In her 2015 New York Times article, “Free Tuition is Not the Answer,” author Catharine Hill criticizes the free tuition plan proposed by some politicians saying that the plan wouldn’t work for low- and moderate-income families. Hill, the president and professor of economics at Vassar College, provides the Department of Education’s online College Scorecard as her source, Hill declares, “...too many institutions, both in the private and public sectors are not affordable for low- and moderate-income families.” The author determines that students of families who earn the most will benefit the most from the free tuition plan. The author counters that instead of free tuition, we should focus on policies that will make more money for need-based aid, from both public and private sector institutions. The
…show more content…
Although the trillion dollar digit is a bit scary, it is, in fact, a good thing, as Hill notes, because it means that more students are going onto higher education. Without these federal loan programs, most students would only be able to go to colleges that their families could afford. Hill emphasizes, if a student is forced to choose a cheaper college or not pursue a higher education at all because of the cost of the tuition, it will not only hurt them but it will also hurt our society as a whole. Hill concludes her article by denouncing the free tuition plan saying that it is an “indiscriminate solution”. Despite this, the author does admit that if the plan wasn’t so “indiscriminate” then she might consider it a beneficial plan. Hill’s arguments against the free tuition plan are very reasonable concerns, and although I agree with Hill’s main point, her overall conclusion that free tuition is an “indiscriminate solution” is a hard concept to
Although the trillion dollar digit is a bit scary, it is, in fact, a good thing, as Hill notes, because it means that more students are going onto higher education. Without these federal loan programs, most students would only be able to go to colleges that their families could afford. Hill emphasizes, if a student is forced to choose a cheaper college or not pursue a higher education at all because of the cost of the tuition, it will not only hurt them but it will also hurt our society as a whole. Hill concludes her article by denouncing the free tuition plan saying that it is an “indiscriminate solution”. Despite this, the author does admit that if the plan wasn’t so “indiscriminate” then she might consider it a beneficial plan. Hill’s arguments against the free tuition plan are very reasonable concerns, and although I agree with Hill’s main point, her overall conclusion that free tuition is an “indiscriminate solution” is a hard concept to