# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant College Act into law, laying the groundwork for the largest system of publicly funded universities in the world. Some of America's greatest colleges, including the University of Minnesota, were created by federal land grants, and were known as "democracy's colleges" or "people's colleges."

But that vision of a "people's college" seems awfully remote to a growing number of American students crushed under soaring tuitions and mounting debt. One hundred and fifty years after Lincoln made his pledge, it's time to make public colleges and universities free for every American.

This idea is easier than it looks. For most of our nation's history, public colleges and universities have been much more affordable than they are today, with lower tuition, and financial aid that covered a much larger portion of the costs. The first step in making college accessible again, and returning to an education system that serves every American, is addressing the student loan debt crisis.

The cost of attending a four-year college has increased by 1,122 percent since 1978. Galloping tuition hikes have made attending college more expensive today than at any point in U.S. history. At the same time, debt from student loans has become the largest form of personal debt in America-bigger than credit card debt and auto loans. Last year, 38 million American students owed more than $1.3 trillion in student loans.

Once, a degree used to mean a brighter future for college graduates, access to the middle class, and economic stability.

Today, student loan debt increases inequality and makes it harder for low-income graduates, particularly those of color, to buy a house, open a business, and start a family.

The solution lies in federal investments to states to lower the overall cost of public colleges and universities. In exchange, states would commit to reinvesting state funds in higher education. Any public college or university that benefited from the reinvestment program would be required to limit tuition increases. This federal-state partnership would help lower tuition for all students. Schools that lowered tuition would receive additional federal grants based on the degree to which costs are lowered.

Reinvesting in higher education programs like Pell Grants and work-study would ensure that Pell and other forms of financial aid that students don't need to pay back would cover a greater portion of tuition costs for low-income students. In addition, states that participate in this partnership would ensure that low-income students who attend state colleges and universities could afford non-tuition expenses like textbooks and housing fees. This proposal is one way to ensure that no student graduates with loans to pay back.

If the nation can provide hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and billions of dollars more to Wall Street, we can afford to pay for public higher education. A tax on financial transactions like derivatives and stock trades would cover the cost. Building a truly affordable higher education system is an investment that would pay off economically.

Eliminating student loan debt is the first step, but it's not the last. Once we ensure that student loan debt isn't a barrier to going to college, we should reframe how we think about higher education. College shouldn't just be debt free-it should be free. Period.

We all help pay for our local high schools and kindergartens, whether or not we send our kids to them. And all parents have the option of choosing public schools, even if they can afford private institutions. Free primary and secondary schooling is good for our economy, strengthens our democracy, and most importantly, is critical for our children's health and future. Educating our kids is one of our community's most important responsibilities, and it's a right that every one of us enjoys. So why not extend public schooling to higher education as well?

Some might object that average Americans should not have to pay for students from wealthy families to go to school. But certain things should be guaranteed to all Americans, poor or rich. It's not a coincidence that some of the most important social programs in our government's history have applied to all citizens, and not just to those struggling to make ends meet.

Universal programs are usually stronger and more stable over the long term, and they're less frequently targeted by budget cuts and partisan attacks. Public schools have stood the test of time-let's make sure public colleges and universities do, too.

The United States has long been committed to educating all its people, not only its elites.

This country is also the wealthiest in the history of the world. We can afford to make college an option for every American family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant College Act into law, laying the groundwork for the largest system of publicly funded universities in the world. Some of America's greatest colleges, including the University of Minnesota, were created by federal land grants, and were known as "democracy's colleges" or "people's colleges."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the 2016 primary season we heard a lot about the issue of free college. Should every American be able to get a bachelor's degree at no cost? What are the pros and cons of free college? If you have student debt yourself or you have kids who plan to go to college, you probably have strong feelings one way or another.
Check out our student loan calculator.
2016 was a big year for the subject of free college. President Obama introduced a plan to make community college free, and presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders wanted to make public university tuition free for all. Not sure what the arguments for and against free college are? We've got you covered.

Pro 1: Free college would expand access to education.

Okay, this one is a little obvious, but offering free college tuition would make it possible for more people to pursue higher education. The bright young people who currently skip college because they can't afford it would have the opportunity to get a degree and get better jobs. The high cost of a degree would no longer be an obstacle. For many proponents of free college, it's a question of fairness. They say that access to a bachelor's degree should be accessible to everyone, especially because a B.A. or B.S. is increasingly necessary to get a good job.

Pro 2: A more educated population would have economic and social benefits for the country.

If more Americans were living up to their potential, getting a college degree and getting better jobs, there would be positive ripple effects. Proponents of free college argue that the change would boost the country's productivity and GDP as people sorted themselves into more suitable, higher-paying jobs. There are also social benefits to having a more educated populace and helping young people find their path.
Related Article: Countries With Free College
Pro 3: Students would be free to follow their passions and abilities.

Because the current college education system leaves many students with high amounts of debt, students' choices are constrained. They may choose a major they don't really love simply because it promises a higher future salary. They might go to a college that's not the best one they could get in to because it's cheaper. They might take fewer risks later in life because of their debt. High levels of debt discourage people from starting businesses, moving to another city in search of better job opportunities or changing jobs. If you eliminate student loan debt you eliminate these problems, with benefits for students and for the overall economy.

Pro 4: Free college would help repair historic inequities.

In the U.S., we don't just have a problem of people being too poor to pay for college. We have a problem of generations of inequity based on discrimination. If your great-grandparents, grandparents and parents all had the opportunity to go to college you're much more likely to have that opportunity yourself, both because of accumulated net worth across the generations and because going to college will be expected in your family. Many Americans don't have the opportunity to go to college because their parents and grandparents and so on didn't have the opportunity. Free college would help redress that inequity.

Con 1: The rich would get help they don't need.

If we made college free for everyone we would be subsidizing the rich. Families that have the money to pay for some or all of the cost of a college education might choose instead to take advantage of free college at a public institution. In effect, the government - and taxpayers - would be subsidizing the rich. Critics of free college who point to this drawback often argue that a more targeted reform subsidizing college for the poor and the middle class would make more sense. They also point to the example of Brazil, a country with free college where wealthy students reap a lot of the benefits of tuition-free education at public universities.
Learn how to calculate the cost of college.
Con 2: Free college would be expensive.

Some critics of free college say it would be too expensive to implement. If the idea of raising taxes is a no-go with you you're probably not a big fan of the free college idea. Some plans, such as the one Sen. Sanders proposed, would use a combination of federal and state funds to make public colleges tuition free. But many states have been slashing their higher education budgets, so some critics question how the money would be raised to pay for free college.

Con 3: It could flood the market and lead to credential creep.

Some critics of the free college idea argue that it would lead to a flood of graduates with mediocre credentials all competing for a limited number of jobs. Then, these critics argue, committed workers would have to pursue some kind of graduate degree to stand out from the crowd. This would cost money, as well as leading to credential creep.

Con 4: It offers no way to control what people study.

Some opponents of free college argue that the government shouldn't be subsidizing people's degrees in majors that aren't likely to lead to a good job. They might be okay with subsidizing STEM degrees but not, say, theater degrees. These critics would prefer a more targeted program that would give students fewer choices.

Bottom Line

If you're one of the millions of Americans struggling with student debt you might be sympathetic to the cause of free college tuition. If you're skeptical of "big government" you're probably not sold on the need for a big reform like free college tuition for all. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's helpful to understand the arguments in favor of free college and the points used against the proposal.

Update: So many people reached out to us looking for tax and long-term financial planning help, we started our own matching service to help you find a financial advisor. The SmartAdvisor matching tool can help you find a person to work with to meet your needs. First you'll answer a series of questions about your situation and your goals. Then the program narrows down your options from thousands of advisors to three fiduciaries who suit your needs. You can then read their profiles to learn more about them, interview them on the phone or in person and choose who to work with in the future. This allows you to find a good fit while the program does much of the hard work for you.
Photo credit: ©iStock.com/Rawpixel Ltd, ©iStock.com/vm, ©iStock.com/sshepard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Free College - SmartAsset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the 2016 primary season we heard a lot about the issue of free college. Should every American be able to get a bachelor's degree at no cost? What are the pros and cons of free college? If you have student debt yourself or you have kids who plan to go to college, you probably have strong feelings one way or another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator and Democratic presidential candidate from Vermont, says spiraling college tuition is " a national disgrace." He's running on a promise of free in-state tuition at all public colleges and universities, to be paid for by a new federal tax on financial transactions, including stock, bond and derivative trades.

As the parent of a high school senior, I can't dispute Sanders's assessment of college affordability. Too bad his cure would be worse than the disease, even if it weren't politically unrealistic.

Tuition increases have outstripped inflation at both public and private nonprofit institutions for many years. Though the recent, dramatic rise in tuition at public universities reflects post-recession budget cutbacks by some states, the reasons for the long-term trend are complex.

Economist William Baumol has famously argued that college-level instruction inherently requires large inputs of highly skilled labor, making it relatively resistant to automation and hence to productivity increases. In that way, higher ed is like health care. And, as with health care, the government has responded with a fragmented, opaque array of subsidies, much of which get captured by service providers and added to their cost base - rather than improving affordability as intended.

Sanders's solution, which he says would cost the Treasury $47 billion in its first year, amounts to a single-payer system for higher ed - with pros and cons analogous to those of such a system for health care. There's a certain appeal in replacing the current, convoluted array of grants and loans, funneled through individuals, with just one revenue stream directed at institutions. (Well, 1½: Sanders would have Washington pay two-thirds of the funding and state governments the rest.) Setting a single out-of-pocket price - zero - would indeed make it easier to attend school.

Over time, however, the Sanders plan might make U.S. higher education more accessible but less excellent. Having ruled out price as a means of allocating scarce educational resources, his plan would have to rely on aggressive administrative controls, lest students flood the system and drive up costs - requiring further federal subsidies.

The case of tuition-free Germany, which Sanders holds up as a model, confirms this. Centralized budgeting by state education authorities is key to that country's system. Alas, as University of Albany higher-ed policy analyst Ben Wildavsky explains, "Government funds become spread too thin. That reduces quality and often limits capacity. As a result, well-off students, who tend to be better prepared academically, are more likely to get scarce spaces." Overall, German institutions are considered good, not great; few show up on global " top 50" lists, for what that's worth.

Germany also rations access to higher ed through tracking - selecting a college-bound minority at an early age while putting everyone else on course to less-exalted training. This is one reason that fewer German youth finish college than do American youth, despite not having to pay tuition. At the same time, Germany tends to accumulate " eternal students "; its now-abandoned recent experiment with charging tuition was an attempt to make them either graduate or leave.

If Sanders favors either German-style government management of university budgets or tracking, I haven't heard about it, though he would eventually cap federal grants to states at the 2019 median. To the contrary, his Senate bill bars state "policies to reduce enrollment." He even mandates steps that might increase costs, such as replacing adjunct professors with tenure-track faculty.

The premise of Sanders's program is that educational quality is entirely about inputs. Not a single dollar of federal assistance would be conditioned on performance indicators such as graduation rates or post-graduation earnings.

Which brings us back to Baumol's theory that college costs are doomed to rise faster than inflation because higher ed can't readily be automated. Universities can, and should, test that proposition, using Internet technology; and they will, unless a guaranteed flow of government money from Sanders removes incentives to innovate.

These trade-offs might be justifiable if the moral case for "free," as opposed to affordable, tuition were clear. It's not. Yes, society benefits from a better-educated populace, but the individuals who get educated benefit the most, in the form of higher earnings. Why shouldn't they put some skin in the game?

Sanders's free-tuition-for-all plan heads in the opposite direction. In the name of helping the poor and middle class, it would tax upper-income people who trade financial instruments - and give a lot of it right back to upper-income people who are perfectly willing and able to fund their children's college.

A financial stake encourages students to study hard; it encourages families to monitor their kids' schools and hold them accountable. By contrast, "free" tuition, regardless of need, may breed entitlement, indifference or both. If there's anything young people don't need, it's that.

Read more from Charles Lane's archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Read more:

Janet Napolitano: Higher education isn't in crisis

Letter: The real effects of rising college tuition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator and Democratic presidential candidate from Vermont, says spiraling college tuition is " a national disgrace." He's running on a promise of free in-state tuition at all public colleges and universities, to be paid for by a new federal tax on financial transactions, including stock, bond and derivative trades.