Why the “for all” in “free college for all” matters
The advantages of a universal program
It’s presidential primary season, and one topic many Democratic candidates are talking about is free tuition at public colleges. It’s a timely idea. Decades ago when college was cheaper, it was also optional: a high-school education was enough for a stable, middle-class career. Not anymore. Today, college is what high school was—a prerequisite for a baseline prosperity—even as skyrocketing tuition has priced many families out.
Public universities are controlled mostly by states and community colleges by counties. Yet presidential candidates seek to cast a national vision—and to draw distinctions among themselves. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Julián Castro support sweeping programs of free college for all. Others criticize the scope of such proposals, offering narrower reforms to make college free or at least debt-free for lower-income Americans.
The disagreement reflects a broader divide between two approaches to social spending: universal versus “means tested.” The two represent different visions of what progressive social policy should be.
