Free community college is not a cure-all solution


On Monday, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee announced that the city will make community college free. This decision comes in a tumultuous time for education, with the controversy of Betsy DeVos’ appointment as Secretary of Education still raising questions about the future state of public education in our country. While San Francisco’s declaration sheds light on the plight of lower- and middle-class America and the worth of scholarship programs like USC’s, the efficacy of free higher education remains questionable.

Funding for San Francisco’s free city colleges will come from “an increase in the real estate transfer tax for commercial and residential properties valued at more than $5 million.” Essentially, the wealthier citizens of San Francisco will have their houses more heavily taxed to pay off tuition. This program is expected to help 30,000 students obtain an associate’s degree for free. While this decision is aimed to aid lower-income students, there are no rules for who can enroll, so wealthy students would be able to seize the opportunity as well. However, given the privilege that higher-income families can afford to send their children to four-year institutions, it would be exploitative to take advantage of a system built to give low-income students a level playing ground. At the very least, however, individuals with higher incomes would be paying disproportionately higher taxes to fund the free college program.

The idea of “free” education, popularized by former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, sounds encouraging, but its flaws must be acknowledged. This tax will merely offset but not cover amenities like books and supplies, which cost roughly $1,700 a year. Additionally, this only applies to community colleges, and while they are higher education, the job market is still bleak without a bachelor’s or master’s degree, which offer much higher professional growth rates, position availability flexibility. But that being said, attending community college is still a vehicle for socioeconomic mobility that poor students are much better off with than without.

Lack of affordability for higher education is an unresolved issue that has increasingly plagued our nation’s lower and middle classes. In the United States, education has simultaneously become not only a requirement but also increasingly unattainable. One study conducted by the New York Times in 2016 showed that public education directly correlates with annual income, and students in sixth grade in the wealthiest areas of the United States are educationally four grade levels ahead of students in the poorest areas, as public schools garner additional money through property taxes. Lack of funding for poorer schools guarantees less opportunity for later success and scholarships, which further diminishes hope for higher education, rendering free college a solution that comes too late.

Private universities like USC have attempted to combat this with aid and merit scholarships, some offering full tuition: About 28 percent of students enrolled for the fall 2016 term are receiving some type of merit-based scholarship.

Additionally, approximately 13 percent of USC’s freshman class are first-generation college students, which may be demonstrate an upward trajectory. However, some merit-based scholarships focus not only on GPA, but also SAT and PSAT scores. The Trustee, Presidential and National Merit Scholarships (which comprise the majority of students receiving merit scholarships from USC) rely heavily on test scores. In fact, these admitted students make up the top 1-2 percent of ACT/SAT scores in the nation. These tests that most students are encouraged to take can be costly; students who are wealthier can also afford private tutoring and practice books. While scholarships were primarily built to encourage high-achieving poor students, they have become naturally skewed toward the wealthy.

There is no easy way to solve the modern education crisis. While free community college may decrease financial burden in the short-term, the long-term effects of such a program are minimal. Until there is equal opportunity for low-income students long before they consider applying to colleges, the U.S. educational system will continue to be underscored by  its vast income inequality gap.

1 reply
  1. Thekatman
    Thekatman says:

    Providing school choice and v I u her programs will help e erroneous to find ways to get their children a better education that what the Dept of Education has provided over the past 40 years or so. This is another reason why DeVos will work towards the goal of providing a better educational opportunity for kids. The DOJ has failed. Teachers unions have failed. They forgot what their mission is, and that is to educate our kids to get them to the next level.

    Teachers unions are about money and power, not providing kids with a qua L it education and school experi3nce. Why do you think the unions are so vocal abiut the DeVos apointment? Follow the money.

    Personally, I would prefer to see the states have the mission of educating our kids, not the federal government.

Comments are closed.