‘Free tuition’: Illusion, not solution |

‘Free tuition’: Illusion, not solution

Brooklyn College students walk between classes on campus in New York. The New York state Legislature approved a budget that includes funding for Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan to offer free tuition for middle-class students at state universities. (AP Photo)

Attractive as it is for students and parents, “free” in-state tuition won’t solve higher education’s ever-higher costs at New York’s public universities and community colleges — or at Pennsylvania’s cash-strapped state-owned universities.

“Free tuition” isn’t free. Somebody has to pay for it. New York’s new program, costing an estimated $163 million extra in its first year, relies in part on tax hikes on incomes of $1 million-plus to aid families making up to $100,000 (eventually $125,000). Bernie Sanders’ federal proposal relied on taxing financial transactions.

Like all higher-education subsidies, “free tuition” provides yet more cover for higher-education price hikes above inflation — but it’s taxpayers, not students and parents, footing those ever-higher bills. And when, if ever, does this new entitlement’s pain for taxpayers end?

New Yorkers’ “free tuition” comes at another price — their freedom. If graduates don’t stay in high-tax New York as long as the two or four years they were in school — and just imagine the headaches and costs of enforcing that ! — their “free tuition” becomes loans they have to repay. And because it creates more job-seeking grads but not more job openings, “free tuition,” as Trib columnist Ralph R. Reiland says, is a “formula for … higher unemployment and underemployment, and lower income growth.”

Simply put, “free tuition” merely shifts families’ college costs to taxpayers while doing nothing about higher ed’s runaway costs. It’s an illusion — not a solution.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.