By Mike Rowse

One of the undeniable truths in life is that politicians, especially liberals, use enticing images to get what they want; never do they reveal the entire picture and probably all too often, they themselves are ill informed about the true consequences of their actions. So it is with free college education. Sounds like a good idea but it's not. And as a solution to the high cost of college, it's a terrible idea.

First of all, TANSTAAFL; There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Do you think contractors are going to build the buildings for free? How about the professors? Will they work for free? Utilities aren't going to be donated. No, someone has to pay for the education and that falls upon the taxpayers. Everyone is all aflutter about Germany not having tuition and fees even for foreign students. Germany also has the second highest tax burden of the 'developed' countries at 49% but estimates say that figure is about to increase dramatically.

OK, you are fine with your taxes being used to pay for free secondary education. That model is extremely inefficient and has led to decreasing standards as bureaucrats go away from quality of education as a standard of measurement and more towards inclusion, diversity, self-esteem or graduation rates as the way to judge the success or failure of their institutions.

But we know that having someone else pay for the cost of education takes the consumer out of the model. The user, in this case the student, doesn't care about the cost-benefit analysis. We already know from history that when a consumer is made to pay for the goods or services out of his income or savings, he tends to be much more careful of how he spends his money. He worries about the quality of education, the value it will give to him in terms of skills and knowledge that will make him more competitive in the marketplace when he graduates. He worries about the costs and how quickly he can get his degree.

Thus, universities are forced, by marketplace forces, to innovate, to operate efficiently and effectively, to add value that can be perceived by the consumer. Some universities will still cost more, but the perception will be that the cost is worth it to the graduate. Others will compete on lower cost or quicker graduation rates or other factors they perceive to be important to the consumer. That keeps costs down and quality up. Just look at the cost of tuition since student loans and government subsidies became the way to pay for a college education. Costs regularly increase at twice or three times the rate of inflation.

'Free' education also attracts students who are not as dedicated to getting an education as others may be. Students striving to learn will be surrounded by students who are just there because they don't want to go get a job. That becomes a distraction for the students and for the faculty. We've seen this happen in our public schools over the past 40 years. It used to be that kids were grouped based upon their ability to learn. Faster learners were in one class and so on. When that model was deemed to be discriminatory and hurtful to some students' self esteem, students of all learning abilities were mixed together.

Then teachers had to tailor lesson plans and teaching styles to the slowest learner in that class. More time was spent on getting the slower learners up to speed while the faster learners sat around and doodled on their book covers. Overall quality of education decreased and now the U.S. is way down the list when it comes to knowledge of students; we used to be at the top of the list.

Once again the liberals are showing their biases and discriminatory attitudes. Not everyone needs to go to college. I could make a strong argument that 12 years of public school is not necessary either. But what is wrong with someone being a mechanic, a janitor, a garbage man or a clerk at a store? Too many people look down on these professions as beneath them or somehow lower class. That's your problem that you've made society's problem. Anyone who is working and earning a living, providing for themselves and their family is just as good of a person as the CEO of Microsoft or the professor at the local college. We need people to do these jobs.

Free college is not free, neither is it a good thing for society.