Students must be critical of Sanders’ free college plans
One of the main policies Sen. Bernie Sanders has focused his presidential campaign on is free college for all. His full plan calls for all public colleges and universities to become tuition free regardless of student income levels, as well as the cancellation of all outstanding student loan debt in the country.
The proposal has significant backing, as a Hill-HarrisX poll on the topic found that 58% of registered voters support the proposal, including 67% of those polled who make less than $75,000 a year. Free college for all is certainly a popular idea, especially among those in lower income brackets, but it may not be the most sensible or comprehensive solution to the country’s education problem.
Fifty-five percent of students at public schools coming from families earning less than $35,000 a year currently pay no tuition, and of that same income group, 82% pay $5,000 or less per year. Meanwhile, 72% of public university students from families earning over $110,000 a year pay $5,000 or more a year in tuition. Thus, Sanders’ plan for free college, which is overwhelmingly supported by lower-income Americans, will give greater benefits to wealthier Americans.
Free college for all simply contradicts the main goal of the Sanders campaign, which is to redistribute America’s wealth and resources to the lower and middle classes. His plan will actually help upper-class kids the most because those are the ones who typically have the highest tuition bills.
Furthermore, the government money that will be spent on wealthier kids’ education will take away from public spending, whether it be for low-income students’ financial aid, health care, infrastructure or the military. Regardless of where in the government budget it would go, instead of going to legitimate needs, the money will go to tuition that can be paid for by the families anyway.
Rather than Sanders’ counterproductive plan for fixing income inequality, what we need to address in our education system is a lack of alternative higher education opportunities and a lack of college readiness among poorer students.
Contrary to what Sanders campaigns on, the main problem in American education is not an inability to pay for college but rather an inability to prepare our youth for college. It is widely known that inner-city school districts struggle with funding. Districts with the highest rates of poverty receive $1,000 less per student in public funding than the wealthiest districts.
This inequality in public school funding leads to a lack of college readiness and opportunities for students in poorer districts. For example, only 27% of Los Angeles Unified School District graduates in 2016 went on to a four-year college and 36% went to a two-year college. Furthermore, proficiency rates in the Los Angeles Unified School District were 42.3% for English and 31.6% for math.
There needs to be an overhaul of our public education system, which includes making funding equitable across all districts. This will lead to more inner-city and lower-income students earning opportunities at college degrees and eventually higher-paying jobs, leading to a lessening of the income gap.
As a society, we also have to understand that not everyone prioritizes college, and in response, provide other options for students finishing high school. Instead of investing money in the upper class’ college education, we should fund more vocational and trade schools and apprenticeship programs.
These programs will give people skills that they can use in the workforce right away and are viable alternatives to an associate’s degree from a community college. There are over 30 million jobs in the American economy paying an average of $55,000 a year that do not require a bachelor’s degree. Thus, why not provide cheaper, shorter educational options that provide skills for paying jobs?
When it comes to college affordability, the government and private institutions like USC are certainly doing their part. Guaranteeing free college for certain income groups is a reasonable policy, but free college for all makes no financial or theoretical sense, especially from the viewpoint of Sanders supporters. Instead, we should focus on providing young Americans with as many higher-education opportunities as possible.
Sanders’ presidential campaign is fundamentally built on a vision of an America for all and is driven by supporters who want to decrease economic inequality and expand social programs. While some of his policies may benefit some in his supporter base, free college for all may simply be a good tagline and political ploy to gain voters.