Interestingly, the free 2-year college movement began with Republican Governor Bill Haslam of Tennessee. Other states followed his lead but the Trumpian war on education raises questions about the fate of free college. But is offering free 2-year college a good idea? Having some experience in education, I will endeavor to assess this question.
First, there is no such thing as a free college education (in this context). Rather, free education for a student means the cost is shifted to others. After all, staff, faculty and administrators cannot work for free. The facilities of the schools need to be constructed and maintained. And so on, for all the costs of education.
One proposed way to make education free for students is to shift the cost to “the rich”, a group that is easy to target but somewhat harder to define. As might be suspected, I think this is a good idea. One reason is that I believe that education is one of the best investments a person and society can make. This is why I am fine with paying property taxes that go to K-12 education, although I have no children of my own. In addition to my moral commitment to education, I also look at it pragmatically: money spent on education means spending less on prisons and social safety nets. Of course, there is still the question of why the cost should be shifted to “the rich.”
One obvious answer is that they, unlike the poor and the tattered remnants of the middle class, have an overabundance of money. As economists have noted, an ongoing trend is wages staying stagnant while capital is doing well. This is illustrated by the stock market rebounding from the last crash while workers are doing worse than before that crash.
There is also the need to address income inequality. While many might reject arguments grounded in compassion or fairness, there are purely practical reasons to shift the cost. One is that the rich need the rest of us to keep the wealth, goods and services flowing to them (they need us far more than we need them, since we do not need them at all). Another is social stability. Maintaining a stable state requires the citizens to believe that they are better off with the status quo then they would be if they revolted. While deceit and force can keep citizens in line, these have limits to their effectiveness. It is in the pragmatic interest of the rich to help restore the faith of the middle class. One alternative is being put against the wall after the revolution. But in 2024 they seem to have decided to gamble on force and deceit to keep their wealth safe.
Second, the reality of education has changed over the years. In the not-so-distant past, a high-school education was sufficient for a decent job. I am from a small town in Maine and remember that people could get decent jobs at the paper mill with just a high school degree (or even without one). While there are still some decent jobs like that, they are increasingly rare.
While it might be a slight exaggeration, the two-year college degree seems somewhat equivalent to the old high school degree. That is, it is roughly the minimum education needed to have a good shot at a decent job. As such, the reasons that justify free (for students) public K-12 education would now justify free (for students) K-14 public education. And, of course, arguments against free (for the student) K-12 education would also apply. As a side note, I also support free trade schools, and these offer a good chance of getting a decent job.
Some might claim that the reason the two-year degree seems to be the new high school degree is because education has been declining. But there is also the fact that the world has changed. While I grew up during the decline of the manufacturing economy, we are now in the information economy (even manufacturing is high tech now) and more education is needed to operate in this economy.
It could, of course, be argued that a better solution would be to improve K-12 education so that a high school degree would once again suffice for a decent job in the information economy. This would, obviously enough, lessen the need to have free two-year college. This is certainly an option worth considering.
Third, the cost of college has grown absurdly since I was a student in the 1980s. Rest assured, though, that this has not been because of increased pay for professors. This has been partially addressed by a complicated and bewildering system of financial aid and loans. However, free two-year college would certainly address this problem in a simpler way.
That said, there is a concern that this would not reduce the cost of college. As noted above, it would merely shift the cost. A case can be made that this would increase the cost of college for those who are paying for it. One can argue that schools would have less incentive to keep costs down if the state was paying the bill.
It can be argued that it would be better to focus on reducing the cost of public education in a rational way that focuses on the core mission of colleges, namely education. One reason for the increase in college tuition is the massive administrative overhead that exceeds what is needed to run a school. Unfortunately, since the administrators are the ones who make financial choices, it is unlikely that they will thin their own numbers or reduce their salaries. While state legislatures increasingly apply magnifying glasses to the academic aspects of schools, administrators seem to get less attention. Perhaps because of some interesting connections between the state legislatures and upper-level school administrators. One obvious exception is the dismantling of the administrative apparatus and jobs in what the current regime defines as DEI.
Fourth, while conservative politicians have been critical of the state “giving away free stuff” to people who are not rich, liberals have also been critical of free two-year college. While liberals tend to favor the idea of the state giving people free stuff, some have taken issue with free stuff being given to everyone. After all, the usual proposal is not to make two-year college free for those who cannot afford it, but to make it free for everyone.
It is tempting to criticize free two-year college for everyone. While it makes sense to assist those in need, it can be argued that it is unreasonable to expend resources on people who can afford college. That money could be used to, for example, help people in need pay for four-year colleges. It can also be argued that the well-off would exploit the system.
One easy and obvious reply is that the same could be said of free (for the student) K-12 education. As such, the reasons that exist for free public K-12 education (even for the well-off) would apply to a free two-year college plan.
In regard to the well-off, they can already elect to go to lower cost state schools. However, the wealthy tend to pick the more expensive schools and usually opt for four-year colleges. The right-wing elites that bash colleges tend to be graduates of elite colleges and tend to send their children to such school. As such, I suspect that there would not be an influx of rich students into two-year programs trying to “game the system.” Rather, they would tend to continue to go to the most prestigious four year schools their money can buy.
Finally, a proposal for the rich to bear the cost of “free” college, should be looked at as an investment. The rich “job creators” will benefit from having educated “job fillers.” But the rich prefer that someone else pay the cost for them, such as how companies like Wal Mart rely on the state to provide food stamps and Medicaid to keep their underpaid workers alive
It can also be argued that because the college educated tend to get better jobs which will grow the economy. Most of this growth will go to the rich. There would also be an increase in tax-revenues and although the rich are loath to pay taxes, they rely on the rest of us doing so. As such, the rich might find that an involuntary investment in education would provide an excellent return.
Overall, “free” two-year college seems to be a good idea, although one that will require proper implementation. Free four-year college funded by an “investment” by the rich is also a good idea, for the same reasons.