
What's so wrong with a free college education? - jostmey
Certain US politicians as of late have proposed to make college free. It is a good idea in principle.<p>Right now there is already a form of free college education---a PhD in science. The cost of the PhD is generally paid for using government research grants. I know this because I am such a student. That said, I am definitely not treated as a student; rather, I am treated as a source of cheap labor. Each year, the University pockets a large sum of government grants to &quot;educate me&quot; and then puts me to work as a TA or in a lab.<p>So what does this have to do with a free education? My concern is this: If students are subsidized then colleges will lose incentive to provide a proper education. Colleges will start to abuse their student population. Instead of offering courses, colleges will corral students into internships. In time, I fear the student body becoming an unpaid labor force, giving away their time for free for the sake of obtaining practical experience.<p>This is why I fear the free college education.
======
dalke
"If students are subsidized then colleges will lose incentive to provide a
proper education."

My college was subsidized because of an in-state tuition and state
scholarship. Do you think my college didn't provide a proper education?

My high school was subsidized. Do you think it didn't provide a proper
education?

Many if not most colleges in Western Europe are free or highly subsidized. [1]
Do you think they have lost interest in providing a proper education?

California colleges until the 1980s had no tuition. (See
[http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-
weighs-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-weighs-end-
of-free-college-education.html) \- "The California Postsecondary Education
Commission recommended earlier this month that the state abandon one of the
cornerstones of its college and university system, a pledge that the state
will pay instructional expenses for all residents.") Do you think Berkley,
UCLA, etc. had lost their incentive to provide a proper education until the
1980s, when students started to pay tuition again for the first time in
decades?

No, your concern doesn't seem warranted given past and current experience in
providing free education.

[1] Various countries:

Germany - "For a many years there have been no tuition fees in Germany" \-
[http://www.internationale-
studierende.de/en/prepare_your_stu...](http://www.internationale-
studierende.de/en/prepare_your_studies/financing/cost_of_education/)

France - "For the majority of courses at most universities youll have to pay
only 181 EUR a year for a bachelors degree (there are exceptions engineering
courses tend to cost more for example), 250 EUR per year for a masters course
and 380 EUR per year for a PhD. .. With these additional costs, in some public
universities the tuition fees can reach as far as EUR 2.000/year."

Sweden - "If you have citizenship in a European Union (EU) or European
Economic Area (EEA) country*, or Switzerland, you are not required to pay
application or tuition fees." [https://www.universityadmissions.se/en/All-you-
need-to-know1...](https://www.universityadmissions.se/en/All-you-need-to-
know1/Applying-for-studies/Fees-and-scholarships/EUEEA-citizens-exempt-from-
fees/)

~~~
jostmey
The US is not Europe.

US colleges already abuse their student population by increasing tuition costs
faster than inflation. I do not believe the cost of providing an education has
gone up---actually the Internet has made the cost of accessing knowledge free,
and colleges pay adjunct professors next to nothing.

Colleges charge whatever they can get away with. And they can charge a lot
because tuition loans are subsidized.

~~~
dalke
California is in the US, not Europe.

Your hypothesis is: "If students are subsidized then colleges will lose
incentive to provide a proper education".

I showed many examples where that is not true. Some are in Europe. Some were
in the US. There are still schools in the US which are tuition free, or in the
case of Cooper Union, had no tuition until recently.

Your followup comment now concerns a different topic. While it's an important
one to answer, it is only indirectly related to being able to 'provide a
proper education' as we have the existence proof that the University of
California system provided an excellent free college education.

------
nanis
What is wrong with free cars? What is wrong with free houses? What's wrong
with free food?

Demand curves are downward sloping, and supply curves are upward sloping.

> but rationing does not affect the core of the issue. The allocation of
> portions of the supply already produced and available to the various
> individuals eager to obtain a quantity of the goods concerned is only a
> secondary function of the market. Its primary function is the direction of
> production. It directs the employment of the factors of production into
> those channels in which they satisfy the most urgent needs of the consumers.
> If the government's price ceiling refers only to one consumers' good or to a
> limited amount of consumers' goods while the prices of the complementary
> factors of production are left free, production of the consumers' goods
> concerned will drop. The marginal producers will discontinue producing them
> lest they suffer losses. The not absolutely specific factors of production
> will be employed to a greater extent for the production of other goods not
> subject to price ceilings. A greater part of the absolutely specific factors
> of production will remain unused than would have remained in the absence of
> price ceilings. There emerges a tendency to shift production activities from
> the production of the goods affected by the maximum prices into the
> production of other goods. This outcome is, however, manifestly contrary to
> the intentions of the government. In resorting to price ceilings the
> authority wanted to make the commodities concerned more easily accessible to
> the consumers. It considered precisely those commodities so vital that it
> singled them [p. 764] out for a special measure in order to make it possible
> even for poor people to be amply supplied with them. But the result of the
> government's interference is that production of these commodities drops or
> stops altogether. It is a complete failure.[1]

[1]: [https://mises.org/library/human-
action-0/html/pp/882](https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/882)

~~~
dalke
How about "What's right with free cars?"

Very little. We know how to built communities which don't require cars.

How about "What is right with free houses?"

Oddly enough, free shelters for the homeless seem to help reduce homeless
camps, hobo jungles, and Hoovervilles, and keep people from dying in nasty
weather. Turns out people don't like to see signs of homeless on the streets,
and are willing to pay money to reduce that sight. So it isn't "free houses"
but "paid for reduction of an eyesore, and increase in good feelings." Perhaps
some also consider those taxes a sort of insurance should bad times occur to
them.

How about "What's right with free food?"

Again, it turns out most people don't like to see others dying of starvation
when they walk down the street. Many are willing to pay something to avoid
having to face that sight or feel pangs of empathy.

Constructed that way, it's no longer "free X" but "paying for Y", where X is a
way to achieve Y.

~~~
sharemywin
I think both prospectives are valid. Personally, to normalize against the vast
differences in income, I think some products and services(to a point) should
be priced according to income. Medical premiums and deductibles for instance,
child care, education loan payments, groceries, rent, and public
transportation. If you really want to stir things up all prices are priced
according to what would be charged to the top income earner in the US from
last year and your price is your income divided by that number with caps(ie.
premiums and deductibles no more than 12% of your income).

------
CianOConnor
In Ireland we used to have free fees. And even now it is still vastly below
fees in the US. It worked out really well to us. In fact I worry about what a
mess this country would be if we had high fees. Virtually every major industry
in the country collapsed 7/8 years ago and we stayed afloat because of the
(relatively) massive high tech industry and disproportionately well educated
workforce. I can only think of 5 people from my school that didn't go to
college. It has become like a cultural right of passage.

But yeah free/very low fees were the best thing that ever happened this
country in my opinion.

------
sharemywin
I afraid of what it will do to my taxes while companies will just up the bar
required for entry level jobs.

------
SCAQTony
Nothing is free and when it is, it is rarely the best.

You can buy a $1.00 hamburger at McDonalds that is not that filling nor
nutritious. You can buy a $9.00 Big Wave Cheeseburger at Islands restaurant
that is huge, yummy and filling. You can buy a Tri-Beef Burger for $125 at the
Old Homestead Steakhouse in Boca Raton and meet lots of swanky people.

Some "diploma mills" are like the Old Homestead Steakhouse, overpriced and
definitely not worth it.

Some Junior colleges are like a McDonalds restaurant, cheap and incomplete.

If the public wants a free education, I suspect the public will be receiving
the McDonalds version rather than the Islands or Old Homestead Steakhouse. I
hold up public schools as an example.

