Free college: salvation of our nation, or a detrimental endeavor with misguided focus? Following Obama’s announcement on September 9th 2015, college tuition has become a new hot topic and opinions are pouring in from many perspectives. Free college is the terminology used to describe a higher education system where students do not pay tuition; other costs of living, transportation, books and materials are not necessarily included in the “free” descriptor.
Michael J. Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, takes a firm stance against free college in his article, ‘Free Tuition is a Needless Windfall for Affluent Voters and State Institutions’. Arguing that the nature of free college simply shifts the financial responsibility from prospective students and their families to tax-payers and the state, he maintains that free college wouldn’t necessarily help those who are the most disadvantaged. Petrilli proposes focusing on K-12 reform so that students potentially entering college are more academically prepared and to stop admitting those who are not so academically prepared, citing the effect of free college – especially of free community college – as such: “—these schools have the worst track record with poor kids, especially those with exceptional academic promise.” .There’s considerable support of this claim, as more selective schools have had better outcomes with underprivileged students. I also agree with his stance on K-12 reform, but I cannot condone his argument. Minimizing how powerful of a deterrent the financial uncertainty is to many students, he also ignores the benefits of free higher education, especially in providing a slew of educated professionals who might otherwise have never had access to college, much less to the degrees needed in today’s competitive professional environment. Andrew Kelly, director for the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute also wrote a piece on the issue, ‘The Problem is that Free College isn’t Free,’ in which he discusses the potential pitfalls of free college. …show more content…
While I applaud some of his points, in general I disagree; I think that free college is vital. Not only important, but necessary. He argues that shifting the financial responsibility from the prospective student to the taxpayers doesn’t solve the problems of access, and that the functional capabilities of higher education would be restrained by public goodwill. He points out that collegiate success might actually deteriorate in the face of this. He summarizes it well: “The key question, then, is what happens if public generosity does not keep pace with rising college costs, increases in demand, or both?” The fact that the money must come from somewhere is inarguable, yet Kelly’s claim rests on the questionable belief that the money would come exclusively from the private sector, as well as assuming the way the public would react to such a change. We already have a national budget for education, and if we as a nation can begin to prioritize the future generations, we’ll not only have fulfilled a certain undeniable moral obligation towards our children and the propagation of our own legacy but also secured our future. Because what is our future, if not contained within education and accessibility? Sara Goldrick-Rab wrote another article, hers in favor of free college tuition; ‘Public Higher Education Should be Universal and Free.’ Maintaining that targeted financial aid is ineffective and too powerfully delineated based
Michael J. Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, takes a firm stance against free college in his article, ‘Free Tuition is a Needless Windfall for Affluent Voters and State Institutions’. Arguing that the nature of free college simply shifts the financial responsibility from prospective students and their families to tax-payers and the state, he maintains that free college wouldn’t necessarily help those who are the most disadvantaged. Petrilli proposes focusing on K-12 reform so that students potentially entering college are more academically prepared and to stop admitting those who are not so academically prepared, citing the effect of free college – especially of free community college – as such: “—these schools have the worst track record with poor kids, especially those with exceptional academic promise.” .There’s considerable support of this claim, as more selective schools have had better outcomes with underprivileged students. I also agree with his stance on K-12 reform, but I cannot condone his argument. Minimizing how powerful of a deterrent the financial uncertainty is to many students, he also ignores the benefits of free higher education, especially in providing a slew of educated professionals who might otherwise have never had access to college, much less to the degrees needed in today’s competitive professional environment. Andrew Kelly, director for the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute also wrote a piece on the issue, ‘The Problem is that Free College isn’t Free,’ in which he discusses the potential pitfalls of free college. …show more content…
While I applaud some of his points, in general I disagree; I think that free college is vital. Not only important, but necessary. He argues that shifting the financial responsibility from the prospective student to the taxpayers doesn’t solve the problems of access, and that the functional capabilities of higher education would be restrained by public goodwill. He points out that collegiate success might actually deteriorate in the face of this. He summarizes it well: “The key question, then, is what happens if public generosity does not keep pace with rising college costs, increases in demand, or both?” The fact that the money must come from somewhere is inarguable, yet Kelly’s claim rests on the questionable belief that the money would come exclusively from the private sector, as well as assuming the way the public would react to such a change. We already have a national budget for education, and if we as a nation can begin to prioritize the future generations, we’ll not only have fulfilled a certain undeniable moral obligation towards our children and the propagation of our own legacy but also secured our future. Because what is our future, if not contained within education and accessibility? Sara Goldrick-Rab wrote another article, hers in favor of free college tuition; ‘Public Higher Education Should be Universal and Free.’ Maintaining that targeted financial aid is ineffective and too powerfully delineated based