A response to this article:


College is viewed as a necessity, yet priced as a luxury.

The unaffordable price of college has become a national issue. The federal government has started countless programs to try to alleviate the burden of cost. The Washington Post lists just a few, "The Pell Grant program, but there’s also the American Opportunity Tax Credit, Stafford, PLUS, and Perkins loans, and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Then there’s the tax-exempt status of scholarships and interest from state and local government bonds used to finance public higher education, as well as the deduction for charitable contributions to colleges and universities." Obviously, none of these programs have been largely helpful since the vast majority of college students end up in 5 figure debt.

Cooper Frank begins brainstorming some general ideas on how to reduce college tuition in his article "Free Education in America." He gives two general ideas. First, he suggests that instead of giving individual grants, the government should invest their funding directly into the school and set regulations on tuitions. Second, the actual system of learning in the classroom should be streamlined to be more effective and economical (e.g. online or hybrid courses). I strongly agree with both of his points but would like to expound on them a little.

On the first point, I would be quick to point out that there must also be individual grants alongside giving money straight to the college. Even with affordable tuition, there will still be hard-working students who cannot afford college without financial aid. However, I would suggest that college can choose whether to accept the government financial aid. If they do accept the aid, they must follow government restrictions. That way, if a college strongly disagrees with government regulations, they can chose to run independantly and accept students who don't want to go to a government regulated college. What these regulations are must be carefully watched and well contained. After all, we have seen what kind of job the government currently does in running the public school k-12 system.

Frank's second point is applicable now with little to no government involvement. The more studies that are done, the more we find that current educational system is largely ineffective both in lower and higher education. Our culture and world has changed in the past hundred years, yet we still use many of the same methods to teach. Often, these methods are overly expensive and used for a college or professor's personal gain. Frank gives an excellent example of the Rosetta Stone language learning program. It has been shown to efficiently teach a language to a large range of people, yet it is not accepted as a creditable course for most colleges. Granted, the Rosetta Stone program needs a few tweaks so that professors can test and check student's progress and ability before it could become creditable. Regardless, colleges are not investing funds into this or similar ideas. Progress is extremely slow moving in improving higher education with little to no contribution from the majority of colleges. Colleges must make a commitment to put aside any selfish gain and work towards cheaper tuition. We can't reduce any prices without the cooperation of the institutions themselves, textbook companies, and professors.

Cooper Frank's two ideas provide a good springboard for reforming higher education.