Free College for All: Really?
Free college seems to be some candidates’ solution to all that ails higher education. I certainly both appreciate and support some definition of "free" college for those who need it. But, as to "free college" for all, I have long worried that the “free” benefits will insure to the wealthier students if free really means free for all?—?without an income threshold.
And, ponder this: if "free" only relates to tuition, who benefits and who will still be financially constrained?
That is why I have thought that “free,” if offered, should apply to those who need it to be free, not free for all. For all these programs, the devil is in the details of course. Is it free tuition? Free tuition, room and board? What about books (unless we commit to OER)? I am wondering too if even a nominal student stipend is valuable as a sign of student interest; some literature on free things suggests a modest amount of skin in the game helps engagement. That small amount would not be a barrier to entry but a signal of commitment.
This below linked article, looking at nations across the Globe, reinforces the need to reflect on what “free” means and whether it will actually enlarge the enrollment of low income students. To be sure, each nation is different and the incentives and culture may strongly influence outcomes. So read with caution. I agree with candidates' effort to help low income students. That is for sure. Their economic woes are undeniable. But, if Scotland is accurately described, it should be a warning call for us: free college may help the rich more than the poor.
The question for the US is how do we make something free for those who need it to be free. That's a worthy question and one where we need to find answers that work. No harm in learning from other nations, both near and far. And, we can begin by asking what "free" means and to whom "free" does and should apply.
See: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2016-02-23/bernie-sanders-and-the-high-cost-of-free-college