Who should bear the cost of public tertiary education?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Who should bear the cost of public tertiary education?
Position‹2 of 2: Tertiary education should be funded wholly by the government
Argument‹2 of 2: The equity of no-cost education

For some, the cost of tertiary education is a barrier to entry that can be removed through increased funding.

The argument

Cost is relative. $100 is a lot of money to a low income individual, but not a lot of money to the CEO of a tech company, so a single price tag does not represent a single burden — it represents a different sacrifice for every person who faces it. That is why a uniform tuition fee is not a uniform demand, and why "free" is the one cost that is equal to all: it is the only price that asks the same of everyone who pays it. Socio-economic disparities are global, and for some individuals the cost of public tertiary education is a burden that is not possible to overcome, however well suited to the education they may be. Through government funded tertiary education, the economic barrier to entry is substantially reduced, and the people it currently excludes are admitted on the same terms as everyone else. This benefits society as a whole, allowing for more civic engagement from college-educated individuals. An increase in the amount of college-educated citizens would also benefit the economy, allowing society to pull from a larger pool of problem-solvers to innovate, thereby creating jobs. Though the cost to be borne by the government is high, there is a significant enough return to justify it. The equity argument, though, is distinct from the economic one. A system in which tuition is charged sorts applicants partly by what their families can pay, so ability to pay does work that ought to be done by ability alone, and it does that work invisibly, before anyone is assessed. Free tertiary education is also more equitable in this respect: it removes the second filter entirely. It's an education system that values what someone knows over whether or not they can afford tuition.

Premises

[P1]Cost is relative — $100 burdens a low-income person but not a CEO — so "free" is the only cost that is truly equal to all. [P2] For many, the cost of tertiary education is an insurmountable barrier that government funding would remove. [P3] This benefits society through more civic engagement and a larger pool of educated problem-solvers, a return that justifies the high cost. [C] Therefore, because no-cost education is more equitable, tertiary education should be funded wholly by the government.

Counter-arguments

It is possible to overcome economic barriers to tertiary education without making tertiary education free to all. Some governments offer loans, grants, and even scholarships. Financial aid is even offered in some countries, though by itself it may not be enough to make tertiary education affordable. However, when combined with any of the aforementioned forms of financial aid, the cost of tertiary education can be made affordable to all.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] While cost may be relative, there are ways to adjust for this without making cost nonexistent.