Edit:

In parts of Asia, many societies are already characterized by extreme inequality, corruption, and limited social mobility.
[...]
What I find harder to justify is that democratic countries — which claim to value equality of opportunity and social mobility — also rely on tuition-based systems.

Key word there.

Access to good education for all, including free tuition, creates social mobility.

But it does not address inequality if it is the only thing you do. If the rest of the economy stays the same - there will still be a need to fill the poorest jobs in society. Thus you still need a large underclass of impoverished people to do said jobs.

While it can have knock-on effects - there are still going to be a hell-of-a-lot of people who fail out of education. If that is the only route out of poverty for them, then you are going to have a hell-of-a-lot of poor people also.

That tuition fees are not a major contributor to inequality

That tuition-based systems are actually fair or efficient in promoting mobility

Or that there are better alternatives to reduce inequality without removing tuition

None of these relate to your initial title. Your initial title pits free tuition against welfare programmes.

In reality it's not an either-or scenario - it's a both and more scenario.

Counterpoint. I live in Arkansas, two of the largest state colleges (University of Central Arkansas and Arkansas State University) offer completely free tuition and no fees for students who live in a family that makes less than $100k or that are otherwise Pell grant eligible. The other public colleges in the state offer very significant reductions in tuition for those same students to the point where attendance is typically in the $1-3k per year range.

Arkansas is a very rural state with very minimal “have vs have not gatekeeping,” especially in regard to public colleges attendance (you aren’t discussing social organizations like fraternities or sororities but attendance at a university itself). Yet even with this, Arkansas still has very high inequality ratios. The biggest income disparity in the state initially would appear to be racial (the White median income for the state is nearly double the Black median income), but a closer inspection shows the biggest determinant is location. The wealthy counties in the state have much higher median incomes than the poor counties in the state, but within those counties the income disparity is unrelated to race (Black people in the wealthy counties have high median incomes indistinguishable from White people in those counties while White people in the poor counties have low median incomes indistinguishable from the Black people). What initially looks like a racial issue is a geographical/demographic issue where the poor counties are more likely to have significant Black population while the wealthy counties are more likely to have significant White population. Interestingly if you were to travel back 100 years ago you would see the exact opposite. Agriculture was much more significant to the state’s GDP and agriculture was a good business to be in, so the parts of the state that were wealthy are now the parts of the state that are poor and vice versa (the parts of the state that are wealthy are primarily related to businesses founded in the last 100 years).

What is typically seen is the students who live in the poor parts of the state that take advantage of the free/very low cost educational opportunities available then relocate to either the wealthy parts of the state or other states. This in turn not only doesn’t assist the poor parts of the state, it produces a brain drain and age shift where the poor parts of the state have even fewer high income individuals but also the average population age has rapidly increased and the wealthy parts of the state are rapidly growing with a MUCH younger population.

You're right about tuition, but that's not the major barrier for people to get higher education. It is stuff like having no supportive family, poor bodily and/or mental health, addiction, etc.

You can keep tuition, but most people who want to climb the social ladder need more than their bootstraps and cash to actually succeed, which generally translates to welfare programs. You can have tuition and have a welfare program that pays (at minimum) the tuition for those that need it. This is basically how its done in countries like Germany where tax money pays the tuition fees and you can apply for more support after doing some paperwork, still what students generally need are things like accessible housing and support for mental health and other stuff besides just cash; some even with the cash support can't finish their studies.

Anecdotally I have a friend that couldn't finish her studies despite having more than enough support materially for her studies in Germany, but she couldn't manage it. Later she was (finally) diagnosed with BPD, and since she is on meds she could technically go back to finish, but it took her way too long to get a diagnosis and treatment (close to 10 years) so for her it's kind of an impossibility at this point financially.

It would be my dream come true if education were free. I'd be so happy being able to follow my dreams and get the job I want. Kids who get to go to college seriously don't know how good they have it. I missed out on what feels like such a huge milestone, for financial reasons. I could've made friendships in my adult life and got a trustworthy job to support me for my life. Instead, I work all kinds of shit jobs just to make ends meet, and I haven't got any friendships.

Look at the UK- higher education is funded through a loan but this is not a traditional loan and you only pay back if you earn enough. This means it is accessible to everyone with very little risk. I’d say it’s somewhat equivalent to what you’re suggesting

Studies have found that for a decent chunk of students - the lower achieving ones who also happen to be more likely to be working class- the return on investment/increase in lifetime earnings is actually small and lower than it would be through an apprenticeship.

I don’t think university works as a passport to higher paying jobs if too many people go. Therefore actual education component doesn’t actually help a lot of people. You could argue for some social benefits but I don’t think they’re worth the approx £50k it costs.

Therefore I think your suggestions fails.

The biggest state university in my state already gives free tuition to anyone whose household income is less than 65k. Then other assistance up to 110k. Long story short, it already exists for the people who need the most help, I don't think expanding it would reduce inequality much.

The best arguments against this seem to me to be

1. Increased attainment of a college degree doesn't correlate with reduced inequality. Leaving Japan out because the system there is so different and comparing the percent of working age adults having attained a college degree

Canada: 55.7 vs. 0.352

US: 50.5 vs. 0.438

UK: 50.3 vs. 0.392

France: 40.7 vs. 0.326

Germany: 31.1 vs. 0.352

Italy: 20.0 vs. 0.373

There is actually a weak positive correlation, not a negative one.

1. As more people attain a college degree it becomes less of an advantage, just as the value of a high school diploma has faded.

I say this while agreeing with you that college costs in the US are too high. I would also like to see more funding go to the skilled trades.

I’m not debating that access to education changes EVERYTHING. But I think there are equally important resources and programs. Think about childcare, if a struggling parent can’t find care for their child they can’t even attend class.

Affordable and equitable access to healthcare can help someone deal with medial issues that could either be life threatening if not at least severely limiting in their overall life and even education. Not only that but crippling medical debt can drown someone and no education can save you from that.

Housing subsidies help tackle homelessness. Nobody can succeed in school or probably even get into school or get a job without a home.

There’s a ton more, but I’m just saying education is SO important and the biggest factor in long term success and tackling inequities you’re absolutely right. But I don’t think it’s the most important or more important as far as welfare and social programs in general go. Meeting your basic needs comes first. Healthcare comes first. And getting kids going something productive or inspiring to keep them away from a life of crime is also important, because an education can’t stop you from being trafficked, becoming addicted to drugs, being homeless etc.

But I’m so passionate about education I agree it’s huge.

Germany has free higher education AND you get a really good conditions loan for living costs. Still had absolutely terrible income mobility between generations and because so many people now have a degree a bachelor is often considered not a “full” degree so people have to add a master… also unfortunately a lot of first generation university students will study interesting degrees that don’t have a lot of job opportunities so they don’t really get a return from their studies.

Higher education access has been growing steadily for decades. Is inequality getting better or worse?

It's getting worse. Is education access causing that? Of course not. But it's also clear that the solution to the problem is not even more education access.

The point of tuition-free higher education is to enable those from poor background to attain a prestigious, well-paid job.

However, with the rapid rise of AI, companies don't have a great need for graduates with no experience, and are hiring older people. This is already a big trend in South Korea, where education is deemed central to one's success. Youth, aware they can't get experience to get a job matching their degree, simply give up.

Thus, tuition-free university wouldn't itself fix inequality, since employment has been made very difficult. It is still good that the students don't pay, but welfare is very much needed to help these fsmilies.

I believe that a greater way to reduce economic inequality would be to take people who work retail and instead train them for skilled trades or manufacturing jobs. Currently, most trades schools are highly concentrated in the Northeast - if you accept that only roughly 40% of a given generation is "college material", having the idea that everyone must go is a recipe for disaster. You have to find alternative ways for them to make money.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to not go to college. I think this is a logical (and societal preferable) choice for many people.

There are economists who would argue that the debt burden from student loans is not as debilitating as you've laid out here - most undergrad student loan debt is around 30K (for people who have it). If you're making 60K a year, that ratio is 2:1, starting salary to debt level. When I graduated in 2007, that ratio was about the same. Granted, if you graduate into a weak economy (again look at my graduation year), then this is a bigger issue, IMO, than the debt levels. I don't know how you fix that problem. Do I think colleges could be cheaper? Sure - the question then is, even if you removed tuition, a student would still have to pay for books, housing, food, technology, etc. The parts of this that are in the universities direct control are quite slim - most state run universities, for instance, simply don't have the housing to house all their students should they want to live on campus. To be clear, I think conversations like these are useful - I think college prices are too high but I also think most universities have done very little (very, very, very little) to demonstrably help the majority of their students graduate sooner (by slimming courseload requirements) or finding alternative ways to save them real money.

You realize that, even if everybody had access to all the education that they could ever want. Some people just don’t want to learn and would rather do their own thing. And whatever that thing may be, it could be crime. Eventually, it doesn’t pay, but until then it does.

You’re subsidizing future doctors and lawyers while hoping it trickles down. Nordic countries get away with it because they combine free education with aggressive taxation and strong labor policy. Without that full stack, free college alone is kind of a shiny half measure. Even polymarket wouldn’t price that as a silver bullet

Show me any data that says there is a great shortage of the degrees that are being produced right now.

The people that are graduating with these stupid liberal arts degrees can't find work now and the starting salaries are half of what a starting welder can make.

Tell me how flooding the market with these degrees is going to help?

I will not attempt to debunk your view outright as I believe it is mostly correct.

However, without a functional primary education system, secondary education will always remain a barrier to social mobility. People must be given an equal opportunity at the outset, or the system will always favor those who are privileged.

To build a house you have to first build a foundation, so emphasis must be given to primary education before consideration is given to secondary education.

And if you didn't get the gist: our primary education system is currently completely broken

What if higher education doesn't mean higher income? This is already often the case. What if a certificate isn't a requirement for employment, but rather experience, interviews, problem-solving, and probationary work are taken into account?

People have to survive long enough to use the free higher education. Without welfare programs such as Medicaid and food stamps, many children would never get to experience the benefits of free higher education, because their families couldn’t afford to feed them and get proper medical care.

Edit to add: Malnutrition leads to poor academic outcomes, so those children who do not have access to enough food would struggle more in school and would have a more difficult time meeting merit based requirements for higher education.

Tuition fees are not a major contributor to inequality.

At our local community college. Current fees are $46 per unit each academic term (fall/spring).

For a full-time student taking about 13.5 units per semester, that works out to roughly $1,242–$1,318 per year.

The first two years of tuition are free, regardless of income. You must apply for financial aid to qualify.

Additionally, students eligible for the California College Promise Grant (CCPG) will have the $46 per unit enrollment fee waived.

Doubt it. You get a lot of people spending years not in the work force ultimately learning skill that wont earn them an income. Just get rid of senior year and make it a year of your trade program.

Also im not even really sure inequality is necessarily a bad thing. The thing that makes a bad neighborhood is the crime and the people. And crime and bad neighborhood do the best when there are corrupt governments or governments that dont enforce the law. And crime is the thing that makes neighborhoods poor and shitty. American culture is a great example; between the 40s and 70’s there were tons of small towns in the country that functionally didn’t have any problems because they didn’t have crime because it was a tight nit community with shared values and ethics

Brazil has free higher education and look where it took us.

I agree that education should be free/subsidized. But removing barriers doesn't automatically mean people will take advantage of the opportunity or be successful. The biggest hurdle I see is in getting students who already receive free public K-12 education to actually want to go to college enough that they do well in their free education to earn their spot in higher education.

In other words, we already have universal free education in public K-12 schools and I don't think they make the difference that you are suggesting we would see if it was applied to college (even though I agree with you that college should be free, too).

Higher education being free would help raise up some people, however the problem goes a lot deeper than money.

Tuition is only a small cost of higher education, that there are a ton of ways around ie scholarships/grants. The larger cost is living, housing food bills. A lot of people, especially lower class Americans, are limited because they have to work to support themselves and their family.

There’s also the people who don’t get the basic education to qualify for higher education. This can be because the schooling district is failing, parental issues, or other socioeconomic issues.

What is the evidence of this? Obviously the immediate benefit would only be for those lower income folks going to college, or paying for someone that is. What about the majority that are not? 18 years is a lot of time to wait for help among those that do go to college. People need prenatal care, food, housing, heat, etc., before they go to college.

Its hyperbolic to claim tuition is one of the most powerful drivers of economic inequality worldwide.

1. Winner-take-all economics. Unit economics changed drastically with the rise of the internet (or silicon revolution). When you produce something like cereal, a large chunk of the cost of producing the cereal is the cost of the ingredients. Most everything pre-silicon revolution feel into this category: producing significantly more of the thing meant significantly more cost of raw materials to produce it. But with the rise of computing and the internet, unit economics changed drastically. Once microsoft invested the zillions of dollars into making windows operating system, each additional copy was effectively free. Why is this significant? Because economies where the marginal cost to produce another product is free produces more markets where the winner takes all. Put another way: name the navigation app you use 4th most often. You can't. You only use the best one. And that means all the revenue goes to the best navigation app, which means one very profitable company in that marketplace, which means more wealth inequality.

2. Intergeneration wealth. The difference between no inheritance and a small inheritance (say $50k, a normal tuition cost) is huge. Rather than being $50k poorer (like you'd be if you had to pay for college), the person with no inheritance loses out on decades worth of compounding that their peer with inheritance gains. Say your parents die when you're 50 and you inherit that $50k. You don't spend it just like the person with no inheritance doesn't have anything to spend. If you don't touch that $50k til you die at 90 and just invest it in index funds, your children will inherit about $750k (in real dollars) simply from the inheritance you received alone. If your kids do the same, your grandchildren (in another 40 years) will inherit around 11.2M, simply because your parents left them $50k. The growth is literally exponential

Even a lot of things that aren't huge factors can contribute as much to wealth inequality as tuition. For example, my brother bought a new car when he graduated for ~$30k plus interest on the loan. Someone who buy a used car for ~$10k will have saved almost a tuition's worth simply by being a bit thriftier with their money. Same goes with housing: you can easily save $10k a year living with a roommate. After 4 years, that's the cost of tuition.

It’s more insidious than that. Tuition functions as a mechanism for restricting access to the upper class. Even basic numerical analysis show that for one person to occupy the upper class, roughly a thousand others must remain in the lower class. There is only a finite amount of money in circulation. By setting tuition so high, the system limits how many people can realistically move upward, and ensures that those who do must first “pay their dues” to get there.

It’s been a while since I ran the numbers, but looking at the total circulation and exchange of $1 bills in the US averaged out, there’s roughly $85,000 per person per year. For multimillionaires to hold the wealth they do, thousands of others have to live paycheck to paycheck.

Where would the money come from 

Free college is great, but if at 18 you need to support your single mom who can barely walk because of years of untreated medical conditions and your 4 siblings who have no one else to feed them, you're not going to college.

Higher education is a privilege even when it's free; to reduce inequality you first have to make sure everyone has the minimum standard of living required to take advantage of opportunities, and only then you can provide these opportunities.

We can't afford tuition. For an awful lot of people, it would be paying them to goof off for four years. At least now the goofing off is paid for by the student or his family. They are free to waste their money and incur debt for no good reason.

There are simply a lot of people who are not suited for higher education. It is wasted on them. Germany has free tuition, but you must normally be on the "smart kid" college track to be eligible for it (there are exceptions for other outstanding students though). These people usually graduate "high school" at age 19 with the equivalent education of nearly an associate's degree.

Think of it like a high school that's a year longer, and every student's schedule is loaded with Advanced Placement classes. Your grades during the last couple years and your final test scores (the tests are very hard) function in place of SAT/ACT scores for getting into college. That's evidence the state will likely get a good return on investment with the tuition it's about to pay out. I wouldn't mind scholarships for all such students in the US.

You also run into the problem of why tuition is so high in the US. It's high because the schools started receiving a flood of student loan money, so they jacked up the tuition and greatly expanded administrative overhead to eat up that money. Do you think they'd do any different with a flood of government-paid tuition? We can't do this without some efficiency metric in place.

I have four main points:

1. At least in the US, the primary institutions that provide extreme upward mobility are private colleges and universities who would not be subject to a government policy of providing free college.

2. A huge portion of the wage benefit from college is about signaling that you are smarter than average, as opposed to learning specific useful skills. Because of that, it inherently can't be a benefit most people in society get, since if everyone signals something, the signal is useless, and we would move to like grad school or some sort of testing as the signal.

3. If you reduce tuition to zero, it's likely you'll end up with fewer seats overall due to the reduced budget, which could exacerbate inequality especially if admission becomes a lot more competitive.

4. Even with free tuition, there's a big cost in lost wages for students (the money you could make by having a full time job instead). So lots of young people who are financially constrained will not be able to go to college because they need the cash from working now, even if the tuition was $0.

I think free tuition for public colleges is a good thing inasmuch as the government is not a business and should be run for public benefit, but I don't think it would do much for inequality.

You seem to imply that free higher education isn't a welfare program, is that a part of your view?

Interesting post. I’ll start by saying I think I agree with your position. The counterpoints I will provide are for consideration, not so much to say you are incorrect. I will also say I have not researched any of these points. They are just a few things that came to mind. I say this as someone who grew up very poor.

Free higher education would not necessarily create more opportunities overall. So maybe now you need a PhD instead of a bachelors degree.

It would also not address other challenges such as the need to pay the bills while you go to school.

Again, thanks for the post. It’s a great idea to consider.

In the 1980s, the government decided everybody should have a college education. They dramatically increased incentives to make it easier than ever to get a degree. The results of this are that even entry-level jobs often require a college degree. That not only makes it more difficult for college graduates, now having to compete with far more applicants with similar education background, but makes it near impossible for those without a college degree to get good jobs.

An associates degree has already basically become the new equivalent of a high school diploma. Making it free will simply erode the value even further.

Across systems, the effect is the same: higher education, which is framed as the great equalizer, instead becomes a sorting mechanism that keeps social groups separated. Wealthier students can afford better preparation, avoid debt, and leverage social networks. Lower-income students face financial stress, constrained choices, and fewer second chances. Over time, this hardens class boundaries rather than breaking them.

I fail to see how free higher ed would solve any of these problems. wealthier students will still be able to afford better prep (for all schooling, grades, first jobs, etc), avoid debt, and leverage social networks. the only thing free higher ed would do is help middle class people avoid some debt (reminder: at least in the US many students from families in poverty already get their higher ed funded already).

Restricted access preserves the signaling value of elite degrees and limits competition for high-status positions. In that sense, tuition-based education systems reproduce inequality in a way that feels fundamentally unfair in societies that present themselves as meritocratic and democratic.

You know most elite colleges already offer basically free tuition for anyone who would be accepted but cant pay, right? The way they restrict access is by intentionally keeping their admission rates low. Free higher ed won't fix that, it'll just ensure everyone and their mom who wants a degree for a public university gets one.

One thing you fail to recognize is that free higher ed isn't free. First and most obviously, it is paid for by taxpayer money, so the costs are really just being paid for in a different manner. You could argue its better cause richer people tend to pay more in taxes (though in a lot of cases thats not even true, i.e. the ultra wealthy). But you should at least acknowledge folks who don't want to go to college and end up making their own way to a middle class income or better will be disproportionately hurt by your policy (since they will now be footing some of the bill for others college. The second thing you should acknowledge is trading 4 years of your life (and presumably the cost of living, food, etc if that's not also free) is not always worth a degree. There are plenty of college degrees (social worker, lang arts, ceramics, etc) that are either valued very little in the job market or not at all, and getting a degree in one of these even at 0 financial cost would still not be worth 4 years of an individual's life, at least from a financial perspective. And I certainly wouldn't make the arguments taxpayers should be paying for 4 years of someone's schooling if that person isn't going to be making more money at the end of it. If you want to go to college for others reasons (self-actualization, etc) you should have to pay your own way through it, just like you would have to pay your own way through any other non-essential, non-productive thing you do in life. So at the very least, degrees that don't provide a significant value-add to one's job market prospects should not be free... Which leads to all other sorts of philosophical issues to contend with (is it good for only wealthy people to be able to major in english, ceramics, etc).

Honestly, imo, the first move we should do is build a good floor. Guaranteed three hots and a cot and healthcare for all.
Now they dont have to be 5 start lodgings/meals, but they do gotta be serviceable. Decent, but not what you'd settle for.

Once this is in place, everyone that can improve will improve.

I think your thoughts are very noble.

But the reality is is that if people don’t take risks, meaningful risks, they simply would not appreciate or do well and the overall opportunity that they have.

Everyone who owns a business understands this.  You work incredibly hard because if you fail, you lose possibly your entire savings.  And that drives hard work and excellence.

Basically, all things that people get for free they take for granted, and they don’t do well.

I can’t believe the free educational tuition for the top 10% of the nations high school graduates is in the nation’s best interest.  And we should go through and provide support for those individuals because they are destined for great things.

The system would be accessible to everyone equally.  All that you’d have to do is perform well in high school.

But for the people who aren’t striving to be the best and their teenage years, should also have opportunities.  And that’s where the college loan system comes in.

They can take those loans, understand the risk there in the reward potential that they have if they do well.  And then work in clearly hard to do well.  

Anyone who works in credible be hard to do well in college and graduates in the top tier of the school is going to be employable.  And if they keep that effort up through the rest of their career, they will excel in the social economic market marketplace.

So I think the system set up pretty evenly. The part that people don’t want to accept is that that’s a merit reward system.  Excel and you’ll be successful.  Waste your time in college and you won’t be.

The loan part is there to make sure that people who want to waste their time self select out, until they’re ready

In the U.S., high tuition and student debt create long-term disadvantages that shape career choices, risk tolerance, and wealth accumulation. In parts of Europe, even where tuition is low or free, rising fees, limited capacity, and elite program gatekeeping still correlate strongly with family background.

Across systems, the effect is the same: higher education, which is framed as the great equalizer, instead becomes a sorting mechanism that keeps social groups separated. Wealthier students can afford better preparation, avoid debt, and leverage social networks. Lower-income students face financial stress, constrained choices, and fewer second chances. Over time, this hardens class boundaries rather than breaking them.

I think your own post is enough to change your view. Your post points to places in Europe that you say have low or free tuition and still see “gate keeping”. What makes you think that changes?

People who have money to better prepare their children will continue to do so. And why shouldn’t they? Tutors, afterschool programs, science camp. There will always be people more prepared who will have better outcomes because of it. I wouldn’t call that inequality.

I think you’d be surprised how many kids drop out of free high school because they don’t like learning, don’t see it as important, and want immediate gratification from either having a job and buying shit, or just want to have fun.

Yes I know some people who drop out are supporting their family, but I don’t think that’s the norm. A lot of people just aren’t students and don’t want to be students. Those people would often actively make fun of people in higher education.

This would help poor people who want to climb up and who want to delay gratification and have a better life later, which is a great thing. I’d support it.

But it doesn’t solve the issue of people choosing a worse life because it’s better for them in the short term (“wow I don’t have to waste my time at high school anymore, I can do whatever I want all day and do odd jobs for money or steal stuff” is a mentality some people have).

The only way you can fix that problem is by changing the way early education works, and even then it’s not always going to help in cases where parents are setting that example for them or are completely neglectful/absent.

I have ADHD that went undiagnosed until my 20s. I barely made it through high school. I was poor and just scraping by for years, and it impeded my access to treatment and medication for my disorder (as well as chronic anxiety and depression).

I just got my bachelors this year, a degree I started in 2018. It was paid for by my employer. Without the mental health support I received, I never would have been able to actually pursue said degree.

My point is, education takes a lot of work. Free education is great and I fully support it, but without the resources to actually take advantage of free college, there will still be an opportunity barrier. People who don’t have the capacity to work while going to school, people who need to work multiple jobs to feed themselves, people who need childcare to work or study; these are all factors that really mitigate the benefit of the opportunity.

In other words, I do think it would be good. But a college degree doesn’t instantly put food on the table or pay for therapy. Education is not an immediate need the same way that food and housing are.

Kids need way more help than adults do. You deny them basic necessities for the first 18 years of life and they won't even be able to get into college.

Free higher education would be great; however, we should also probably do something so kids can't starve to death in the streets before they turn 18.

I believe your mistake is assuming that higher education and economic outcomes are correlated. Maybe somewhat, but the correlation is likely not as strong as you believe. Most business owners I know do not have a college degree and there are a plethora of examples of people without college degrees who have never attended college who are very economically stable and successful. Furthermore, while a structured and formal higher education at an institution may cost, attaining a personal higher education is usually very cheap or free. Where I live we have access to free libraries and I rarely if ever see folks on the bottom of the economic ladder using this resource to educate themselves on whichever subject pleases them. Finally, democracy does not and has never claimed to value social mobility and equality of opportunity. The key tenet of democracy is equality of freedom, the whole social mobility and economic equality thing seems to be an argument for capitalism, not democracy. (Plato, Republic).

Don't most elite universities offer free rides for people who come from a low income family? As long as you can get in, you are good?

The wealth inequality that exists is not between the college educated and the non-college educated.

scroll down to the second graphic. Higher education means on average a higher income across the board, but its only about double from the lowest to the highest.

The average person with a masters degree isn't in the 1%. Even if you doubled their average income they would still not be in the 1%. You have to 10x their income just for them to reach the very bottom of the 1%.

the scholarship and debt based system that we have already allows everyone with the aptitude to college. You can argue that the interest that they have to pay to service their debt is not fair, but its insignificant in relation to wealth inequality. Its in the neigbhoorhood of 25k on average while the average graduate earns 66k. fair or unfair, its not enough to move the needle on wealth inequality.

For people who are poor, there are many programs for making college far less expensive. One also has to realize that you don't have to go to an expensive school to get a degree. I believe the problem is less about free higher education because many people who come for poor backgrounds don't go to college. There is another handful of people who do go to college but get a degree in something useless (this is for everyone, not just the poor). Then complain about student debt when they made the choice to not get a degree in something difficult.

Furthermore, college isn't the only option out there. We are literally in a trade school deficit where we don't have enough people to do those jobs. People could literally go to a trade school for far less, get working much sooner, have work lined up, and start making good money far sooner than the person going to a 4 year school.

As other people have said, not everyone is a student and not everyone would take advantage of free higher education. On top of that most developed countries already provide free, compulsory education in k-12. If higher education is added to that, will it still hold the advantage that it does now? Many institutions in the US have scholarship programs that are designed for underprivileged but driven students; which seem to do what you are kind of describing, they just will only take the most successful k-12 students which leads to an entire other ethical debate about what makes a successful k-12 student.

The bottom line, more people will take the help in a welfare format than they would in a higher education format. Is it the most effective or positive way to help people, I think that depends on what you want people and society to be.

Look at Germany and France - they have mostly free higher ed but still have pretty rigid class systems and limited social mobility compared to places like the US or Australia where you pay for uni

The real barriers to mobility aren't just tuition costs, they're things like cultural capital, networking, early childhood education quality, and geographic clustering of opportunities. Rich kids still dominate elite universities in countries with free tuition because they had better K-12 prep, test coaching, and know how to navigate the system

Plus free higher ed can actually be regressive since it's essentially a transfer from taxpayers (including working class people who don't go to uni) to future high earners. You might get better bang for your buck investing that money in early childhood programs or vocational training instead

Tuition is not the biggest cost of higher education. My bachelors degree at a state university was <$20k and I graduated in 2015, so about $5k/yr.

The biggest costs are your living expenses while going to school. You need housing, you need food, you need transportation, you need health coverage, and you cannot practically (in most cases) work full time. Living costs WAY more than ~$5k/yr, even rolling back the clock to 2015.

IMO, making tuition free will benefit the middle class more than poor folks. Those are people that have the capital, the flexibility, and the means to take advantage of that benefit on a larger scale while also not being too flush with class to not really worry. And, again IMO, there is nothing wrong with helping the middle class, it’s just that it’s not achieving your stated goal.

If the goal is to reduce inequality, free higher education comes wayyyyy too late to make a significant impact. 99.99999% of poor kids will and can never overcome the insurmountable headstart that kids who receive personal after-school tutoring and group standardized test prep classes have.

Rich white and asian kids get personal after-school tutors as early as the 4th grade, and no later than 7th grade. They start going to SAT Test Prep classes by 8th or 9th grade up until they take the actual SAT exam.

If the children of poorer families do not receive such resources at the same early age, and learn the same habits one needs to learn to win within the rules of this game, then there will be no noticeable change in inequality even if higher education was completely subsidized.

We have a real life test case.

Tuition is cheap in the state of California. CA has probably the best system of tiered higher education in the country and it has colleges for every area and skill level from needing remediation to premier education in the world.

If you were not the strongest k-12 student or starting over at an older age, their community colleges basically only charge a small fee. Go there for 2 years and you can transfer to one of its numerous universities at whatever tier level you qualify for, at a tuition rate that's moderate and heavily subsidized.

It's not the tuition that racks up your loan balance in CA. It's the fact that it's the most expensive state in the country to live in that racks up your debt.

Another test case is the GI Bill, which pays veterans a stipend to go to college. They not only pay for the classes they PAY YOU to take them. The college completion rate of GI Bill recipients is much lower than supporters of the program like to admit.

So... let's take an example of the US:

A phenomenon that we've seen here is that, when too many people have degrees, a degree becomes a requirement for almost every job that pays a living wage.

Previous to loans being almost universally available, a high school degree was sufficient to get good factory work that would lead to a prosperous life.

Equality isn't served by too many people getting college degrees. Indeed, it can be counterproductive.

Social mobility would be aided by merit scholarships so that only people who will substantially benefit from a college degree get one, and people that won't are able to get jobs with living wages without a college degree.

Before implementing free higher education, there must be serious efforts to ensure fair wages, benefits, and long-term stability for teachers. Educators should be supported by government funding in a manner similar to civil servants. With improved financial security and benefits, more people would be encouraged to enter the teaching profession, increasing both the quality and availability of educators. This, in turn, would allow school systems to expand and better support students, helping to develop capable and socially responsible members of society.

As higher education institutions increase in number, some exclusive schools (such as private universities) would still exist. However, broader access would shift the value of a degree from an elite credential to a common qualification, transforming higher education from a privilege into a societal necessity. Education should not be treated as an elitist institution but as a fundamental component of national and social development.

Private schools should continue to exist, but religious schools should not be exempt from public accountability. If religious schools receive public benefits, they should provide students with the option to opt out of mandatory religious indoctrination and be required to pay taxes like other private institutions.

Countries with heavily subsidized/tuition-free public universities have significantly higher educational requirements and expectations than somewhere like the US.

While I like the idea in theory, the reality is that educational attainment in this country is garbage… the average American has an estimated 1/4 - 1/5 chance of being functionally illiterate… too many public schools force children through for better numbers.

If the government is going to start taking on those costs, it is going to severely curtail who is eligible or qualified to attend colleges or universities in the first place.

It would be more meritocratic… but the existing wealth and systemic inequalities would just reinforce inequality of access to higher education.

My college offers full tuition for all local high school grads that qualify for the Pell Grant. While I'm proud and happy my school does this, it hasn't been a huge cure all for inequality. Majority of people who are on welfare frankly aren't raising kids who so be able to make it through college. Giving that population free college, will help a few, which is great, but a large enough chunk of people won't be able to take advantage of it to make it super helpful.

All that said college should be cheaper, an making it free, at least to poorer people would be a useful tool in the equality tool box. Its just not as broadly helpful as basic welfare.

EDIT: the more i think about it, free higher education honestly might do more to allow the upper and upper middle classes to widen the wealth gap than it would to lift the middle class and below.

If you're poor, you're able to go to college effectively for free. That's exactly what I did. I waited until past 27, which is the age that the government has decided you're able to file for financial aid separately from your parents. And since I was unemployed, I was able to get a full ride to my 4-year degree.

I believe that if your family is also poor, you can get a free ride at any age (18 is minimum I imagine).

So really, if you're actually in poverty, that's the ideal situation to go to college in America.

This information connects to this view:

"That tuition-based systems are actually fair or efficient in promoting mobility"

If you join the military, you get free access to higher education. While you’re in & when you leave. Easy.

This 'everyone is on equal footing' mentality will lead to a worse overall state.

If everyone has free access to higher education then it's just an extension of HS to an employer. So now jobs that once required a HS degree will require a college degree - it's free so they'll want the most educated they can feasibly get.

So now you have young adults putting off careers for another 4 years of school just so they can work menial jobs anyways.

You're just moving the entry level goalposts and pushing more people into post grad.

All you would do is devalue higher education more than it already is. Higher education is not for everyone, and offering it free will pull many people who wouldn’t otherwise want or need it into a system propped up by Federal money. The only reason this idea is constantly proposed is because the Left knows that the school systems function as Leftist manufacturing plants and the longer you can keep people in school the longer they’re exposed to the Marxist indoctrination and sheltered from the real world.

The problem I see with your theory is that by fully subsidizing higher education, the system becomes susceptible to mediocrity. If your plan comes with strict limits on scholarships and majors (which will lead to financially viable careers) to create competition and ensure seriousness in the recipients. Just subsidizing all higher education will just cheapen higher education and not help inequality. Also, subsidizing trade schools will do a lot to help

The problem with your question stems from the current hiring system in your country. In your country, they look for certification. It's the same here, but with very significant caveats. You can get a job as a programmer without a specialized higher education. You can have a medical degree but still earn less than a mail carrier with only a basic education. Would you advocate for free higher education under these circumstances?

What kind of outcomes are you looking for? Lower income/net worth have resources available and probably do benefit the most when they can take the opportunity. Middle income pay a bit more but can and do manage the cost and come out about even rather than worse off for not attending. The upper income group isn't phased by the cost and if they were then they wouldn't go which is bad for the other two groups.

Universities don't exist to reduce inequality, it doesn't even exist to teach students. It exists to do academic research. Teaching is only a cumbersome but necessary way for universities to get consistent source of money (aka tuition), and to find potential future researchers. Promotions and tenure is not based on teaching, but on research results.

Inequality is attribute of real world. There's no reason to fight reality, same as there's no reason to fight again st gravity. It's there and all went shall aim for is that people are not poorer than before. Wealth inequality is not a problem if both poor and rich are richer than previous generation. Which is current situation btw.

I'd argue free tuition would make income inequality worse.

The laws of supply and demand dictate that if more people have X degree, that degree becomes less valuable.

So if more people attend college, they'll be earning less money afterwards since the degrees aren't as valuable. The ownership class can and will pay them less.

i mean somebody has to do the jobs that, today, don't pay much. these are most of the jobs that exist, in fact. what happens when there are a bunch of highly qualified people and then no jobs available for them? they work in lower paid, menial jobs, that don't pay much. so then how is this really helping inequality?

[removed]

Why do you assume that college *must* be the gatekeeper to higher paying jobs. Why is college set up as the choke point that grants (or doesn't grant) the one true credential that allows one to go into any higher class occupation?

The higher classes ironically benefit from subsidized education because they are more likely to use it. No matter what is tried, a doctor's kid is more likely to go to medical school than a plumber's, and vice versa.

A better solution would be the raise the floor of wages. 60-70% of essential jobs in this nation do not or should not require a college degree. Focusing on the minority of jobs is not the solution to inequality.

You’re right, but overhauling public K-12 would do a lot more. By the time students start university, all the disadvantaged groups have already been weeded out by poverty, crime, missing parents, etc.

Around the world, access to fundamental education is a first step. Then healthcare available to all, especially free to children and mothers. Then affordable and safe childcare. These are the biggest drivers to inequality in most societies. The fundamentals, once in place, with an education through to high school, would bring most people out of poverty

We already have free lower education in the US, and many students don’t take it seriously. There is a lot more to take seriously when you have skin in the game.

“If everyone is super, no-one is.” That’s not to say we shouldn’t properly educate people, but a degree is only worth anything when fewer people have one.

if that were true then you could just give people money and see if they spend it on education. in-kind benefits create massive deadweight loss.

which is exactly why American will not get it. Inequity is the whole fucking point.

As more people get college degrees the less valuable the degree becomes.

Providing free education doesn’t change culture.