If we agree that free public K-12 education is important, why not college too?

The statistics are staggering.  Two-thirds of college students graduate in debt; their average debt is about $22,000 per student.  Between student loans and credit card debt (often used to help pay for living expenses and textbooks that full-time students can't afford, since they cannot work full-time while going to school full-time), many students finish school worried first and foremost about how they are going to pay down that debt, especially in today's economy where jobs are harder and harder to come by.

In light of the amount of debt today's college students are shouldering, the consequences are not all that surprising.  Some  (according to the United States Students Association, 3.2 million qualified students) decide not to go to college at all--why take on that much debt, when the odds of actually finding lucrative work afterward seem to be diminishing by the day?  The many who do take the plunge and stick it out to its end are far less likely to go into service-related jobs desperately needing good minds, such as teaching, social work and non-corporate scientific and medical research.  The reason is clear.  If someone graduates with $22,000 of debt, a job that starts at $35K or $38K is not just unappealing, it's not feasible. 

Liza Featherstone investigates and explains the situation very well in her article in The Nation, "Out of Reach."  Americans seem to take for granted that college is, always has been and always will be, well, expensive.  Obviously there are ways around the expense.  Scholarships (both need-based and merit-based) are certainly out there.  The federal Pell Grant was created to help lower-income students attend college either free or at a drastically reduced personal cost.  In 1990-91, the Pell Grant covered 76% of tuition at public four-year colleges.  But with tuition rising rapidly as states struggle to balance their budgets and decrease public funding for schools, it now covers less than half.  Students whose parents do not have the means to make up the difference usually do so by taking out student loans.  Thus, students from poor or working-class families enter an uncertain job market with large amounts of debt.  (For anyone unconvinced by statistics alone, I recommend watching the PBS NOW episode from June 19, where we see how student loan debt can actually ruin lives.)

But it is perhaps the middle class who are hit hardest by rising tuition and, consequently, rising debt.  There are quite a few need-based scholarships that can be combined with the Pell Grant for students from truly needy families (though it takes some know-how and/or knowledgeable help to navigate the opportunities and find the scholarships, a task that can be quite daunting for students whose parents are usually less educated and often unaware of the opportunities that do exist; high school guidance counselors are good resources for that, but they are often overworked as it is and are not always able to seek out students who may qualify who do not come to them first).  But middle-class students usually do not qualify for Pell Grants and/or need-based scholarships, and unless they are graduating at the top of their class or with top-percentile test scores (and by definition this cannot include the majority of qualified, college-eligible students), the bulk of their financial aid comes in the form of student loans.  This money is easily and readily accessible, and amounts can be taken out that cover not just basic tuition but also books, room and board and living expenses.  But it is not "free money."  And the result is that middle-class students are graduating with more and more debt.

Add to that the fact that the abundance of financial aid schools offer (and are often required by law to offer) inflates tuition for those students forced to pay full-price, and the situation is clearly critical.

Americans seem to accept all of this as a given, an unfortunate truth: it costs money to go to college, and if your parents don't have the money, and you don't graduate at the top of your class, you will take on a load of debt to earn that degree that is increasingly necessary to get a good job.  They often do not realize that it is not like that everywhere.

In most of Europe, public universities are free.  In France, for example, you must pass the rigorous baccalaureat exams at the end of high school in order to be accepted to a university; but if you pass them, you may attend any public university in the country, with the exception of the more exclusive grandes ecoles that accept only the highest scorers, for free.  It is considered a right, the same as free elementary and secondary schools, the same as free health care.  It is the same in Italy, as in most European countries.  In Germany, tuition for public universities was unheard-of until very recently, and although it is a tiny fraction of what American students pay, German students held demonstrations demanding the government remove tuition.

For those in the U.S. who will turn up their noses at the idea of free college education, it is worth noting that, just as we seem to take for granted that college is expensive, we also take for granted that every child, regardless of his or her race, background or socioeconomic class, can, should, indeed must attend adequate schools from kindergarten through 12th grade.  It is truly only a radical fringe who would dare to say that only the children of rich parents are entitled to an education.  Yet it was only in the early 20th century that the U.S. began to offer free public high school...and people had to fight for it.

If one follows the premise to its logical conclusion, it only makes sense for public colleges and universities to be free.  We offer free K-12 education based on the idea that all children should have an equal start in life, regardless of who their parents are, what they do for a living or how much money they have.  Without access to free education, we would remain a sort of feudal, Dickensian society, if you will: children of the rich would go to school, get a good education, and take over their parents' businesses, or start businesses of their own; children of the poor would not be able to go to school, would not get an education, and would have little choice but to continue in the footsteps of their parents, doing manual labor, working in factories or on farms.  There does seem to be a general consensus--as well there should be in a modern society--that children are blameless and should not be penalized for the unfortunate fact of being born to working-class, less-educated parents, and that they do deserve the opportunity to get a good education, so that they can enter adulthood on equal footing with their wealthier peers and have their own shot at bettering themselves financially and socially. 

Socioeconomic mobility is at the very heart of the American dream.  But today more than ever, if one hopes to achieve economic success and live better than his or her parents, it is increasingly necessary to have some type of post-secondary education.  We cannot say that someone with a high school diploma and someone with a college degree have the same opportunities entering the job market.  The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2000 that someone with a high school diploma earned on average $23,233 annually, as opposed to $31,684 for an Associates degree, $45,648 for a Bachelor, and $56,958 for a Master.  No one would venture to say that $23,233 is equal to $45,648, or that the people earning these salaries enjoy similar lifestyles.  So how can we venture to say that we are providing equal opportunities to education for all our children?

The bottom line is this:  If we are to truly be an equal-opportunity society (or at least attempt to move in that direction), we have to extend those equal opportunities to the post-secondary level.  Otherwise, we are taking our children halfway, then leaving them there, with a choice: if your parents have enough money, you may get a higher education and thus poise yourself to earn a substantially higher salary than your less-privileged peers; if your parents do not have enough money, and you don't qualify for full scholarships and/or grants that cover the entire cost of tuition, books and fees, you are invited to burden yourself in debt that you will struggle for the first decade or more of your working life to pay off.  Meaning your first consideration when choosing a major and/or career must be: How much will I make? (Rather than, Will I enjoy it?  Will it provide fulfillment or meaning to my life or the lives of others around me?  What contribution to my community, society, my country or the world will I be able to make?)  No wonder todays' students are concerned first and foremost with how much they will earn in their future career.  For many of them, going into a service-related career is a luxury they simply cannot afford.

Adolph Reed, Jr., a political science professor at University of Pennsylvania, calculates the cost of making all public institutions free would be about $80 billion--which may sound like a lot, but is a fraction of the money spent on bailing out banks, or on the Iraq war.  And further, he points out, "To oppose [free higher education] is to embrace a conviction that not everyone should be able to pursue an education, that it should be rationed by cost."

That we as a country are willing to spend trillions on an unnecessary war and on bailing out greedy, fiscally irresponsible banks, but are unwilling to provide equal educational opportunities for all students, is a sad demonstration of our priorities.  So far, all public university and student loan reform seriously discussed falls far short of the goal of providing an equal opportunity to a higher education for all students.  In fact, that does not even appear to be a goal right now.  It seems to be too "radical."

As a society, we have to ask ourselves why it is radical.  If providing a quality education for all students through high school is not radical or even controversial, and if we accept the premise of equal opportunity that it is based upon, then we are hypocritical not to insist that public colleges and universities be free as well.