Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take

With the country’s ballooning student debt, governments must judiciously consider ways for students to attend college in a more frugal manner. One such policy is offering a free education to those who have been admitted but cannot afford the tuition. This would not include other fees like housing and food, but it would unburden families from quite financially. Although this policy sounds great in writing and for political followers, it is one that government should not implement: It is too expensive, there is no certainty the in its returns on risk, and it overextends the government’s power.

This policy is indubitably too difficult to pay and consequentially should not be implemented. Governments sometimes forget that we must aim for a balanced budget, namely one that earns as much (or more) revenue as it does expentidures. When the government spends more than it earns, it goes into debt/ When that debt continues to grow, it can become insolvent. This would be a fiscal nightmare, as many of those students would carry the burden because, ironically, they would not be able to continue their studies; who would pay? The question is begged: Would we want students to only complete their 2nd or 3rd year, only to find that, because of bankruptcy, they cannot continue?

Additionally, this policy assumes that all students attending college graduate, enter the economy, and contribute significantly more so than high school students. However, there is no certainty the returns outweigh the risk itself. Each year, 20% of students drop out because of family, financial, or personal reasons. In other words, they cannot—or may not—complete their studies. Ironically, the so-called students that we want contributing by getting a college education wind up working at a job that does not require one. Yet again, we must ask ourselves the following: Is this the result we want?

Finally, governments should not offer a free university education because they, in fact, cannot. It is an overextension of what they are permitted to do. The Constitution states that Congress must oversee interstate commerce. While some students do come from other states, e.g. a Texan coming to Binghamton University (which is located in New York), most students typically attend a college in their own state. By letting Congress offer a free university education in writing, we are legally allowing Congress to bypass that law. Whether this is a moral issue or not is a moot point; in law, we must follow what is written in code, and if we want to change that writing, we must go through a long process of amending it.

It is important to note that the idea of a free university education is not universally a bad idea. There are plenty of students across the nation that cannot afford a free university education. are deserving of one, and have potential for financial success with a degree. These are the next generation’s lawyers, entrepreneurs, and scientists. They will change our world. Additionally, after a certain year, they may no longer need support from the government because they may start work on-campus that covers the expenses—or even get support from a company they interned for. In other words, they slowly are cosseted off of government support. That being said, we simply cannot risk these few individuals, who are the outliers, let us make fiscal decision when most likely will not become so successful.

May it be said again: Government should not offer a free university education to any student admitted to a university but cannot afford the tuition. It sounds great but is impractical to implement. It is too difficult financially, takes on too large a financial risk, and is even a legal issue. Even if implemented, who knows which states would sue the federal government? Instead of encouraging a college education by offering free tuition, should we not consider high school-based classes that tailor toward certain industries, like woodworking or accounting? This would instead prepare them for work in a field that would later qualify them for a college education. These non-student, qualified professionals would be ready for college many years. Courses like accounting, sales management, human resource management, and culinary are all fields that need individuals, and students can enter those careers with the thought that maybe they will return to college—or maybe they won’t. If government is so concerned about college education, then they should realize that what matters most is not the college education; it is the preparation for a career—and that is just as possible in a high school setting.