This report provides new evidence on which groups of students are likely to benefit the most from a policy that eliminates tuition and fees at public colleges and universities. Using nationally representative data on in-state students at public institutions, I find that students from higher income families would receive a disproportionate share of the benefits of free college, largely because they tend to attend more expensive institutions.Under the Sanders free college proposal, families from the top half of the income distribution would receive 24 percent more in dollar value from eliminating tuition than students from the lower half of the income distribution. The non-tuition costs of attending college, including living expenses, are larger than the costs of tuition and fees for most students. Free college, which does not address these expenses, leaves families from the bottom half of the income distribution with nearly $18 billion in annual out-of-pocket college costs that would not be covered by existing federal, state, and institutional grant programs. Devoting new spending to eliminating tuition for all students involves a tradeoff with investing the same funds in targeted grant aid that would cover more of the total costs of attendance for students from less well-off families.
They attend higher ranking institutions because they have the money advantage of focusing on their education in high school in the first place. I don't really understand why we're trying to make college free when we still haven't made high school completely free, what with books and all.
Quote from: Mehtta on May 29, 2016, 10:11:09 PMThey attend higher ranking institutions because they have the money advantage of focusing on their education in high school in the first place. I don't really understand why we're trying to make college free when we still haven't made high school completely free, what with books and all. never heard of a highschool charging for books in my life, and both my grandparents were teachers and my mom works at 3 different schools. Hell one of my friends old high schools gave them MacBooks for the 4 years they were there. What backwards ass school did you go to?
That's a shame (and also a given), but we still need to have it.
Quote from: Verbatim on May 30, 2016, 09:32:49 PMThat's a shame (and also a given), but we still need to have it.Even though smarter policies could use the same amount of money (or significantly less) and benefit more low-income students and generally be more effective?
Quote from: yekruTluftruH on May 30, 2016, 09:42:38 PMQuote from: Verbatim on May 30, 2016, 09:32:49 PMThat's a shame (and also a given), but we still need to have it.Even though smarter policies could use the same amount of money (or significantly less) and benefit more low-income students and generally be more effective?I guess it depends on what those smarter policies would be, and how they could possibly manage to do that without some sort of glaring catch. I don't have a great imagination, so help me out.
Quote from: Tyger on May 29, 2016, 10:17:44 PMQuote from: Mehtta on May 29, 2016, 10:11:09 PMThey attend higher ranking institutions because they have the money advantage of focusing on their education in high school in the first place. I don't really understand why we're trying to make college free when we still haven't made high school completely free, what with books and all. never heard of a highschool charging for books in my life, and both my grandparents were teachers and my mom works at 3 different schools. Hell one of my friends old high schools gave them MacBooks for the 4 years they were there. What backwards ass school did you go to?Sometimes the school doesn't want to buy copies of certain novels for all the students in a class because football is more importanter. So you gotta shell out 10 bucks for some required reading once a year, if that.
Free college would mostly benefit the rich
