FAQs - Frequently Asked Questions About Free Higher Education

Why do we need free higher education?
The average student graduates with $17,000 in debt from student loans; 39 percent graduates with debt loads that require more than 8 percent of their monthly income in repayments. In 1999/2000, 71 percent of students from families earning less than $20,000 per year graduated with debt, compared with 44 percent of students from families with more than $100,000 annual income. It is not surprising, therefore, that 86 percent of high school graduates from families with incomes over $80,750 go on to college while only 57 percent of graduates from families earning less than $33,000 do so. These dollar amounts do not account for the cost to those who avoid pursuing courses of study that appeal to their intellectual curiosities and interest because they fear not being able to earn enough to pay off their loans. Nor does it account for those who do not even consider attending college because of the cost. What would it cost to provide free higher education for everyone currently enrolled in public colleges and universities? The total cost of tuition and fees for everyone currently enrolled in public colleges and universities is approximately $25 billion. This is a sum that is easily manageable in current federal budgets. More than double that amount of money would be available to the federal treasury if only those corporate tax loopholes created between 1990 and 2000 were eliminated.

Why has a college education become so unaffordable?
Tuition costs have been rising faster than inflation and are projected to skyrocket in coming years. Due to cutbacks in state funding (the primary revenue source for public colleges), many public colleges are projecting tuition increases in the double digits and cuts in need-based financial aid programs. In general, public institutions cost less than private ones, but tuition and fees have increased nearly tenfold (in inflation-adjusted dollars) between 1969 and 1999. Average tuition and fees at public four-year institutions rose from $338 to $3,243 during that time. Private four-year college tuition now averages over $14,000 a year.

Would there be an age limit or a requirement to be a full-time student?
There is no age limit as the right to education should be life-long. In addition, both part-time and full-time students are covered.

Would this program affect admissions standards?
No. Colleges and universities would maintain control of those decisions; our proposal has no bearing on how admissions decisions are made. Students become eligible for the tuition benefits when they actually enroll in the school.

Would the children of wealthy parents, or wealthy adults, also be eligible?
Yes, just as with the K-12 public education program, everyone is eligible. Some object to this on the grounds that it subsidizes the wealthy; however, means testing is politically unwise. Making the program universal for all who qualify for admission minimizes the administrative costs by not requiring elaborate income certification.

Why include only public colleges and universities?
There are several important reasons we have not included private universities in this proposal: (1) targeting public institutions covers 83 percent of all students now attending college; (2) covering the remaining 17 percent in private schools would make the program nearly twice as expensive; and (3) the Labor Party has always supported public schools and if education is to be considered a right, it should be anchored in public institutions.

If, as the campaign develops, there is a popular groundswell for extending eligibility to private schools, that could be considered. Some object that excluding private institutions might jeopardize small, tuition-driven non-elite private colleges. If that occurred, many of these institutions could and would find ways to adapt; possibly even by becoming state institutions, which has happened frequently in the 20th century.

Has this country ever done anything like this before? Is there a model for the campaign?
Our model for the campaign is the G.I. Bill, which provided access to higher education for 8 million returning veterans after World War II. It paid all tuition and fees, as well as a living-wage stipend for all qualifying veterans. Its impact on the nation has been tremendous. More than 40 percent of veterans interviewed who attended college indicated that they wouldn't have been able to without the G.I. Bill. A subcommittee of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee estimated that the G.I. Bill returned $6.90 in revenue for every $1 spent on educating these veterans, based on the resulting increased income and productivity.

This investment in education had much broader impact as well. The expansion of enrollments the G.I. Bill made possible stimulated construction of new facilities and institutions, increased demand for faculty and staff, and stimulated commercial development. The nation benefitted from the veterans' talents and abilities that otherwise would not have been cultivated. That educational experience also provided the economic security and interest that made it possible for immediate beneficiaries' children and their children to pursue higher education. College and university life was broadened from the perspectives of a wider range of the American class and social spectrum.

Among many local attempts to deliver on the dream of free higher education, the City University of New York (CUNY) stands out. In the 1970s, tuition was free to all residents of New York City. As budget crises increased the pressure on states and municipalities, most of these types of institutions were forced to charge tuition and/or constantly escalate fees.

Lastly, our nation did not always have universal access to high school. It was secured because people fought for it, in spite of dire warnings from opponents. In fact, many wealthy families in the early 1900s felt that resources would be wasted if high school were made available to the masses.