With a presidential election coming up in just a few years, conversations about big political questions are starting to arise once again. One such issue is whether making college tuition free nationwide would be a good idea or even possible. Candidates like Bernie Sanders push for it while others are completely against it. It makes us wonder: Could and should the United States really make college free? While researching the topic I came across a few different perspectives from different authors that I found interesting and quite convincing. It seems the cornerstones of the debate are where all the money to make university free will come from, and whether making university tuition free would actually help the less privileged as intended. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first article I read was For Public Universities, the Best Teaching Is Not the Teaching by Robert Samuels. His main claim is that free tuition is easily feasible and would be the best option for the United States. He begins his article by mentioning Finland. Finland has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the world. Their education system is extremely effective, and Samuels believes the United States should try to imitate it in some way. As mentioned above, when discussing the topic of education, the biggest issue seems to be about money and how we will be able to afford to make tuition free. Samuels combats these doubts with logic and points out that the United States already spends almost as much as it would cost to have free tuition as it does on Pell Grants, student loans, financial aid, and other money spent on higher education. This is a great point because it appeals to the government. By simply giving each college a set amount of money and eliminating other costs such as student loans, you save a lot of money by avoiding the cost of “nonpayment of loans, loan servicing and subsidization, and borrower defaults.” The next thing Samuels does is say how flawed the system we use today is. Some people think that the education system works well and does not need changes, but they are very wrong. In the past three years alone, nearly a quarter of all education benefits were shown to go to families earning between $100,000 and $180,000 a year. The government claims that the benefits are in place to help everyone and especially assist low-income people, but in reality they favor the rich and divide the nation by keeping the poor poor. Samuel not only discusses the two main topics related to free college (funding and success in helping the disadvantaged), but adds another really interesting point. He argues that the main reason we should make tuition free is because higher education is necessary for an effective democracy. Thomas Jefferson had said exactly the same thing. If education wasn't valued and there were only a couple of individuals in power with a high school education, the rest would be somewhat brainwashed. We all need to think independently and deeply, understanding complex ideas. Finally, the essay concludes with “Recent research has shown that inequality in educational attainment goes hand in hand with income inequality, as well as higher crime rates and lower healthcare standards. In other words, the more public higher education is privatized, the better it becomesunfair and society in general suffers more." I think this was the perfect final statement and really encapsulates everything he believes. The next article I looked at was in direct contrast to the first article I read. It was Brian Rosenberg's "Free Public College is a Terrible Idea." At the beginning of this topic the author digresses a bit about his personal opinion without stating any facts and seems very pessimistic about the whole idea of ​​a free university. But then he gets into some very valid points. First he points out that if tuition becomes free, every college will have many more applications than they already have, so they will become drastically more demanding. Almost all free tuition plans do not address the admissions process and how it would be affected. While yes, schools could indeed change and start allowing more students to attend, but more staff would be needed. And, with this tougher admissions screening, it would ultimately benefit children who come from wealthy families and attend esteemed private high schools. The idea of ​​free college should benefit everyone and allow low-income students to have the opportunity to attend college, but if the education is not equivalent from the start, they will still be negatively impacted. Rosenberg also believes that if we made tuition free, graduation rates would steadily decline because “the issue of inequality is too complex and deeply entrenched” to be solved simply by making college free. Rosenburg believes the best way to try to combat the problem would be to focus on ensuring that assistance goes to those who need it most. The first way to do this would be to increase the amount of the Pell Grant. The Pell Grant goes to individuals whose family earns less than $50,000 a year. Currently, the maximum amount someone could receive from the grant is $6,195. As we all know, this barely impacts the cost of most colleges. Increasing the amount of money the Pell Grant can provide would directly impact those most in need and affected by inequality, ending the gap. It would also be much cheaper than making college free. Finally, I read the article It's Time to Push for Free College by Max Page and Dan Clawson. This article contains very similar ideas to the first article, The Best Teaching Is Not Teaching. Page and Clawson believe that college is becoming a necessity, not just a luxury, these days. As companies increasingly expect more from their candidates, those without a high school education don't stand a chance. Low-income individuals and wealthy individuals deserve equal opportunities to succeed. While Page and Clawson acknowledge this huge gap between economic classes when it comes to education, they don't explicitly say that making college free would solve the problem. Their main ideology is that education is a right for all. The article also states that “new spending on public universities, which would be triggered by an influx of more students, produces more economic activity than a similarly sized tax cut, or similar spending on roads and bridges. And, over the course of their lives, college graduates smoke less, commit fewer crimes, draw less on social welfare programs and generate more taxes.” Overall, higher education benefits the economy, government, and every other aspect of life. So why would it shatter our banks and put us in crippling debt? The answer according to Page and Clawson? It shouldn't. Please note: this is just an example. Get a document now..