Heavy clinks of change drain out of debt-ridden students’ pockets, leaving their heads weighed with more than just the knowledge they received during college. Throughout time, humanity has constantly sought out to expand its knowledge of the world around it, and progressively, the cost of this search has risen exponentially. College students, who pay copious amounts of money to further their knowledge, present a good example of this. Thankfully, the public does not push this conflict aside and has already begun to sew up the rips debt has created in these students’ wallets. Unfortunately, free college tuition has morphed into more of a seam-ripper for society’s previous mending.
To begin, the amount of money needed to support this movement does not align with the word free. With tuition taken out of the equation, the need for the money does not disappear; all of the costs that tuition cover still exist, so, instead of this money coming from students, taxpayers will end up covering the cost from their own pockets, even though “many of [them] come from modest means”. If this cycle continues, when current students graduate and start to work, they will eventually pay the same, if not more, than the cost of tuition. This process also forces others who already had to pay for their own college or decided not to go to college to pay for other’s education. Along with this, living costs still apply to students; many may continue to struggle to maintain necessary expenses such as “food, housing, books, and transportation”. In addition to taxpayers, colleges already spend more money on students than what the students pay for tuition; it only covers around 45% of what colleges actually spend on their students. In fact, a large amount of states’ “spending in higher education takes the form of lower tuition, made possible by the $50 billion in subsidies they annually provide their postsecondary institutions”. Over all, although taking away tuition seems helpful, it will only sew on multiple new costs that will still need payment.
Furthermore, state programs to support lower-income students who want to go to college already exist. One example of this includes merit scholarships, such as Missouri’s A+ Program. Students may receive these scholarships based on their academic success and from any extracurricular they may have participated in. Alongside these, students also receive scholarships based on their amount of need; this helps lower-income students who cannot receive any financial help from their families. The Pell Grant, a need-based scholarship, “is the largest source of financial aid to low-income college students”. Each year, these grants give out over $28 billion to students. Both of these methods help supply funds to students with a lack thereof, so free college tuition would end up only trying to mend a nonexistent hole for those who could already pay for their own college.
As well as the existing state programs, not all jobs require four years of college to obtain. Often, society pushes high school students to pursue a four-year degree, and sometimes even shames other options. Because of this, employers have a difficult time filling skilled-trade positions with “the kind of employees they need”. In fact, to quench this need, many companies have begun to hire foreign workers to help fill positions in different fields, such as technology. Many of these problems lie within the range of “middle skills,” which do require more than a high school diploma, but less that a four-year degree. Sixty-nine million people work in these jobs, which makes up roughly 48% of the work force. As more workers frequently retire, the growth of empty positions grows, and in sectors such as utilities and aerospace, “50% to 60% of [their] workforce is eligible to retire by 2020”. Consequently, this affects the United States’s ability to keep up with other countries, causing it to lag behind. In order to keep from deflating, the skilled trade industry needs to lead more future workers into programs with a dwindling work force.
On the other hand, people argue for “free” college because they believe that people should treat higher education as a basic right, and though this holds true to a point, it does not support the entire situation. Free schooling already exists; taxpayers pay for free primary and secondary schooling for children, even if they do not have kids. In these schools, children learn basic knowledge which sets everyone on a level ground upon graduation. After this, society deems them adults, which mean they have to make their own decisions, such as how to support themselves whether or not they choose to pursue higher education. Often, individual constitutional rights overlap, such as in the debate over abortion; either side taken, the mother’s side or the future child’s side, on this matter still puts one person’s rights over the other’s. Akin to this argument, the potential “right” for students to continue their education comes at the cost of other people’s money and their right to choose where to spend it. In the end, saying that students should have the right to free higher education equals the same as saying that they should have the right to use other’s thread to stitch up their own wallets.
Overall, free college drips with seemingly positive, tempting dyes, but it actually acts more like an acid when put into use. The potential holes that this notion could create proves that people should not vote to bring it into reality; though attractive, its rips may end up too severe for a simple needle and thread.
