With the presidential election looming in just a few years, conversations about big political issues are starting to arise again. One of those questions is whether making tuition free nationwide would be a good idea, or even possible. Candidates like Bernie Sanders are pushing for it, while others are completely opposed to it. This makes us think: could and should the United States really make college free? While researching the topic, I came across a few different viewpoints from different authors that I found interesting and quite compelling. It seems that the main cornerstones of the debate are where all the money for free college will come from, and whether free college tuition would actually help the disadvantaged as intended. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first article I read was For Public Colleges, the Best Tuition Is No Tuition by Robert Samuels. His main argument is that free college is easily achievable and would be the best option for the United States. He begins his article by mentioning Finland. Finland has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the world. Their education system is extremely effective and Samuels believes that the United States should try to emulate them somewhat. As mentioned before, when the topic of education comes up, the biggest issue seems to be money and how we are going to be able to afford to make tuition free. Samuels combats these doubts with logic and points out that the United States already spends almost as much as it would cost to have free tuition as it does on the Pell Grant, student loans, financial aid and others are dedicated to higher education. This is a very good point because it appeals to the government. By simply giving each university a fixed amount and eliminating other costs like student loans, it saves them a lot of money by avoiding the cost of "non-payment of loans, their servicing and their subsidy, as well as payment defaults by borrowers.” The next thing Samuels does is say how broken the system we use today is. Some people think that the education system is doing well and does not need change, but they are sadly mistaken. In just the last three years, nearly a quarter of all education benefits have been shown to go to families earning between $100,000 and $180,000 a year. The government claims that these benefits are put in place to help everyone and especially those on low incomes, but in reality they favor the rich and divide the nation by keeping the poor poor. Samuel not only addresses the two main topics related to free college (the funds and the success of helping the disadvantaged), but adds another very good point. He argues that the main reason we should make tuition free is that higher education is necessary for an effective democracy. Thomas Jefferson said exactly the same thing. If education was not valued and there were only a few individuals in power with higher education, the rest would be brainwashed. We all need to think independently and deeply, understanding complex ideas.Finally, the essay ends with “Recent research has shown that unequal educational attainment goes hand in hand with income inequality, as well as higher crime rates and lower health standards. In other words, the more public higher education is privatized, the more unequal it becomes – and the more society in general suffers.” I think it was the perfect final statement and really encompasses everything he believes in. The next article I reviewed was a direct contrast to the first article I read. It was “Free Public College is a Terrible Idea” by Brian Rosenberg. At the beginning of this argument, the author rambles somewhat about his personal opinion without stating any facts and seems very pessimistic about the whole idea of ​​free college. But then he touches on some very valid points. First, he points out that if tuition becomes free, each college will have many more applications than it already has, so they will become considerably more demanding. Almost all free tuition plans do not address the admissions process and how it would be affected. Although schools could indeed change and start allowing more students to attend, more staff would be needed. And, with this stricter admissions screening, it would ultimately benefit children from wealthy families attending reputable private high schools. The idea of ​​free college is supposed to benefit everyone and give low-income students a chance to attend college, but if the education isn't equivalent from the start, they will be left out. still negatively affected. Rosenberg also believes that if we make tuition free, the graduation rate will steadily decline because "the problem of inequality is too complex and too deeply rooted" to be solved simply by making college free. Rosenburg believes the best way to combat all of these problems would be to ensure that aid goes to those who need it most. The best way to do this would be to increase the amount of the Pell Grant. The Pell Grant is paid to people whose household earns less than $50,000 per year. Currently, the maximum amount a person can receive through the grant is $6,195. As we all know, this does little to reduce costs for most colleges. Increasing the amount of money the Pell Grant can provide would directly impact those who need it most and are impacted by inequality, thereby ending the gap. It would also be much cheaper than making college free. Finally, I checked out the article It's Time to Promote Free College by Max Page and Dan Clawson. This article contains very similar ideas to the first article, The Best Tuition Is No Tuition. Page and Clawson believe that today's college has become a necessity, not just a luxury. As companies expect more and more from their candidates, someone without higher education doesn't stand a chance. Low-income individuals and wealthy individuals deserve equal opportunities to succeed. Although Page and Clawson acknowledge this huge economic class gap in education, they do not explicitly say that making college free would solve the problem. Their main ideology is that education is a right for all. The article also states that "new spending on public colleges, which would be triggered by an influx of more students, generates more economic activity than a tax cut of similar size or similar spending on roads and bridges. And, over the course of their lives, graduates..