A lot of people have been drawn in by Bernie Sanders’ promises of free college for everyone. But few of the plan’s most energetic supporters have read far into its contents.
Given a cursory reading, it’s fairly clear that the plan would outright fail to make tuition free in public colleges. It’s an important oversight since it adds up to not so much of an error as a concession- and it’s a concession that Sanders himself hasn’t fessed up to.
The plan, as described on his website, would eliminate tuition at all public colleges without any means testing for students- and would cover all other expenses for economically disadvantaged students.
Because many current college students come from affluent and upper-middle-class families, the benefits would almost totally miss the intended beneficiaries- the poor.
Subsidies for textbooks and other supplies would only trigger higher prices for these already overpriced items. These super inflated costs would only go to the professors who write them, the publishers- thereby further enriching an already active and predatory racket.
Supporters of the plan point out that the New York City University offered free tuition up until the 1970s. But this same school admits free tuition was only available to those who needed the help.
After that, CUNY offered free tuition to all students, a policy which almost immediately triggered as a massive increase in all other costs- while simultaneously devaluing the degrees they offered.
Colleges with low admission standards often have unimpressive graduation rates. Students who are freed of the requirement to pay tuition, and little incentive to perform up to standards, have been shown in study after study to have very poor outcomes in relation to the expectation of higher learning.
Sanders justifies his dubious plan saying that young people need to be able to compete in a tough global economy. What he doesn’t seem to be cognizant of is when a college education is free for the taking, how valuable is it really?
At the moment, we have colleges chock full of politically motivated pseudo-science teaching students that protestors and progressivism are more important than turning out valuable products and services. Millions of unemployable students are pouring into unemployment lines with degrees that are no better than the paper they are printed on.
Free college would drive down the available choices in public colleges. These schools would be under less pressure to provide effective services to students. Proponents of the plan say that the government could simply require these schools to serve the students’ needs effectively.
This is a great idea- forcing a school to provide their services grudgingly- at the point of a government mandate… That’s exactly the kind of personalized service only the lowest of minds can appreciate.
Sadly, this is the answer progressives, leftists, and liberals seem to have for everything—‘if it’s not going smoothly, we’ll just have the government step in and use the power we intend to give them to force people to just do a real whiz-bang job.’
Excuse us if we don’t jump to hail the dear leader who would be willing to enforce such regulations.
Leaders on the other side of the aisle have proposed expanding existing options for privately financing student loans. Unlike government programs, which stick taxpayers with the bill when students default on their loans- private investors have something to lose.
Private investors backing student loans will do what is necessary to ensure that the students get an education which will enable them to pay back their loan. If the tuition is too high, or if graduation rates are too low, these investors will have the influence to improve the quality of the educations that colleges are cranking out.
If schools are not performing up to snuff, the lenders cut back on loans, which will make the colleges feel the pinch. It’s a self-enforcing, checks-and-balances type system, a lot like what some might call a free market.
Also, it would be foolish to ignore the contribution high schools should be making in this equation. The K to 12 school system is still the foundation of our entire education infrastructure. Too many high school grads are ill-prepared for college and struggle to graduate.
Free college might sound great, and feel like progress. But it represents yet another attempt by the left to pass off personal responsibility of the individual onto the state.
The result would be taxpayers footing the bill, as usual, under the threat of force by the government, while the tuition-free student wafts through our institutions of higher learning learning little more than how to beg for handouts.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
