# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Free college sounds awesome.

Can it really work in the U.S.? Bernie Sanders certainly thinks so.

"Public colleges and universities tuition-free? Damn right! That is exactly what we should be doing," he said at the Brooklyn Democratic debate.

To which Hillary Clinton replied: "If somebody promises you something for free, read the fine print."

So here it is, the fine print on Sanders' free-tuition plan:

1. It only applies to public schools

That covers about 68% of college students in the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center.

Private schools would likely be excluded. They usually charge more for tuition, but often offer more financial aid. Some private schools like Harvard and Yale are already "debt-free," which means they won't charge you more than what they think your family can pay.

2. It might not cover room and board

Legislation proposed by Sanders last year would cover tuition and required fees.

But at some colleges, it's room and board that hits your wallet the hardest. Students at public colleges paid an average of $14,000 this year, but only about $4,000 of that went to tuition, according to The College Board. The other $10,000 covered room and board.

While that costs isn't automatically wiped away, Sanders doesn't want students to have to borrow money to pay for room and board, books and other living expenses. If it's determined that those cost more than what your family can pay, you'll get federal, state or college grants to cover the cost.

3. It would still help a lot of students

A large percentage of families cannot currently afford the full cost of public college and end up borrowing money. In 2009, 60% of public school graduates had taken out a federal loan to finance their education, according to The College Board.

Sanders would likely keep federal aid programs that offer grants and loans, and would require states to maintain their own need-based financial aid programs. His plan would also reduce the interest rate charged for federal student loans and expand the federal work study program.

Related: How much private, public and community colleges cost this year

4. It wouldn't exactly be free

Sombody's gotta pay for it. Under Sanders' plan, the amount of money a college usually receives for tuition would now be covered by the U.S. and state governments. The feds would kick in 67% ($47 billion a year) and states would be on the hook for the rest ($23 billion a year).

The additional funds from the federal government would come from what Sanders has referred to as a "Robin Hood tax on Wall Street."

This would likely be in addition to what the government already pays for higher education. The feds currently spends about $76 billion -- mostly flowing to colleges through financial aid grants awarded to students and grants for specific research topics -- and the states pay about $73 billion, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Related: Can Bernie Sanders deliver free college for all? Not so easily

5. It'll be a hard sell

First, Congress would have to act on implementing the tax on financial transactions.And then each individual state would have to opt to participate, which might mean chipping in more for higher education than they already do.

That could be a tough sell because cash-strapped states are already having a hard time maintaining their existing level of aid to colleges. In Illinois, for example, years of a decline in state funds and the current state budget impasse are forcing several state colleges to take drastic measures just to stay afloat

6. Free tuition programs already exist

Tennessee and Oregon have already made community college tuition-free using state funds. Tennessee's program started last fall, is funded from lottery revenue and costs an average of $1,165 per student annually. It brought a wave of new students to the state's community college system this year.

Oregon has a similar program that will enroll its first students in August. These are called "last dollar" scholarship programs, so they kick in after students use up any federal grants or other scholarships.

The city of Detroit is using private donations to fund a new free-tuition program for its community colleges. Eventually, some of the money will come from property taxes already earmarked for the program.

Although it's not called a free-tuition program, Louisiana has one of the most generous scholarship offers. It's currently used by nearly 47,000 residents and covers the cost of tuition for students who meets certain academic standards. But funding for the program is in jeopardy as the state faces a massive budget shortfall.

CNNMoney (New York) First published April 26, 2016: 10:15 AM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 things to know about tuition-free college

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can it really work in the U.S.? Bernie Sanders certainly thinks so. "Public colleges and universities tuition-free? Damn right! That is exactly what we should be doing," he said at the Brooklyn Democratic debate. To which Hillary Clinton replied: "If somebody promises you something for free, read the fine print."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Claudia Niessler wouldn't have attended a university that charged tuition, though even without it her living expenses in college require her to work as many as 20 hours a week at a supermarket.

Stefan Steinbock pipes in that having to pay tuition would discourage people with good grades but low incomes from getting university degrees. Eliminating financial stress means he can focus on his academics.

But Peter-André Alt contends that being unable to charge tuition means universities are overcrowded and thinly stretched. Meanwhile, hard-pressed taxpayers are unfairly forced to fill the void, even if they don't go to college or have kids who do.

Niessler and Steinbock are students at Freie Universität in Berlin; Alt is the university's president. Together, they embody the surprising ambivalence, unexpected nuances, and general pros and cons of tuition-free university in Germany, a model proposed in the US by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The university's name refers not to its cost, but to its origins at the outset of the Cold War, when it was established to be free of ideological influence in then-divided Berlin. "The fact of the matter is, of course, that any university, if it is a university, is free," then-US president John F. Kennedy pronounced on the same day in 1963 that he made his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech. "So one might think that the words 'Free University' are redundant. But not in West Berlin."

Like other universities in Germany, Freie Universität was free of charge in 1963. In 2006, German universities were allowed to begin imposing tuition. Student protests and a political backlash followed, however, and by 2014 tuition was once again being eliminated at the public universities that educate the vast majority of German students. Except for small administrative fees-at Freie Universität, €304 per semester, or about $341, most of it for a public transit pass-most German undergraduates now pay no tuition.

This makes Germany an ideal test case for the proposal, first raised by Sanders, that has now become a centerpiece of Clinton's presidential bid. (Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's education plan calls for student loan repayments to be capped at 12.5% of the borrower's income, with any remaining debt forgiven after 15 years.)

The verdict? It's mixed. German university enrollment rose by 22% as tuition disappeared, the Ministry of Education and Research reports-much faster than in other member countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD-while the number of Germans who opt instead for vocational education has declined. On the other hand, the cost to taxpayers of subsidizing higher education went up 37%.

The amount earmarked to help students with their living expenses has remained unchanged for years, however, and, even without having to pay tuition, students like supermarket worker Niessler increasingly have to resort to jobs or loans to cover rent and food, especially if they're from lower-income families that can't help.

Unable to charge for tuition, meanwhile, universities contend that they are blocked from an important source of revenue. And economists wonder how long the government will be able to support these costs, especially with a new law looming that will limit the amount of money Germany's 16 federal states-which operate the universities-can borrow.

Two years after the last few German universities went tuition-free, Germans are almost equally split about the idea. According to a survey conducted earlier this year by the Ifo Center for the Economics of Education at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, 44% of Germans are in favor of re-imposing tuition, while 46% want to keep things as they are.

Interestingly, when informed that university graduates earn 40% more than those with a vocational education, the proportion of respondents who support bringing back tuition rises to 50%. And an even higher 60% like the idea of requiring students to pay for their tuition after graduating as a portion of their incomes, a model similar to systems in England and Australia.

In the US, the idea of free tuition remains a popular one. In separate polls by Public Agenda and the Campaign for Free College Tuition, about two-thirds of Americans said they support making tuition free for lower- and middle-income students; a more recent survey by the foundation New America puts the figure as high as 70%, but also found that an equal proportion of people think the idea is unaffordable.

Analysts, however, worry that the issues cropping up in Germany could similarly plague the Clinton plan. So far, Clinton hopes to leverage state and federal money to make the in-state public universities and colleges that account for more than two-thirds of US enrollment tuition-free by 2021 for students from families making less than $125,000.

Clinton's proposal would increase enrollment at in-state institutions by from 9% to 22%, Georgetown University's Center for Education and the Workforce predicts. It would also cost an estimated $350 billion over 10 years, according to the Clinton campaign, which says the money would come from eliminating certain tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans.

Critics like Sara Goldrick-Rab, a professor of education policy at Temple University and the author of a new book, Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream, argue that neither Clinton's nor Trump's plans actually address the burden rising fastest for American students: outside costs, including room and board, books, supplies, and transportation.

In Germany, low-income students can apply for grants and loans totaling around €650 a month ($580) to pay for living expenses. Since almost all students live off campus, this creates an unanticipated outcome: Even in a country where universities don't charge tuition, students are still graduating with debt.

" We don't want students to go into debt because they want to study," said Mandy Gratz, a member of the executive committee of the Freier Zusammenschluss von StudentInnenschaften, or FZS, the German students' union. Accumulating costs of living means 68% of German students work, Gratz said over coffee in a café in Berlin's Mitte district. and "students from a lower socioeconomic background try to study faster." Students are also more likely to choose practical subjects like marketing or human resources. Meanwhile medicine and law degrees, which take longer and therefore cost more, remain careers mostly for the wealthy.

Gratz herself is the first in her family to go to college. She started out majoring in comparative literature and political science, but became concerned those subjects might not lead to salaries high enough to pay off her loans and switched to a teaching degree. She also works one full- and one part-time job.

In Germany, making tuition free hasn't led to any noticeable change in the demographics of who goes to college, said Ludger Woessmann, a professor of economics at the University of Munich and director if the Ifo Center for the Economics of Education. As in other countries, enrollment depends more on whether or not a student's parents have higher education experience than what the cost is.

Three-quarters of German's adult college graduates have children who also earn university degrees, Woessmann said, compared to a 25% of adults who don't have degrees. (In all, 57% of the equivalent of high school graduates go on to college here, the OECD reports, compared to what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says is 69% of their American counterparts.)

The Georgetown analysis projects that, under Clinton's plan, a surge in applications to top public universities would make those schools much more selective, shutting out poor and non-white students. Those socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants would in turn land at already overburdened open-access regional public universities and community colleges with low success rates.

The quality of the education is a concern in Germany as well. The shift to dependence on government funding, combined with the increase in enrollment, has also meant a 10% decline in spending per student in the last few years, the OECD reports. Today, German public schools spend about $16,895 per student, compared with $27,924 per student in the United States. Starved for funding, German universities are seldom near the top of international rankings.

German undergraduates, Gratz said, are stuck in lecture halls "with hundreds and hundreds of students." PhD candidates, she said, do much of the instructing. The universities "say they do not have enough money for research. But they do not have enough money for teaching, either."

Alt, the president of Freie Universität, agrees on this point.

"One disadvantage is that we lose one opportunity to enhance our financial support and budget situations," said Alt, who spends much of his time vying for independent sources of funding such as international grants and corporate gifts. If the university could collect fees, he said, "We could invest much more and we could do much more."

Also, Alt said, when most of the costs fall to the government, "The taxpayer is paying for the universities whether or not they're benefitting. A fee system assigns the cost to the person who is benefitting." This, in a country with the third-highest tax rate in the OECD -almost 50% of income.

Woessmann, the University of Munich economist, agreed that "as a general rule, universities in Germany do have much fewer resources than at least the higher-level universities in the US. University presidents in general will always tell you they don't have enough money, but in general I think they have a point there. If the universities were able to [impose] tuition fees, that would surely in general affect the quality."

Those arguments have so far largely been eclipsed, however, by the power of the college-aged voting bloc. Unlike in the United States, where barely one in five college-aged Americans go to the polls, college students in Germany vote in huge numbers. "In the end, it was a political issue," Alt said with a sigh. Candidates "could lose a campaign for charging fees."

Ultimately, it may be economists, and not politicians, who determine the fate of Germany's tuition-free schools. A provision called Schuldenbremse, or "debt brake," will limit how much German states can borrow beginning in 2020, restricting funds available for college costs.

"We will come into a situation where, just like in any downturn, there will be real problems for states to keep up the funding for the universities, or raise it," Woessmann said. "And I think by that time we'll have another discussion about free university tuition."
This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Read more about higher education. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Most Popular

Read full story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Germany proves tuition-free college is not a silver bullet for America's education woes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Claudia Niessler wouldn't have attended a university that charged tuition, though even without it her living expenses in college require her to work as many as 20 hours a week at a supermarket. Stefan Steinbock pipes in that having to pay tuition would discourage people with good grades but low incomes from getting university degrees....

# data[].attributes.body
Con Contention Source

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Look at the Shocking Student Loan Debt Statistics for 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s 2021, and Americans are as burdened by student loan debt as ever. Here’s a deep dive into the often shocking U.S. student loan debt statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
A Look at the Shocking Student Loan Debt Statistics for 2021

# data[].attributes.body
35% dont go college after graudation.
33.4% have a degree in the US in 2016 Meaning that only 1.1 million have a degree.
https://wtop.com/business-finance/2017/04/education-counts-americans-never-smarter/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supporters of tuition-free higher education say it is an investment that benefits all Americans. But opponents say expecting taxpayers to shoulder the cost is unfair.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Taxpayer money would go to funding needed jobs in America. We would be supporting trade school jobs experiencing a shortage in America.
2. Flat subsidies would be giving money to those that can already afford a college education.
3. Community and technical colleges give you the same educational opportunities, and they save you money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trade Schools Home > Articles > Should College be Free?

It's a question that might be more relevant today than ever before: Should college be free in America? Many people have very passionate opinions on the matter. Maybe you're one of them. But this question deserves a lot more than a simple yes or no answer. It deserves an open mind and a balanced exploration of the potential benefits, drawbacks, and alternatives.

After all, America's future is at stake. And nearly everyone agrees that education is one of the biggest factors that will determine the nation's fate going forward. So we have to get it right. Although some people might feel that the current system of higher education and vocational training is working well, many other people believe that it needs at least a little bit of improvement in one way or another.

College affordability is often among the top concerns. When the cost of attending college, university, or trade school is too high, a lot of students simply choose not to pursue a higher education. And that leaves many of them ill-equipped to find good employment, let alone attain the American dream. But high costs also leave some college graduates with levels of debt that hamper their abilities to attain at least a middle-class lifestyle.

So, should college be free? Is that even possible? Keep reading, and decide for yourself.

First, a Few Basic Facts

The concept of publicly funded education goes all the way back to America's Founding Fathers. In 1785, John Adams wrote: "The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and must be willing to bear the expense of it."

And, believe it or not, there actually was a time in the nation's history when people could attend public colleges for free. The Morrill Act of 1862 enabled land-grant colleges to be created by states on federal lands so that higher education could become available to Americans in every social class. The aim was "to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life."

In the early days, students could often attend public land-grant colleges without paying any tuition. That was possible because only a relatively small percentage of Americans actually attended college. But as enrollment grew over the years, so did the funding requirements in each state. And that led to public colleges eventually charging tuition and raising their fees as enrollment grew and state funding slowed.

Today, the cost of attending many public colleges is so high that a lot of students simply can't afford to go. As a result, far fewer students from lower-income families attend college than those from upper-income families. That is in spite of the fact that the federal government continues to supply financial aid to eligible students, including Pell Grants (which don't have to be repaid).

Here are some other important facts to keep in mind as you explore the question of whether or not college should be free:

In 2019, the total amount of student loan debt in America was estimated to be over $1.6 trillion (more than 20 percent higher than it was just four years earlier). And student loans are, by far, the most dominant type of financial aid. And according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), over 60 percent of students who completed undergraduate studies in the 2015-2016 school year had taken out at least one student loan.

According to the Lumina Foundation, more than $80 billion is spent each year by the federal government on post-secondary financial aid. And College Board statistics show that in the 2018-2019 school year, government spending represented over 60 percent of all student financial assistance in the higher education sector.

According to College Board, in the 2019-2020 school year, the maximum federal Pell Grant covered about 59 percent of the average cost of going to a public four-year college or university. Compare that to 1973 when a Pell Grant covered over 75 percent of the cost, according to the Lumina Foundation. So, what about two-year colleges? Is community college free if you get a Pell Grant? Well, it used to be. But the Lumina Foundation says that a Pell Grant only covered about 60 percent of the cost of attending community college in 2013.

The NCES found that close to 17 million students were enrolled in American post-secondary schools in the fall of 2017, which was 3.6 million more than in 2000. Roughly six million of those students attended two-year colleges.

According to NCES estimates from 2017, young adults in America earn 62 percent more if they have a bachelor's degree than if they only complete high school.

The Inequality.org project reports that since the mid-1900s, America's top one percent of income earners have increased their portion of the country's income by more than double.

If you don't account for grants and scholarships, then, in total, about $254 billion is spent on college tuition each year by post-secondary students (based on calculations using data for the 2017-2018 academic period). That number comes from the NCES and is for all types of post-secondary institutions. Tuition at public colleges and universities accounts for nearly $103.5 billion of that total.

A few tuition-free colleges already exist in the U.S. (A tuition-free college is a post-secondary institution that doesn't charge tuition to its students but still may charge other fees, including room and board.) For example, Alice Lloyd College, Berea College, College of the Ozarks, Deep Springs College, Warren Wilson College, and Webb Institute offer free tuition. However, you may have to meet certain conditions, such as being a resident of a particular region, working on campus, attending full-time, or coming from a low-income family.

Free college is something you can take advantage of by attending the United States Military Academy, Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, or Coast Guard Academy. Just keep in mind that each of the military academies is highly selective, so admission is very competitive. You also have to agree to serve as an officer in the service you've chosen for several years after graduation.

Why Should College Be Free for Everyone?

Proponents of free college believe that it would benefit the entire nation, not just the individual students who take advantage of it. They see it as both a private and public benefit. After all, more and more of today's jobs are knowledge-based or require advanced technical skills. So a better-educated workforce would help fill many of the skills gaps that prevent America's economy from growing faster.

Plus, since more people would be able to attain employer-desired credentials, more people would be able to take the good-paying jobs that often go unfilled. And that could result in billions of additional dollars circulating throughout the economy since people tend to spend more money when they have higher incomes and little or no debt. It could also mean that the government would take in a lot of extra tax revenues, which could go a long way toward paying for free public colleges.

But the issue of why college should be free isn't just an economic one. It's also a moral and philosophical one. Do we want every American, regardless of social standing, to have an equal opportunity to reach his or her potential? That's what this country is supposed to be about, yet social mobility has been eroding for the poor and middle class. And without easy and affordable access to quality higher education for everyone, the collective intelligence and goodwill of the nation could also erode. America might become even more socially divided.

Ultimately, many people believe that a college-level education should be an absolute right, so long as you have the ability to benefit from it. Put another way, perhaps free education is a concept that shouldn't be arbitrarily limited to K-12 students. Here are some of the other commonly cited reasons why college should be free:

There might be a lot fewer Americans who need to seek other forms of public assistance.

People would have more freedom to contribute their talents, try new ideas, and pursue the lives they want if they didn't have to start off in debt or stay stuck in a low-wage job. That could lead to happier people. And happier people could lead to a happier, more prosperous nation as a whole.

A better-educated population could result in smarter decision-making at every level of society, which could lead to faster progress in solving our most difficult, collective challenges.

Students would be able to focus more on their studies rather than worrying about how to scrape together enough funds for each upcoming school term. As a result, more of them might graduate on time, ready to take on important jobs in their communities.

Many of America's top-performing high school students never apply to the most challenging colleges and universities even though they have the ability to succeed at them. They often come from minority and low-income households and end up pursuing more affordable, less-selective schools instead. And that helps create a widening gap between wealthier families and those that are less affluent.

Although it benefits many students, the nation's existing financial aid system currently fails to provide an equal opportunity to every qualified American.

Graduating with high amounts of student loan debt has been shown to reduce a person's chances of owning a home, getting married, having children, and accumulating wealth.

How Might the Government Pay for Free Public College?

Technically, free college isn't really free. Someone does have to pay for it. In the case of public college, that means taxpayers. But some economists believe that every American who wants to could go to college for free if the federal and state governments made a few reasonable changes. They don't see the concept as a fantasy. They see it as a very realistic option. Some of the ideas that they've put forward include:

Closing corporate tax loopholes that allow companies to legally avoid paying their full share of taxes

Increasing the tax rates for America's wealthiest millionaires and billionaires

Implementing new taxes on speculative Wall Street transactions

Diverting most of the public money currently spent on student financial aid toward making all public colleges and universities tuition-free instead

Decreasing the military budget

Cracking down on wasteful government spending

If you only count the money doled out in federal grants, it costs about $2.8 billion each year to make college tuition-free (or close to free) for over 585,000 low-income students at public colleges and universities in the U.S. (based on data from the NCES for the 2016-2017 school year). However, grants alone are often not enough to cover all of a student's fees and expenses. So the federal government also offers work-study programs as well as subsidized and unsubsidized student loans, which can sometimes be difficult to repay.

Bernie Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont and a 2020 presidential candidate, has put forward a proposal to make college free. Under the proposed plan, it would cost $2.2 trillion (spread over 10 years) to eliminate tuition at public universities, colleges, and trade schools and cancel all outstanding student loan debt. However, the plan would only cover tuition and fees, not books, room and board, or other expenses. If his plan ever gets enacted, Sanders will pay for free college by passing a separate bill that taxes speculative Wall Street sales transactions. Other 2020 presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris also proposed various plans for free tuition at public colleges (for at least some students) and/or some kind of debt relief for students.

NCES data shows that during the 2017-2018 academic year, the average cost of attending an undergraduate post-secondary institution in the U.S. was $23,835. That number includes tuition, fees, and room and board. More than 20 million students were enrolled at all types of post-secondary schools (both public and private). So it would cost at least $480 billion each year to pay for free college for all undergraduate students, regardless of the institutions they attended.

But nobody is really proposing to make college free for everyone. Those who choose to attend private colleges or universities are generally left out of this discussion. Most proposals only focus on covering tuition for students at public schools of higher education. And getting free college tuition means that you don't have to pay for your courses, but you do have to pay for your other educational and living expenses.

Does Free College Work Well in Other Countries?

The answer appears to be yes. But that might depend on whom you ask. So where is college free in other parts of the world?

As of the 2017-2018 school year, at least seven countries offer tuition-free public higher education (at the bachelor's and master's degree levels). For example, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Sweden have free college education. So free college, in Europe especially, has proven to be a popular idea.

One reason why is that countries with free college education tend to have lower levels of student debt among their graduates. For example, according to the European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE), in Finland, the average college student loan amounts to $1,200, which is used mostly for living expenses while in school. In Norway, the average student loan is worth $9,381. But that is still less than the U.S. average, which is $15,510.

Plus, another compelling fact about free colleges in Europe is that those nations don't generally spend that much more on higher education than the U.S. does. For instance, the EENEE reports that as a share of national GDP, the U.S. spends about 1.36 percent on post-secondary education. But Finland and Norway only spend 2.08 percent and 1.96 percent of their nations' GDP, respectively.

But here's something you may not know: Public college education is not free in the UK, although it used to be. As of 1998, public university is not free in England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. That's because providing free public university was actually shown to reduce the quality of higher education and lessen access to educational opportunities for lower income students due to necessary caps on enrollment. So, in many ways, it did the opposite of what was intended, according to the Brookings Institute. Free higher education is not a concept that works everywhere.

Instead, the UK now has a system in which public universities charge tuition, but students don't have to pay anything up front. Payment is deferred until after graduation, and every graduate is automatically enrolled in an income-based repayment program. So graduates only have to pay an affordable percentage of their incomes once they start earning above a certain threshold.

College is not free in Canada. However, college and university students in Canada tend to pay less for their education than students in the U.S. since public post-secondary schools are heavily subsidized by the provincial, territorial, and federal governments. So the tuition is often lower. But many Canadian students still take out loans. In fact, according to EENEE data, the average student loan in Canada is worth $4,421, which is still far below the American average.

Could Free Public College Work Well in America?

An article by the Pew Charitable Trusts states that Arkansas, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Tennessee offer free college tuition to at least some students who attend public post-secondary institutions. (In some of these states, there are restrictions on who is eligible and/or specific requirements or conditions that have to be met by prospective students.) New York was the first state to make public college and university tuition-free for residents who come from families that earn $125,000 or less per year. Several other states are considering similar kinds of legislation. So free public college might not be such a radical idea.

Plus, other programs around the country are demonstrating that providing people with free college can be very beneficial. For example, consider the Kalamazoo Promise in Michigan, which has been in effect since 2006. Essentially, all students who have been continuously enrolled in the Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS) district since kindergarten-and successfully graduate from high school-are eligible to have 100 percent of their tuition and fees covered (at the undergraduate level) at any public college or university in Michigan that accepts them.

The Kalamazoo Promise also covers high school graduates who have been continuously enrolled in the KPS district for shorter amounts of time. In those cases, students can have 65 percent or more of their tuition and fees covered, depending on how long they've been enrolled. And students are given up to 10 years to use the scholarship after graduating from high school.

The impact has been positive. According to one report, from 2006 to 2013, the percentage of KPS graduates who earned a college-level credential within six years of completing high school rose from roughly 36 percent to about 48 percent. And the impact has been the greatest on the district's low-income students who have increased their probability of attending and completing a four-year college education by over 50 percent.

Why College Should Not Be Free for Everybody

Opponents of free college tend to believe that such an idea would simply be too expensive for the federal and state governments to maintain long-term. As a result, Americans may have to start paying much higher taxes. And that, they say, could hurt the economy since people might have less to spend or invest.

In addition, countries like the U.S., Canada, South Korea, and Japan have already proven that free higher education isn't necessary for building some of the world's most educated workforces. And free public college, by itself, would likely not be enough to promote the big improvements in social mobility that are needed throughout America. That's especially true when you consider the responsibilities of adult and non-traditional learners who often have challenges that aren't just strictly financial in nature.

Many opponents of free college are especially against the idea of making community colleges tuition-free. They point to national statistics indicating that public community colleges are often dead ends for students. For example, only about 25 percent of first-time, full-time students at public two-year colleges earn associate degrees, diplomas, or certificates within three years of starting. And only 16 percent of them go on to earn bachelor's degrees within six years. (In contrast, 62 percent of students at private, non-profit two-year schools-and 61 percent of students at private, for-profit two-year schools-graduate within three years.) Those numbers come from the NCES.

So making community colleges free could have some negative consequences for non-traditional students who often benefit from attending private colleges or vocational schools. If the U.S. government diverts more funding toward making community colleges tuition-free, then students attending private schools could potentially lose access to federal financial aid since that might be one of the trade-offs. They would then need to decide whether to attend free public schools that may be a lot more crowded or provide less effective (and less convenient) training.

Here are a few other reasons why some people oppose free college for everyone:

With more people choosing to attend public colleges because of their tuition-free status, many schools might have to create wait lists or expand the ones they already have. State budgets could become strained, which might lead to cuts and decreased access to the programs that students want to take.

Public colleges and universities might become less worried about wasteful spending since they won't have to compete with other schools on cost. And that could strain public budgets even further.

Many students would still have to borrow money for their living expenses as well as for books and supplies. So they wouldn't get to leave school completely debt-free.

Students might take their college education less seriously if they don't have to pay for it. So graduation numbers might drop, or the people who do graduate might not be as well prepared for the workforce.

Students may not learn to become as financially literate or independent as they should be, choosing instead to stay dependent on government programs whenever possible.

If a lot more people are able to earn college degrees, then the value of those degrees could decrease. And that could lead to a rising number of workers who are underemployed based on their qualifications.

Are There Better Alternatives?

Maybe some kind of middle ground exists. Maybe making public colleges free for everyone isn't the best way to solve the affordability problem. At least, that's what some people believe. They point out that other options have been shown to work well and that those options might be a lot less expensive for American taxpayers.

For example, consider the possibility of an income-based repayment system. For some former college students in the U.S., that is already a reality. They are able to have the repayment of their student loans tied to a small percentage of their incomes. And if they earn below a certain threshold, then they don't have to make any payments. After 20 to 25 years, whatever is left on their loans is written off, as long as they have consistently kept up with all of the payments that were due. The problem, currently, is that this option is only available to low-income people who can prove that they are experiencing financial hardship.

But what if loans with income-based repayment were available to every student? You would be able to attend college, university, or trade school without having to pay for tuition while enrolled. Then, after you left school, you would only have to pay an affordable percentage of what you earned (or, if you didn't earn much, pay nothing at all until your income rose). The more money you earned, the quicker you would pay off the loan. And if your income stayed low, you would have the peace of mind of knowing that your loan obligations would eventually expire.

That's exactly the type of system that Australia uses through its Higher Education Loan Program (HELP). Plus, no interest is applied to the program's student loans. And for those earning incomes above a reasonable threshold, the repayment percentage ranges from only four to eight percent, which is very affordable. On average, it takes just over eight years for an Australian graduate to repay a HELP loan. Of course, many loans will never be fully repaid (roughly 17 percent of them). But the system has been designed to allow for that.

With a system like HELP, college graduates have the freedom to take on lower-paying jobs while they get established. And it provides an incentive for aspiring artists, writers, musicians, philosophers, and other visionaries to pursue an education and develop their talents without worrying about the costs. After all, the world needs such people. Our future would be bleak without them.

So an income-based repayment system represents a compromise. Certainly, taxpayers would still have to help fund it since not all loans would be repaid. But the tax requirements would likely be much lower compared to what a tuition-free system would require. And such a system would also put some of the onus back on students. It would remove important obstacles to higher education without removing accountability or a sense of ownership.

Other ideas and alternatives to free public college that have been put forward by various people include:

Greatly expanding the existing Pell Grant program while cutting back on student loans

Investing in a better system of youth-development and community-development programs

Discouraging the distribution of merit-based financial aid to wealthy students and using that money to provide more opportunities for poor and middle-class students instead

Developing a larger and more robust apprenticeship system for the skilled trades and many other vocational areas

Establishing better incentives for employers to provide more extensive on-the-job training rather than depending on the higher education system to supply fully qualified workers

Providing more incentives to colleges, universities, and trade schools to lower their costs and keep them low

Establishing a more extensive system of national service that enables young adults or career-changing adults to learn new skills, become part of something bigger than themselves, and network with other people while helping to solve some of the biggest challenges in the nation's communities-all in exchange for discounted or tuition-free college

Investing in better pre-college education that teaches students, in greater detail, about all of the realistic options that are available to them

Investing in better financial education for everyone so that all students become financially literate and know how to make money work for them before attending college or getting their first jobs

Providing more public support, including research and development funding, to innovators who are creating online, low-cost, and customized alternatives to traditional institutions of higher education

What's the Best Way Forward for Students Right Now?

Like other students, you might have a lot of options available to you. But the longer you wait to begin your post-secondary education, the more opportunities you may be missing out on. So even though "Should college be free?" is a question worth debating, the best action to take right now is probably to investigate the many helpful possibilities that already exist.

Why not check out some of the career-driven programs in your area just to see how you might benefit from them? Generate a list of nearby schools right now by putting your zip code into the following search tool!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Be Free? Here's What You Need to Consider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trade Schools Home > Articles > Should College be Free? It's a question that might be more relevant today than ever before: Should college be free in America? Many people have very passionate opinions on the matter. Maybe you're one of them. But this question deserves a lot more than a simple yes or no answer.

# data[].attributes.body
Contentions:
1. Taxes must be increased to pay for the free education.
4.  Enrollment would increase and the government would have to budget more money to the schools which can cut funding for other programs such as the military.
5. Difference in tuition for different schools, how much funding would be applied to each school, flat subsidy, etc.
6. Students that are committed to four-year schools who may have better academics have to pay, while two-year students don't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Be Free: Pros And Cons - College Raptor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why should college be free? From making college more accessible to needing to find more funding, here the pros and cons of tuition-free college.

# data[].attributes.body
- Information shouldn't be older than 5 years
- Current events
- Audience: common person
- 3 paragraphs (points) each speech have 3 contentions at least
- goal: persuade audience
-CEW

# data[].attributes.headline
In the United States, students should be guaranteed two years of free tuition to a community or technical college. 

# data[].attributes.subject
In the United States, students should be guaranteed two years of free tuition to a community or technical college. 

# data[].attributes.body
Contentions:
1. People don't pursue post-secondary education due to cost
2. College is essential for building a career and being a full participate in our democracy.
3. Produces more economic activity than a tax cut..
4. College graduates smoke less, commit fewer crimes, draw less on social welfare programs, and generate more taxes.
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/src_ic/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=1d319647-98ab-4f96-99d6-8d2b867427d0%40sessionmgr120

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Education Association (NEA) is more than 3 million people—educators, students, activists, workers, parents, neighbors, friends—who believe in opportunity for all students and in the power of public education to transform lives and create a more just and inclusive society.