.

If you cannot be bothered to contribute to the country prior to wanting your "free" college, please explain to me why I should pay for your education?

Free tuition =/= free college. And it's already payed for through taxes you already pay (no new taxes).

Next time, read the OP.

Work study = work.

Grants = qualifications to be awarded them, like GPA.

Tax deductions = you actually are doing something productive to earn income and have earned a tax break for college.

Loans = you pay them back to the government with interest.

All of these things are fine. A blanket free benefit for every dumbass who wants to go to college is not going to do anything but create more dropouts, more college-educated fast food workers, and more morons in college.

There were quite a few people I knew in college who did not belong there, and it's unfortunate that our culture promotes that everyone should go to school to be successful.

How about people who want to go into skilled labor? Are you proposing "free" trade schools for becoming a plumber, mechanic, electrician, etc?

Or are those jobs considered beneath the common liberal?

[Caninope]

I mean, it's almost certainly the case that people who go to colleges tend to come from wealthier families than not. I'm certain that this would hold even after accounting for the people who would go to college if they could otherwise afford it.

So this would essentially be a handout to the middle and upper-middle classes, especially in the short-run (and possibly in the long run).

If you read my OP, you'd see why that isn't the case. The middle and upper class would still have to pay for housing and other fees, whereas the poor would still receive grants that would cover those things.

It doesn't necessarily get rid of the issue, which is that a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) don't want to subsidize upper-middle class children, which is what this might very well end up doing, to some extent.