What's Wrong with Tuition‐Free Four‐Year Public College

Bibliographic Data

ID21314617
AuthorsHarry Brighouse (0009-0007-3378-5704, Departments of Philosophy and Education Policy Studies University of Wisconsin‐Madison, corresponding author), Kailey Mullane (independent scholar)
Year2023
Volume73
Issue6
Pages833-859
Publication date2023-12-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEducational Theory (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0013-2004 • E-ISSN: 1741-5446
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/edth.12605
OpenAlexW4390236433
LanguageEN
Citations received3

Advocates of tuition‐free four‐year public college make the argument for it too easy by asserting that it would be paid for out of taxes on the wealthy. Other uses of the revenues are possible. In this paper, Harry Brighouse and Kailey Mullane establish two criteria for comparing different uses of the revenues: the first criterion is, will the policy increase the overall level of educational goods?, and the second is, will the policy reduce inequalities of educational goods? Here, Brighouse and Mullane compare tuition‐free four‐year public college with two alternatives: (1) spending the revenues in pre‐K and K‐12, and (2) spending them on expanding the Pell Grant Program. Both alternatives are superior with respect to reducing inequalities, and spending in pre‐K and K‐12 is superior with respect to increasing the overall level of educational goods. While on some assumptions tuition‐free four‐year public college might prove better than expanding Pell Grants at increasing the overall level of educational goods, there are good reasons, nevertheless, to prefer expanding Pell Grants

Argument (complex analysis) · Economic growth · Economics · Higher education · Inequality · Microeconomics · Political science · Public economics · Public good · Public policy · Public spending · Public university · Revenue · Finance · Global Educational Reforms and Inequalities · Higher Education Research Studies · Law · Mathematics · Public Administration