President Barack Obama introduced his America’s College Promise proposal to make community college tuition-free for students in January, but Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) President Barbara Risser did not bring it up with the collegewide governance body until October. She did not endorse it; she only asked the approximately 20 members to think about what it would mean for the school. No one responded. Mr. Obama says his proposal would expand the reach of higher education, a goal that fits with liberal ideology. Given that academics tend to lean left (Jaschik, 2012), the lack of enthusiasm for a seemingly liberal proposal on a college campus might seem unusual. This essay will review the tenets of conservatism and liberalism and explore their usefulness in predicting the impact of American’s College Promise and who might take sides for or against it. It will show the president’s proposal cannot be categorized neatly into one of the two dominant ideological camps. Wilson’s cost-benefit typology proves a more meaningful way to consider the potential ramifications of the policy and how that information could be used to refine it.
“Liberal” and “conservative” are common short-hand ways to describe politicians and policies. Rational choice theory, which assumes people act out of self-interest as voters just as they do as consumers (Cochran & Malone, 2010, p. 62), suggests voters want such short-hand descriptions to help them make decisions. A key aspect of this
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns that torments America’s new generation is pursuing higher education in order to make more money and while avoiding being in debt, decades after graduation. This topic has become even more as tuition continues to rise and politicians are left to ponder the best course of action to insure that the next generation of Americans is more educated than the last. One particular solution was posed by former president, Barack Obama, who promoted the idea of free community college. Although, it may not be the most direct or most elegant solution, it would certainly be a push in the right direction. By making community college tuition free nationwide, states would become more invested in accommodating the influx of students, lead different school systems to compete by lowering tuition prices, and finally address America’s shortcoming in adults who possess more than just high school diploma.
In “The Argument for Tuition-Free College,” Keith Ellison addresses the matter of free-tuition for colleges and universities in America. The high cost of tuition increasing inequality and the largest personal debt in the country, student loans, are the main two problems Ellison discussed. Claiming that minorities are less likely to succeed in the community is one of Ellison’s ways to support the issue. He promotes his argument with two solutions. In the first one he explains how to eliminate student loan debt. Ellison uses free primary and secondary schooling as an example to explain his second solution.
College tuition, something that everyone worries about and works tirelessly to save their entire lives for. What would happen if college tuition disappeared and college was suddenly free? In this rhetorical analysis, I will be analyzing two different articles on if college should be free. While both of these articles use logos and politics to prove their statements and force their arguments to be stronger, the first argument explains that college should be free for everyone and the other disagrees and discusses why college tuition should stay as is. It also gives more strength and credibility to the author’s and articles.
During one of his campaign programs, Presidential-candidate Bernie Sanders stood before a thousand applauding and cheering people. This man just announced, as hopeful future President of the United States, that he planned to make college free for every US citizen. Many young adults favor Bernie Sanders, and other political leaders, idea of free tuition because they believe that it will open more doors for them and allow them to not worry about the burden of student loans. However, there are many reasons that regulating free college education could hurt our society and economy that people don’t often realize. College education should not be free because it would raise taxes, it would devalue the worth of a college degree, and it would pave the way for more welfare dependency.
Universities used to be a privilege for most academic students to attend and it was very affordable, but currently the price per year to attend college has drastically increased. For instance, in the “1970’s the average cost was 10,000 dollars a year and today the average cost is 30,000 dollars a year” (CQ Researcher). This is a triple increase in the price per year to attend college. Allowing this increase on college tuition has impacted the student’s attendance rate. This is a significant financial burden for college students and their family. Some believe that college shouldn’t be free because we are risking the value of college education, while others think it should be free because we are trying to avoid having our upcoming generation
Recently President Obama proposed a plan to make two years of community college free to
To discuss the value of liberal education, there should be a mutual understanding that investing in college means to invest in oneself. Furthermore, while some consider this investment to be a critical stepping stone to success, others dismiss it, explaining that school simply cannot prepare someone for the “real world.” Sanford J. Ungar and Robert Reich explore both of these subjective values in their essays “The New Liberal Arts” and “College is a Ludicrous Waste of Money.” Ungar, the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland, discusses why a liberal education should be sought after; he does so by introducing common misconceptions about liberal arts and, using argumentative persuasion, proves their insignificance. On the other hand, Reich, the former secretary of labor, argues against the conventional belief of college being the only road to financial wellbeing; rather, he explains why a two-year education may better accommodate many college students, especially those in need of immediate work or those that simply cannot afford a four-year education. In all, although both Reich and Ungar generally discuss liberal education, their perspectives differ when it comes to its practicality in the current economy. Also, to express their different views about liberal arts, the authors use contrasting tones to present their ideas to different intended audiences.
There are two major political aspects in our society today, liberals and conservatives. Both of these ideologies share a similar goal in which they both try to find solutions to the society’s issues. But the way liberals and conservatives perceive a problem and try to find solutions is what differentiates them both. Liberals tend to favor a change to promote growth, while conservatives on the other hand stick with traditions and religious values and are not in favor of a change. Although liberals and conservatives share a similar goal, they have opposing perspectives on social, economic and political issues.
It becomes a major controversy when the idea of something being “free” is brought up in this economy. Money is what operates the economical system and it’s the factor that leads colleges in providing resources for their students. President Obama’s idea of having community college be free leaves many skeptical on whether it can be beneficial, or in some ways hurtful. However, there are upsides to allowing community college to be free. Community College should be free because it will cause a diversity of students to attend, allow students to save money, and offer an opportunity for those who aspire to continue their education.
In the article "Free College? It Doesn’t Fix Everything," Richard V. Reeves (2015) explores insists that making college tuition-free may increase college entrance rates, however, would not increase the number of graduates by significant numbers.In this article, Reeves examines the Kalamazoo Promise, which began in 2006 when anonymous donors made college free for all Highschool graduates in the Kalamazoo, Michigan school district. Since the plan's introduction, more than 35 cities have adopted a similar plan to that of Kalamazoo's. The plan's goal is to create a level playing field for low-income students to have the opportunities to compete with those of a higher income class. Reeves argues that “dramatic reductions in the cost of college
Iris Palmer, the senior policy analyst with the Educational Policy program at New America, notes in her article The False Promise of “Free College” that there is no denying the appeal “free college” offers to students pursuing a college degree. In this article, Palmer discusses several reasons why presidential nominee Hillary Clintons’ plan for free college would not have been beneficial to the United States, or to students hoping to earn a college degree. Although the articles main focus is about the plan created by Clinton, it ultimately can be used to form an argument against the general plans for “free” college tuition as a whole. The article lists several reasons why “free” college tuition would not solve the problem of the lack of students
“Feel the Bern” – an inspirational slogan that resonates as the presidential race approaches its zenith, and as the rhetorical Bernie sanders, the crafty Hilary Clinton, and the booming Donald Trump lay their values, visions, and views on the table, they pray that they will win over the American people. One of those views, held prominently by Mr. Sanders, lies in the proposition of eradicating college tuition. Published in The Washington Post, “Make College Free for All” outlines the position of Sanders: “Education is essential for personal and national well-being…hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college while millions more leave school deeply in debt. It is time to build on the progressive movement of the past and make public colleges and universities tuition-free in the United States — a development that will be the driver of a new era of American prosperity…we will have a stronger economy and a stronger democracy when all young people with the ambition and the talent can reach their full potential, regardless of their circumstances at birth.” Individuals in the U.S., in light of the outrageous amount of resources available, ought to fund their own education. America would undoubtedly “feel the Bern” if Mr. Sanders’ socialistic views reach execution, given that once a government funds anything, it ultimately controls it.
George Leef discusses several important points in his article “You Will Pay for “Free” College” (n.pag.). Leef first explains that college will never be completely free (n.pag.). In order to have one thing we must give up another and there is no way around that (Leef n.pag.). Leef clarifies with his readers that all the government can do about college tuition is transition the cost from students to taxpayers (n.pag.). George continues his argument with his point that free college tuition will influence colleges in a negative way (n.pag.). A move from students to taxpayers will not only result
As many young millennials rally behind Bernie Sanders and his outlandish claims of free public college for all, others sigh and shake their heads in disapproval. Are these college students really entitled to free higher education? Is it every American’s unalienable right to have a college education? Despite the recent push for free college in the United States, the economic burden and drop in personal responsibility it would create proves that colleges should maintain their current tuitions.
The words “free college tuition” spark interest in any college student with accumulating debt. In fact, this topic is so incredibly supported that Bernie Sanders implemented it as a core interest in his 2016 campaign. Once Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee, she decided to take it on herself with an extensive plan that guaranteed students free tuition. Unsurprisingly, free tuition resonates extremely well within the student demographic. To forty million Americans, free tuition eliminates the largest problem for students: debt (Hess, 2017). However, free college tuition generates the inverse of what these low-income and middle-income students believe. In fact, free college cripples them from multiple perspectives; students will end up spending more financially, will be less likely to graduate with a degree, and will be subjected to more inequality and less exposure.