The United States of America does not provide free education to pupils, at least at the secondary level. Much has been said about rising debt levels. Some have even advocated for universal free education. This would be a grave error. It would erode many people’s personal freedoms, degrade quality, and convey the wrong message to pupils. Why? This essay will explain.
To begin, education must be paid for. It is physically impossible to provide a high-quality education for free. Someone has to bear the cost. If students are not meeting their commitments, taxpayers are already footing the bill for the considerable grants and scholarships granted to students each year. It is unjust to impose this responsibility on the broader population for a decision that is fully up to the individual.
Making education free would require additional funding. The government’s only options would be to increase taxes or eliminate services elsewhere. Cuts to other critical services are no more justifiable than making students pay for education. It does not resolve the issue; it only shifts it to another segment of the population.
Increasing taxes to fund education erodes individual liberties. Economic liberty is inextricably linked to personal liberty. By reducing discretionary income through increased taxes, the government limits the options open to families across the country. Arguably, it is self-serving to do so simply because a member of a minority group chooses to pursue higher education.
Some may argue that making education free will increase the number of students enrolled in colleges and universities. This is not true. While education is no longer free, this does not mean that people are barred from pursuing higher education. Grants honoring academic accomplishments are already available to the brightest pupils. Additionally, the great majority of students are already eligible for student loans to cover tuition and living expenses. Even without a free tuition system, there are no hurdles to students accessing higher education.
Lenders are substantially more forgiving under the current student loan structure, and repayments are far lower than with a conventional loan. The approach already enables students to advance their careers before they begin repaying large amounts.
Reduced fees would also make it more difficult to maintain an acceptable level of education in schools and universities. If these schools are unable to profit from their student fees, they can merely cover their operating expenditures. They are unable to invest in themselves or raise standards. This would only serve to further erode the nation’s higher education infrastructure and make the country less appealing to international students.
In general, it is critical to instill in pupils an understanding that they have obligations and that it is their responsibility to fulfill those tasks. It is immoral to burden the general people with the burdens of others. Reduced fees would benefit students who are not responsible for their own education, but would result in a general reduction in the facilities where they study.