Argumentative Research Essay

www.diverseeducation.com32 Diverse | November 14, 2019

A� er decades of mounting student debt and rising tuition costs that accelerate at a pace that far exceeds that of the average national salary, some among a crowded Democratic primary � eld are heralding free college as the progressive change this country needs to empower the 99 percent. Joining the ranks of 2020 issues like universal healthcare, voting rights, and immigration reform, many candidates are positioning access to higher education as a fundamental American liberty. � e most sweeping policy reforms come from party heavyweights, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, whose plans for free college look strikingly similar. Both propose making public two- and four-year colleges com- pletely free by taxing the American upper class. Senator Warren intends to levy an ul- tra-millionaire tax for households with over $50 million in wealth while Senator Sanders suggests a 0.5 percent tax on stock trades. While an appealing quick � x to an eco-

nomic epidemic, candidates who champion tuition free public college have not consid- ered its consequences. Free college alone will not solve the problem of access to an a� ordable college education – it will lead to the further exclusion of populations already underrepresented in higher education. I understand the democratizing impulse

behind the push for universal free college. Plans for free public college provide a fea- sible solution to a pressing economic issue of our time. Higher education is becoming more of a necessity, both for individuals’ � nancial stability and for the demands of an evolving American workforce. Yet, the cost of college, sky-high predatory loan rates, and diminishing government appropriations are rendering degree-seekers and -completers deeper in student debt — the impacts of which are profound and include delaying or entirely preventing home-ownership, raising children, and building savings.

Positioning growing higher education costs as a barrier to economic success for ordinary Americans, Democrats claim that free col- lege o� ers unbridled access. � e problem is that from the very act of making college free, another barrier emerges: a surge of ap- plicants to public universities with limited institutional capacities. Consider this thought experiment: come

November 4, 2020, America comes to its senses and we have a Democratic president, house, and senate, and a bill for free college is easily passed for the 2021-2022 academic year. Generation Z and young-Millennial applicants, having seen the pitfalls experi- enced by their Generation X and older-Mil- lennial counterparts, are already showing signs of a collective � nancial prudence. Given the option of leaving college debt- free (or close to it), common sense logic says that the interest in attending two- and four- public institutions in higher education admissions will inevitably grow, as will the applicant pool. With the implantation of various types of free college already avail- able in select states, increased enrollment is a well-documented outcome. Even without free college on the table at

the federal level, researchers have found that college cost in� uences college-going behav- ior. Speci� cally, reductions in tuition for low-income students positively impact their college attendance, in particular at four-year institutions. � is is especially signi� cant given the strati� cation of college enrollment across an individual’s family income and socioeconomic status (SES). Although indi- viduals from lower income families are less likely to go to college than higher income peers, reductions in higher education cost by way of need-based grants have proven successful motivators for college attendance. While the Warren and Sanders free college

proposals apply to all Americans regardless of � nancial need, it o� ers the opportunity to

attend public college for free. Higher educa- tion institutions will remain as the gatekeep- ers to college, deciding who will receive the bene� t. For open-access, two-year commu- nity colleges, this will be a question of capac- ity: do they have the operational resources, the necessary facilities, and faculty and sta� to serve a potentially larger population. For universal free college plans to succeed

in democratizing access to higher educa- tion, simply covering the costs of tuition and fees to public institutions is not enough. Local, state, and federal governments must increase higher education appropriations to enable them to sustain a growing infrastruc- ture. Likewise, public institutions cannot become the only cost-e� ective option for low-SES and racially minoritized students, who already take on substantially more debt than their higher-SES and White counter- parts. � e Pell Grant needs to increase to cover the costs of college beyond tuition and fees (e.g. room and board, books and sup- plies, meals, co-curricular activities, child care) so that private college is a viable option when public institutions reach capacity. Along these lines, it is the federal govern-

ment’s responsibility to put an end to preda- tory loan practices and cap interest rates on student debt. Finally, college is just one stop along the education pipeline. Without com- prehensive support for K-12 public schools, discrepancies in state funding will continue to disadvantage racially minoritized and low-income populations, who will remain underrepresented in higher education re- gardless of whether they have the option of free college. Free public college has the po- tential to substantially narrow the education gap in the U.S., however, without judicious implementation, the federal government risks widening it even more. D — Sarah Sidoti is an assistant director of the

Humanities and Human Flourishing Project at the University of Pennsylvania.

lastword

Free College for Whom? The Emergent Barriers of Free Public College Policies BY SARAH SIDOTI

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.