Free Community College?

In President Obama’s state of the union address, he said, “… I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college — to zero.”  I am a big believer in community college.  In community college, savvy students save substantial sums on their journey to an advanced degree.  Older adults can build second and third careers, and high school goof-offs can get a fresh start.  (My husband rocked all three categories.)

So free community college is a great idea, right?  According to President Obama, “too many bright, striving Americans are priced out of the education they need.  It’s not fair to them, and it’s not smart for our future.”  Who could argue with that?

… Well, me.  Precisely because I believe in community college, I do not believe the cost should be – or could be – “zero.”

1.  Free Community College Is Unnecessary.  Community college tuition is already affordable.  It is easy to find a community college within commuting distance, so you can continue to live at home.  And, if your funds fall short, you can apply for financial aid, student loans and merit scholarships.  With all of the help available, it is hard to imagine any “bright, striving American” actually priced out of community college. 

Some time ago I oversaw a scholarship fund specifically for community college students.  The scholarship had few requirements, and yet we only found one interested student.  Finding money for community college is so simple that the scholarship was almost superfluous.

2.  Free Community College Is Not “Free” (in the Sense of Money).  Someone still has to pay for community college, even if it is “free” for students.  There are only three possibilities for the federal government to finance community college: (1) higher taxes; (2) cutbacks in other areas; or (3) more deficit spending.  None of those are very appealing.

3.  Free Community College Is Not “Free” (in the Sense of Our Liberties).  There is an English proverb along the lines of “He who takes the king's shilling becomes the king's man.”  Grants from the federal government to the states always come with strings attached.  If the federal government pays for community college, you can bet they will regulate who teaches, what is taught, and perhaps even who can enroll.  Common Core for College, anyone?  State and local governments will have less power to tailor their institutions to the needs of the specific community.

4.  Free Community College Is Not Efficient.  When the government pays for something, it takes away free market incentives toward efficiency.  If a student (or her parent) pays for college, they will seek the best value for their dollar.  Colleges know that if they do not provide the best value, the student (or her parent) will take their dollars elsewhere.   This fast and simple feedback between business and consumer drives up quality and efficiency.  Government money breaks this direct line of communication.  Community college would no longer be accountable to the student (or her parent).   An impersonal bureaucracy would make the decisions, motivated by political objectives opaque to the actual students and educators.

To Be Continued...

 

Trading Freedom for Security

In my political science class, we often talk about the role of government in helping people.  To what extent should we depend upon the government to provide goods, services and protection from the harsh corners of life?  This is the heart of today’s political debate.

John Locke, the British doctor and Enlightenment philosopher, did a “thought experiment” about life before government.  I call it a thought experiment, because no one really knows what life before government would be like.  But Locke used his imagination to create a hypothetical scenario where everyone is free and equal, and no one has any authority over anyone else.  He called it the “State of Nature.”

Free and equal sounds great, doesn’t it?  But the state of nature, at least in Locke’s thought world, is inherently unsafe.  It is insecure.  Every person enforces the law as they see fit, and there is no one to protect the interests of the weak impartially.  For this reason, people voluntarily leave the state of nature, and they create government.

When you create government, you give up some of your freedom.   You expect other people to obey the will of the majority, even when they don’t like the result, and likewise they expect you to obey the will of the majority, even when you don’t like the result.  So you are less free.  Nonetheless, you are willing to give up some of your freedom for security.

This is the great trade-off with government:  We give up our freedom, and the government gives us security.  In reality, without at least minimal security, our freedoms are worthless anyway.  If you are in constant danger of being robbed, or being assaulted, how free are you?  Not very.

As government grows, it may promise us more and more security.  It may promise us food when we are poor.  It may promise us income when we are old.  It may promise us healthcare, a cleaner environment, protection from false advertising.  These are lofty and noble goals.  At the same time, it is very important to understand that none of these things are “free,” whether the government provides them, or whether we provide them for ourselves. 

In fact, each and every time we allow the government to provide for us, we give up some of our freedom.   Therefore, if we value our freedom, in each and every instance, we must ask ourselves, what is the value of the trade?  What freedoms am I giving up (they may be hidden), and what am I receiving in return?  Can the government actually deliver on its promises, and even if it can, is it worth the trade?



Trading Freedom for Security.  Is the apple crisp and juicy?  Or is it mealy with worms?