AT Free Two-Year College CP - Michigan 7 2023 CSPW

Affirmative
No Solvency – Inequality
Free College increases education inequality – wealth prioritization, solely tuition covered, and public college crowd out are all major causes.
Hiler 19 [Tamara Hiler; Former Director of Social Policy, Education & Politics; “Why Free College Could Increase Inequality.” 3-19-2019; https://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-free-college-could-increase-inequality; 7-5-2023; AA]
Contrary to their reputation as “progressive,” free college programs overwhelmingly allocate taxpayer dollars toward upper- and upper-middle-class students, giving them a further head start than they already have in the higher education system. The worst offenders are “last dollar” programs (see Appendix for details on types of free college programs), which pay for the tuition balance that remains after all other grants have been applied. Ultimately, that means picking up a bigger check for students who don’t qualify for need-based aid, like a federal Pell Grant. For example, if two students attend college—one a low-income student receiving a Pell Grant and the other a wealthy student not receiving any other financial aid—tax dollars from the free college plan would flow to the wealthy student (who is already more likely to go to college in the first place and be able to afford it) because they will have greater tuition expenses not already covered by existing aid.
This becomes a big problem when you add up all the money being spent on these programs. One analysis of a federal free college proposal found that families from the top half of the income distribution would receive 24% more in dollar value from eliminating tuition than students from the lower half of the income distribution.5 While targeted programs like the Pell Grant were meant to increase access and make college more affordable for low-income students, free college programs would overwhelming direct tax dollars to subsidize the college tuition of those whose income is too high to make them eligible for need-based aid—proving that what sounds like equality does not always provide true equity.
2. Most free college programs don’t address the real costs of college.
With the rhetoric surrounding rising tuition costs, an easy fix sounds like eliminating tuition altogether. Surely that would solve the problem, right? Wrong. That’s because tuition isn’t the only driver of college affordability. For this school year alone, tuition and fees make up only 48% of the total costs a student pays to attend a four-year public institution.6 One recent study in California showed that while the state has done a good job at keeping tuition affordable through financial aid, low-income students were still struggling with paying the costs of living like housing, food, textbooks, and transportation.7 That’s why it is estimated that simply eliminating tuition expenses would still leave low-income students with $17.8 billion in unmet need for living expenses—the real cost of college for the majority of students.8
Before the introduction of the Tennessee Promise free community college program, on average a low-income student had more than $7,000 in unmet need due to non-tuition costs because often low-income students at community colleges have most—if not all—of their tuition covered by their Pell Grant.9 Rather than using state tax dollars to provide cost of living subsidies to meet those needs, the program instead provided a $1,500 benefit in state tax dollars to higher-income students. New York’s Excelsior program—their version of free two- and four-year college—also failed to address the living costs associated with going to college (though it did less to help high-income students because it had an income cap).10
3. Free college programs could actually restrict access for low-income students.
Lastly, while the intent of free college is to increase access for low-income students, it can have the opposite effect. Free college programs may impact where students choose to enroll, making them more likely to attend schools that might not serve them well or push them out of the schools likely to give them their best shot at success. For example, free college programs designed only for community colleges may discourage low-income students from attending a four-year school, even if they are academically qualified to do so. New research out of Princeton University and the University of Chicago has shown that diverted students—those who would’ve otherwise enrolled in four-year schools but instead enrolled in two-year schools—end up with worse outcomes, including being 18 percentage points less likely to complete a four-year degree compared to directly enrolling in a four-year school.12
And that can be problematic in the long run, as the wage premium of a four-year degree is greater than $14,000 more per year and $900,000 more over the course of a lifetime than a two-year degree, which means this diversion is ultimately setting low-income students back, not helping them succeed.13 Even for those who plan to start at community college to save money and then transfer to a four-year college down the line, data shows that transfer students on average lose 43% of credits during the transfer process.14 That means if those students would have otherwise attended a four-year college to begin with, they may be at risk of losing credits and taking longer to complete—leaving them with a bigger bill to foot in the end.
We already have a problem where students have limited access to attend college. Most students attend college within 50 miles of home and yet 35 million people live in education deserts, an area where there are either zero or only one public broad-access college nearby.15 Enacting free college could make limited public institutions even more selective, putting students who would normally attend them at risk of not being admitted because more high-income students are choosing public institutions instead of private. This “crowding out” effect could push out 20% of low-income students of these public institutions if free college was enacted.16
Free College is the wrong solution – middle class Americans end up footing the bill without boosting job supply.
English 19 [Joe English; founder of Hope in a Box, an education nonprofit based in New York; 10-17-2019; Opinion; Agenda; https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/10/17/free-college-is-the-wrong-answer-001289/; 7-15-2023; AA]
Warren hopes to spend $1.25 trillion over 10 years to make two- and four-year public colleges free; she would also help students pay for housing, food and books. Sanders would eliminate undergraduate tuition at four-year public institutions by matching each $1 increase in state education spending with $2 from the federal government.
Under these regressive proposals, working-class taxpayers would wind up footing the bill for wealthy students who don’t need taxpayer help. According to the Brookings Institution, the majority of the benefit of eliminating tuition would go to students from the top half of the income distribution. But wealthier students can already pay for their education thanks to a combination of family wealth, work-study opportunities and future earnings from their degrees. Median college student debt at graduation was $29,800 in 2018, and the average worker with a bachelor’s degree earned $33,000 more per year than the average worker with a high school diploma. “Free College For All” would waste tax dollars on students who have no debt or whose debt is manageable. Education experts have voiced these concerns for years, but Warren and Sanders refuse to change tack.
The proposals also miss a larger point; “How can we make college more affordable?” is the wrong question. Instead, candidates should be asking, “How can we prepare every American to thrive in the 21st century economy?”
In considering this more fundamental question, candidates should evaluate whether a proposed policy—such as free college—is worthwhile relative to other workforce development options. An informed assessment would weigh both supply- and demand-side interventions to shape our workforce.
On the demand side, policymakers should identify the industries and professions that promise high wages, good benefits and relative stability. For example, industries requiring significant human interaction—such as health care and education—or technical finesse, such as technology fields—are promising. On the supply side, it is crucial to identify the skills required to excel in these jobs, understand where today’s workforce falls short and weigh a range of interventions that address these skills gaps.
Strategically investing public dollars in areas where supply and demand misalign can help job seekers find gainful employment and companies fill critical positions. Nursing professions, for example, promise stable, high-paying jobs and upward mobility; a nurse’s assistant can eventually become a nurse practitioner and earn $124,000 per year—more than double the average U.S. household income. However, a skill gap in nursing could create a shortage of 1 million nurses in the U.S. by 2020. Investing in professions like nursing benefits both job seekers and employers.
Inability to cover non-tuition costs and undermatching means that free college widens the education gap.
Butler 15 [Stuart M. Butler is a senior fellow in Economic Studies at The Brookings Institution. “Obama's SOTU Free College Plan is Bad for Poor Americans,” 1-20-2015. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-obamas-free-community-college-idea-is-a-bad-one/; 7-7-2023; AA]
For one, the plan is badly targeted. Covering the full tuition of all community college students would mean middle-income, and even upper-income, students would get hefty subsidies, even though many do not need the help. Meanwhile, many lower-income students at community colleges would still not have the money to cover the non-tuition costs, such as books, supplies and transportation – and room and board for those not living at home. These costs usually dwarf tuition at a public community college – annual total costs averages over $16,000, while free tuition would account for only about one-fifth of that. True, lower-income students can qualify for Pell grants, but the maximum this year is $5,730, making community college a financial challenge for many, even if tuition were free.
Rather than spend $60 billion to make tuition free to rich and poor alike, a better approach would be to apply an income test and make any new federal program a sliding-scale contribution to total costs.
What’s more, community college is usually a dead end.Rather than being a firm first rung on the higher education ladder, for too many, community college turns out to be a broken rung. Just 20% of students who begin a two-year public community college program actually graduate within 3 years, and typically only 60% of enrolled students return the following year. As for being a low-cost gateway to a successful four-year college, just 15% of students entering community colleges earn a bachelor’s degree within 6 years.
So rather than putting so many eggs in the flimsy community college basket, it would be wiser to help states and school districts provide a fuller range of opportunities at the high school and college levels, such as professional credentials, apprenticeships and high-school career academies.
The plan could also add to the undermatching problem. A grave concern about higher education in America is that many high-performing high-schoolers, especially from less-affluent African-American and Hispanic households, do not apply for challenging universities for which they actually have the academic ability. Instead, many such young people settle for community college or less rigorous four-year institutions. This is a phenomenon known as “undermatching.” This happens for several reasons, including concerns about the financial risks to the student and his or her family. Undermatching widens the education gap between racial groups, and between richer and less-affluent families.
An unintended consequence of providing free tuition at only community colleges is that it would likely add to undermatching. That’s because many smart high-schoolers who come from minority or less-affluent families, or who are the first in their family to go to college, would for financial reasons be even more likely to opt for community college rather that a rigorous four-year college.
If President Obama can convince Congress to provide funds for a college proposal, a better approach would be to enhance income-based Pell Grant funding for the full range of higher education options, rather than trying to steer students to community colleges.
Empirics prove—Free college greatly increases inequality.
Mary Clare Amselem 20 (Amselem has a B.A in Political Science and History from the College of the Holy Cross and an MA in Public Policy—Education from George Washington University. She has previously worked as a Research Associate for the Heritage Foundation and is currently a Policy Analyst in the Center for Education Policy, “Free College Would Be a Disaster—Just Ask Europe,” Heritage Foundation, January 16, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-would-be-disaster-just-ask-europe/CR
Free college sounds great! Who doesn’t like free stuff? To make the idea sound even more appealing, advocates continuously cite Europe as an example of success. Many European countries offer their citizens tuition-free higher education, so why can’t America? The truth is that free college in Europe is no success story. Rather, it should serve as a cautionary tale for the United States. European-style tuition-free higher education has proved one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt: “Free” college is actually wildly expensive. Americans already pay a steep price for our higher education system. Taxpayers—including those who never went to college and never intend to—spend over $150 billion a year on federal student loans, grants, and other government programs. The increasingly hefty price tag attached to college tuition reflects the fact that colleges have no incentive to keep their prices low because students can so easily take out massive loans from Washington. >>>Why College Costs Are Out of Control One of the few factors putting any downward pressure on higher education costs is the growing criticism that universities receive for leaving so many students burdened with massive amounts of student loan debt. Under a fully financed government system, however, universities would receive no such scrutiny; they’d simply pass the bill to D.C. and let lawmakers take the heat from unhappy taxpayers. That cumulative bill would quickly skyrocket. Many European countries that have experimented with “free college” are finding that approach to be simply unaffordable. Germany, for example, saw a 37% increase in the college subsidy cost to taxpayers once public universities removed tuition. Similarly, England had a free college policy between the 1960s and the 1990s. Enrollment soared, straining government revenues. Ultimately, England had to lower resources by 39% per student. Ultimately, England’s free college policy wound up hurting low-income students the most, as schools were forced to cap the number of students admitted. In fact, according to researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research, “the gap in degree attainment between high- and low-income families more than doubled.” European countries that offer tuition-free higher education also struggle with the issue of completion. Finland, for example, ranks first among all OECD countries in terms of subsidies for higher education, with 96% of all higher education funding coming from public sources. However, Finland ranks 25th among OECD countries for degree attainment. France famously touts its tuition-free university system. Seldom, however, do their boasts note that almost 50% of French students drop out or fail out after just their first year. It is clear that transferring the entire cost of higher education from students to taxpayers is fraught with unintended consequences. Countries like England and Poland actually saw significant increases in higher education quality and access after reinstating private tuition payments in their countries. It appears that there is some value in requiring students to invest in for their own education. Given the increased tax burdens placed on taxpayers (including nondegree holders), the significant overcrowding and high drop-out rates, European-style free college should largely be considered a public policy failure.
Free college programs fail—devaluation of state college degrees and sidelining of middle-skill positions, which don’t require a college degree but pay just as much as jobs that do
Kimberlee Jospehson 21 (Josephson is associate dean of the Breen Center for Graduate Success and an assistant professor of business administration at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania. “Why tuition-free college may devalue degrees and deepen class divides,” University Business, February 10, 2021, https://universitybusiness.com/why-tuition-free-college-may-devalue-degrees-and-deepen-class-divides/CR
Affordability has yet to prove itself as an attractive feature for academia, and tuition-free colleges and free college equivalency programs that already are in existence have not suppressed the urge to enroll at institutions viewed to be of higher status.
Actually, the higher the price, the greater the interest, since it is assumed to be of greater value—in terms of professors, resources, residency amenities, and placement potential (grad school or job offers).
Perhaps that is why financial planning for college is at an all time high despite any uncertainties caused by COVID-19.
People would rather attend a nominally high-cost college with support funding (by way of scholarships, grants, federal aid) instead of attending an institution within their means. And those who are able to work (or play) the system will continue to vie for the best options.
Degree devaluation and quality concerns
Tuition-free institutions will run the risk of being undervalued by future employers given the inability for recent graduates to differentiate their degrees, which will not be the case for those attending private institutions where competition for furthering brand equity will still be a factor.
Those who can pay to get ahead, will continue to do so at private institutions, and they will continue to call the shots by ordering their add-ons, expecting perks, and having an inflated view of higher education. And for those who end up attending subsidized semesters, bargaining power for course offerings will be absent and college resources will be pre-determined and fixed.
Such concerns were previously raised in an analysis by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce regarding Hillary Clinton’s free-college plan.
The study determined that premier institutions would be more selective about applicants (given that those not chosen now had free options to retreat to) and a swell in enrollments to government funded institutions would occur resulting in overcrowding, depleting personalized attention and resources, and resulting in slower and lower graduation rates overall.
Valuable middle-skill positions will be sidelined
Higher ed is already diminishing in value as more and more people obtain degrees, making it less of a distinguishing factor for graduates. And degree inflation is problematic since the value of a degree is not always apparent to the demands of available jobs (and some jobs pay quite well without higher ed as a precursor).
Degree attainment delays entry into the workforce and a majority of middle-skilled positions don’t require a four-year education, such as nurse’s aids, landscapers, stylists and designers, etc.
Moreover, apprenticeship programs seem just as effective, if not m

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.