The United States is divided, in facts and opinions, over the financing of higher education. The view of most governments, not just in the United States but also in the world at large, is that educational platforms should be free of charge. If it does not apply for all spheres of learning, then at least for the basic schooling levels that end with high school education. Accordingly, these efforts have been supported by the United Nations and other international agencies, with the government enacting policies that aim at creating a change towards this social and political objective. Yet, despite the national and foreign influences that push for free education, the essence of free education is not yet fully defined. It is becoming more difficult to draw the line between affordable education and free education, and to a larger extent, the proponents of free education could sometimes be inadvertently making the mistake of substituting affordable education for free education. This confusion raises the question of how free is free education. And, if and when the system is fully realized, questions remain unanswered over the economic toll of cutting off the financial flow through the education system. The promise of free education may be perceived by some as a misguided move by the government, but in reality, it is the key to success to all students wishing to further their dreams.
For a proponent of free education, a starting point would be the rationale behind the creation of the Morrill act of 1862- a statute that enabled the creation of a land-grant college on federal so that Americans of all social classes could access education. The objective of this rule was to ensure that the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes were made available for the pursuit of professional life. Going back to the 1800s, the cost of attending schools was nearly zero, and people would be attending schools without a penny on it. However, the time has moved so fast that the cost of attending public schools has increased three-fold in less than two centuries. For instance, in the year 2012-2013, Pell Grant only catered for 30 percent of the average cost of higher learning through the four years of higher learning. This figure is compared with the 75 percent coverage of the same in 1973, reveals a significant reduction in the efforts to aid the students in their academic endeavors. The cost has risen exponentially over the last years, so much that some students are not able to pay for it. The consequence is that students from low economy families miss out on the chance to receive the best education because they cannot pay, or if they do, their midget pays can only afford them low-ranking education institutions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
These proposals on free education are therefore made on the grounds that a majority of the younger generation in the United States is struggling. Many cannot make it past high school because they will not afford higher education tuition fees. Some students also opt not to further their academic ambitions for fear of burdening their families. Take, for instance, a family where the breadwinner is also battling lifetime conditions such as diabetes and cancer. Out of the human instances, it would only be reasonable that the young adults freshly graduated from high school opts to downplay the need for education due to the financial and emotional demands of the immediate and pressing health conditions. Health status aside, there are young people under the care of their guardians and who would easily further their education, but for fear of being burdensome on someone who is not their real parents is enough to quench their academic thirst. The list of the factors that weigh out a student’s chance of transitioning from high school to college learning is long and diverse. But, to a greater extent, most of the factors can be attributed directly to the higher costs of tuition fees.
The current efforts to motivate student entry into higher learning institutions through student loans may be making change. But, as per the opinions of the graduates, the loans are an additional burden to a society already drowning on depression and other social constraints. This is particularly true considering that a majority of the students passing through higher learning institutions do so with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, which turns out to be yet another shackle before the debtors ( VOA Learning English, 2017) . This situation limits their active participation in the financial markets and enslaves them to the creditors for decades before they could realize the best out of their careers. Further, the issues of higher learning credits assume that society plays out fairly and that everyone is entitled to a well-paying job after graduation. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, at least not for everyone. Part of the graduating population fail to secure a job years after graduation, and if they get, it may never be enough to sustain basic requirements as well as offset the tremendous high school debt hanging on their shoulders ( VOA Learning English, 2017) . In one way, the pressure to meet the demands of education may be subjecting the younger population to adverse conditions of depression and the associated health risks. In the long run, the high learning expenses cause more damage to society than just the issue of deferred dreams.
What then would happen when and if education is made free? Evidently, a larger number of lower-income students will have the opportunity to proceed to graduation when there are no tuition fees. All the students who drop out because they cannot afford the tuition fees for all the four years will have their biggest obstacle eliminated. It would improve the current college graduation rates, as very few students would be opting for part-time status, break from education, or total dropout for financial reasons. With more people graduating, the United States will be having a society that is equipped with better critical thinking skills, and ultimately, an innovative workforce ( VOA Learning English, 2017) . Also, the younger generations will not be crushed by the burden of student debts. Today, American students clearing from higher studies with loans lower than $ 10,000 is considered lucky. The average loan for those who are graduating stands at about $37,000 ( Page, M., & Clawson, 2019) . This situation contrasts sharply with the students from other countries where there is free higher education, including Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Finland, and Denmark. Students from these countries are not faced with the burden of high tuition fees and have time to pull their future plans together immediately after school. Considering that most of their loans are from smaller living expenses such as food and luxury, they have higher chances to change their financial oppositions in a short time ( Page & Clawson, 2019) . They quickly buy houses rather than rent an apartment. They also have higher chances of starting off a business and contribute more to the economy. The same situation can be witnessed in the United States if the students are freed from high tuition expenses
With free higher learning, students are better positioned to select a major that suits their passion and grades. Sometimes the parent influence the students to pick majors that would not bring financial constraints during the college period. The fear of shelling out thousands upon thousands of money in school fees is a major factor that forces students to pick causes that don’t necessarily pique their interest and enjoyment. This mismatch goes a long way to stir poor performance due to burnouts and disinterest. The whole college life may end up being a waste, all in the name of the tuition expenses.
As a matter of fact, there is a group in society who do not feel the weight of higher education due to their financial position. Students from wealthy families are privileged and could attend the schools of their choice, and with resources of their choice. But, as biology confirms, not all students have the same intellectual capabilities, and the rich children may not always be the brightest, the most creative, or the most innovative. Yet, with the education costs inherently high, it is these children who are exposed to education, and society is inadvertently locking out some of its most resourceful minds by not giving them a chance to study ( Jessica, 2018) . What is important is to come up with a system where the best and brightest have access to the university- not just the wealthiest. Not only does the nation need an educated workforce, but it also needs more educated citizens. It is notable that a person with sufficient education reports a higher degree of health and happiness ( Jessica, 2018) . Reports indicate that societies with higher education attainments register lower crime rates and have higher rates of success of social welfare.
To the opponent, the gaps in educational accomplishments are not defined entirely on the higher costs. Not even the debts contribute significantly to a graduate’s financial performance after leaving a higher learning institution. Looking at the situation from a demand and supply point of view reveals the credibility of this opposing claim. In the simple economies of supply and demand, price is used as a regulating factor in the flow of products. For instance, when there is too much wheat in the market, raising the price of the wheat or reducing the supply of the wheat can be used to control the purchase of wheat. However, supply and demand in the higher education framework are not similar to the market for other inventory. Economists argue that one of the most significant differences between the higher learning market and the normal inventory market is that the cost of education does not define the access to educational services. Accordingly, the one selling wheat does not care about the quality of the person who ends up making the purchase, but the same cannot be said on the university or college seeking to admit a student. The higher learning institutions are greatly concerned with the quality of students they would want to have in their institutions. Primarily, these institutions wish to create stimulating environments for success and are more inclined towards giving opportunities to the best and the brighter students than the wealthiest of them all. Just because a student’s family is capable of paying all the school fees does not guarantee direct energy into their institution of choice. There have been instances where the higher institution markets have turned away many financially capable students through the admission procedures. Taking price as a deterrent to the access of higher education is not a piece of fully conclusive evidence because the price is only charged to the admitted students, not all the students willing to be admitted. In this case, anyone blaming the entry process should be directing the blame on the merits of entry but not the cost of admission.
Again, the community college programs reflect what would become of the education system should the government make the entire hire learning system free of any charges. The cheaper the service offered, the higher the likelihood of it being ignored or undervalued. This correlation would explain the poor academic track records witnessed at the community colleges. The attendees of the community colleges do not pay for their tuition fees, implying that they are preferred options for the segment of the young population who are unable to raise the regular college tuition fees. And instead of providing the best results, the community colleges provide some of the poorest academic records as compared to the conventional billed higher learning institutions. Such a trend should be taken as a warning against risking huge public finances to finance public institutions while cultivating reduced motivation for success in the process. To add on, the 2017 National Student Clearinghouse statistics show that only 27% of the students in community colleges graduate, far less than the 47% who drop out ( Vedder, 2018) . It indicates that the more free an education system becomes, the lower the motivation to complete it. This speculation hints at free education, ruining the already scandalous high dropout rates in education.
Lastly, while the motivation behind the push for free higher learning education is centered on creating an equal platform between the rich and the poor, it may worsen the already existing gap of privilege between the two social divides ( Bruenig, 2015) . Students in the United States receive benefits in form tuition subsidies, living grants, and public loans. The fairness in the access to these types of government aides risks getting disrupted upon the rolling out a fully free education program. This is because there would be no effort to overhaul the effect of these student benefits to wealthy students. Some students come from well-off blackguards, and this means that they are already disproportionality enjoying well-off futures. Given the class-based differences, making the education system completely free would be an indirect way of giving out more money to students from a richer family than for the poor ones because paying for the school fees was not a challenge in the first place.
To this end, it is evident that at least three debatable scenarios emerge: one, the affordability of education is variable depending on a person's socioeconomic capabilities. Two, the student debt crisis is on the center stage of the push for free education. Three, shifting from a privately funded education system to a full government sponsor system would take its toll on the overall performance of the economy.
Summing up, therefore, it is worth noting that education is a necessity, not a luxury. High school education was identified as necessity years back and was immediately made free because no single individual should be locked out of necessity. The same applies to a college education today. If college is central for career-building just as high school education was once deemed, then it should be made free. As all would agree, a college education is a pathway to a more stable life guided by critical thinking skills. Of importance is to make it available for both the poor and the rich. It should be financed by public money and be treated as a right to all the young generation.
References
Bruenig, M. (2015, October 5). The case against free college . Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/matt-bruenig-left-case-against-free-college
Jessica. (2018, February 16). Education should be free for everyone . Youth Voices. https://www.youthvoices.live/2018/02/13/education-should-be-free-for-everyone/
Page, M., & Clawson, D. (2019). It's time to push for free college . NEA. https://www.nea.org/home/62740.htm
Vedder, R. (2018, April 12). The case against free college tuition . Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/04/12/the-free-tuition-craze-now-new-jersey/#162adfd91b2a
VOA Learning English. (2017, February 18). How free is 'Free college?' . VOA. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/the-cost-of-free-tuition/3727969.html
