Introduction
The idea of making college accessible has gained much attention recently, with its supporters considering it as a remedy to reducing the number of people getting access to university education. It relates to the number of students enrolling, as it is appealing to people who want to start a career but do not expect to be under a significant financial burden. On the one hand, the establishment of such a policy will create some obstacles in the way and has its pros and cons in the implementation.
This paper investigates Andrew P. Kelly’s view, as stated in his article “The Problem Is That Free College Isn’t Free,” on the question of free college education. Thus, the essay claims that while the free college concept sounds appealing initially, Kelly points out that the policy needs to be revised due to its repercussions on the government’s expenditure, education quality, and student success. The analysis will further examine the author’s main points, look into the evidence provided, and mention a few other perspectives on the matter.
Analysis of Main Point 1: Free College Isn’t Free
Andrew P. Kelly argues that the term “free college” is misleading as students may not be willing to bear higher taxes to finance higher education without a corresponding reduction in the total cost. He posits that despite tuition ceilings being removed, colleges still incur an increase in operating expenses (Kelly, pg1). This, together with a projected rise in the number of those enrolled because tuition has been abolished, makes it difficult not only to retain a high level of education provided but also to
Kelly substantiates his argument by mentioning the barriers to depending on public financing as a means to operate institutions of higher learning. He concludes that the plans are making a mistake in that the rising numbers of college seekers and low or zero increases in public funding would strain the budgets with the high risk of shortages rather than improving accessibility. He gives California’s community college as an illustration where, during the recession, the cheapest fees nationwide caused hundreds of thousands of students to be denied access to education because of a lack of funds (Kelly, pg1).
The evidence of Kelly’s argument can be weighed by its acceptance of the nature of the issues when funding higher education. As long as the issue of attracting more students is seen as necessary, the practical reality of enforcing tuition-free policies without examining the financial sustainability problem raises concerns. Kelly emphasizes the likely outcomes of these strategies and thus initiates a much-needed conversation that sustainable policies may be designed to boost availability without compromising study standards (Kelly, pg2). As such, though he argues with relevance, a balanced glimpse of both short-term constraints and long-term benefits should be done to evaluate whether the initiatives of free college are viable.
Critique of Main Point 2: Tuition Prices vs. Student Success
Kelly asserts that tuition price itself is not the main obstacle to students’ success, contrary to the belief that it would be to improve outcomes to make college tuition accessible dramatically. He further proposes that fundamental systemic problems like education quality and college readiness have more of an impact on their success than the grade itself. This view challenges the exclusivity of admitting the single measure of cutting tuition fees as a panacea for educational attainment.
The text provides strong backing to Kelly’s argument as it points out the never-ending problem that students encounter regardless of whether the tuition fee is abolished. The attendance of low-income students is not necessarily proportional to the federal grants covering their tuition costs, as the completion rates at community colleges still need to be higher (Kelly, para2). This dissonance highlights fundamental problems throughout the education system, including the widespread use of remedial courses as well as biased graduation rates in several institutions.
Whether giving resources to people experiencing poverty is a good idea or not is a debatable question. It is important to note in addition to allocating resources to support disadvantaged students, more than having a sole focus on financial aid is needed to overlook other aspects that contribute to student success. Funding for programs regarding educational preparedness, academic support, and career readiness could be aimed at gaining more complete results in implementation (Davis, pg2).
Nonetheless, to succeed, targeting more resources should be directed at disadvantaged students, but the approach should recognize the complex system of factors influencing educational outcomes. Even making tuition fees zero may only partially resolve the systemic problems and strike the success goal for students. Hence, such an approach that integrates financial support, academic assistance, and institutional reform is required to make education advancement equitable and achievable.
Counterarguments and Rebuttal
Others argue in favor of Kelly’s view, stating that it underestimates the general benefits of the investment in education and even the long-term economic gains for a more educated workforce. Also, as Kelly’s argument that free college initiatives might fuel economic development and social mobility could tip the short-term challenges disadvantaged, these critics could contest that.
Without a doubt, investment in education provides for long-term outcomes. Still, the topicality of implementing tuition-free tuition in situations when financial sustainability is not addressed is worth debate (Harris, para3). Thus, a pragmatic approach that integrates financial support with the broader educational reforms is necessary to ensure absolute success with regard to accessibility and outcomes.
Conclusion
Kelly’s criticism of free college education calls attention to various complexities and drawbacks of this type of policy. He states that although granting aid for tuition fees and abolishing tuition fees cannot immediately improve students’ outcomes themselves, the primary purpose of this act is to address financial sustainability and systemic educational challenges, which is why the implementation of the reform should be gradual. Kelly praises the goal of free college programs to increase access to further education, yet her evaluation urges a question concerning their applicability and performance. In the end, to attain education equity and ensure all students are successful in complying with educational requirements, a holistic approach that provides financial assistance alongside broader educational reforms is needed.
Works Cited
Davis, Aimée. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1 Invest in Career-Readiness Training for College Students. 2021, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED616721.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb. 2024.
Harris, Douglas. “Is Free College a Good Idea? Increasingly, Evidence Says Yes.” Brookings, Brookings, 10 May 2021, www.brookings.edu/articles/is-free-college-a-good-idea-increasingly-evidence-says-yes/.
Kelly, Andrew. “The Problem Is That Free College Isn’t Free – NYTimes.com.” Nytimes.com, 20 Jan. 2016, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/20/should-college-be-free/the-problem-is-that-free-college-isnt-free.
write