Opposition Essay: Making Community College Free for All
Rubric & Guidelines:
-
Support your assertions with specific examples and remember to EXPLAIN the examples.
-
This is NOT a hate-fest—your paper must be based on logical evidence, not attacking or belittling language toward any individual or group. (Be NICE!)
-
Your essay should have six paragraphs:
-
Introduction
-
Four body paragraphs supporting your thesis
-
Conclusion
-
-
Use transitions between paragraphs and ideas.
-
Word Count: 1100-1400 words.
-
Use at least four direct quotations (no more than seven), with proper parenthetical citations from at least four reliable sources (no more than six).
-
Each quote should be a sentence or less—no long quotes!
-
A quotation must always be part of your own sentence (with citation).
-
Interpret or explain each quote/example to show how it proves your point.
-
-
Include a properly formatted Works Cited page.
-
No counter-argument paragraph is needed—this is an opposition essay, not an argument essay.
-
Do NOT include a counter-argument, as this will take away from your word count and weaken other paragraphs.
Outline: Opposition Essay Structure
I. Introduction
-
Background of the problem/proposal being opposed (choose from the approved list)
-
Thesis: Argument against the proposal
II. Body Paragraph 1: Reason #1
III. Body Paragraph 2: Reason #2
IV. Body Paragraph 3: Reason #3
V. Body Paragraph 4: Reason #4
VI. Conclusion
Sample Thesis Statement:
Making community college free for all faces several significant challenges. While the idea of accessible education is appealing, a comprehensive approach that considers the financial impact, potential changes in student motivation, and the overall effectiveness of the policy is needed. A blanket policy could lead to unexpected outcomes and financial strain on taxpayers, while also potentially impacting the quality of education.
Arguments Against Free Community College:
-
Financial Strain:
Substantial taxpayer investment required; potential for increased taxes or cuts in essential services. -
Potential for Overcrowding:
Surge in enrollment could strain resources and lower education quality. -
Undermining Student Motivation:
Tuition costs can encourage commitment; removing them may reduce motivation and graduation rates. -
Impact on College Funding:
Free tuition could reduce funding for other initiatives, affecting resources, faculty, and programs. -
Potential for Reduced Quality:
Lack of incentives may impact quality of education and student outcomes. -
Inequitable Outcomes:
A universal policy might benefit students who do not need aid, increasing educational inequalities.
Alternatives to Consider:
-
Targeted Aid:
Financial aid programs for low-income students. -
Increased Scholarships and Grants:
More financial support for those who need it most. -
Student Loan Forgiveness:
Addressing debt burden for community college graduates. -
Reduced Tuition for Specific Groups:
Lower rates for first-generation students, veterans, or vocational programs.
Conclusion:
While the idea of free community college is appealing, careful consideration of potential consequences is necessary. A blanket policy could bring unforeseen challenges such as financial strain, overcrowding, and reduced motivation and quality. A more nuanced approach, like targeted aid or reduced tuition for certain groups, may better promote access and affordability without the drawbacks of a universal free system.
The answer
Rethinking Free Community College: A Critical Look
1- Introduction
In recent years, there has
been a growing movement to provide tuition-free community college to everybody.
Proponents, who include politicians and educators, usually point to increased
economic mobility, lower student loan debt, and better access as the main
advantages of such a strategy. Several states have already implemented free
community college programs, and national proposals—such as the Biden
administration's education plan—have brought this issue into the national
spotlight. While eliminating tuition fees is undeniably appealing, it is
essential to move beyond slogans and consider the broader implications of such
a policy. Although providing free community college to all may address
immediate barriers to access, it may also create deeper systemic challenges
that ultimately harm the very individuals the policy is intended to help. There
are numerous critical obstacles to making community college universally free.
While accessible education is an admirable goal, any proposal must be evaluated
in terms of its financial feasibility, its potential impact on student
motivation, and its overall effectiveness. A universal policy risks
compromising educational quality, producing unintended consequences, and
imposing significant financial strain on taxpayers.
2-BP1:
Another important issue is that, the
first, and possibly most inevitable, obstacle to free community college is its
high cost. Tens of billions of dollars would be needed each year for such a
program; these funds would have to be raised through taxes or taken away from
other vital services. "A nationwide program to eliminate community college
tuition could cost federal and state governments over $70 billion
annually," according to the Brookings Institution (Hoxby). This number is
astounding, especially in light of the financial burden brought on by
inflation, inadequate infrastructure, and public health requirements. The
fundamental question is how to finance education in a sustainable and equitable
manner, not if it should be paid at all. Raising taxes may seem like a fair
solution on paper, but in reality, it disproportionately impacts middle- and
working-class families—many of whom may never directly benefit from community
college programs. Furthermore, money would be distributed to students
regardless of their financial need under universal free college. This implies
that wealthy students who could already afford tuition could have their
education subsidized by taxpayer dollars. "Universal free college is a
regressive policy, as it sends the most benefits to higher-income families who
already have the means to pay," criticizes economist Susan Dynarski in her
assessment of this feature (Dynarski). Public policy should be more targeted to
low-income, underserved populations that actually need the help, rather than
implementing a one-size-fits-all approach. Although free education seems equal,
in reality it can take scarce public funds away from those who need them the
most.
3-BP2
Furthermore, Enrollment will almost
surely soar when free community college is implemented, but it is important to
think about whether schools are prepared to accommodate this development. In
many states, community colleges already have inadequate staffing and funding.
The learning environment will deteriorate if more students enroll without
corresponding expenditures in faculty, infrastructure, and academic support. As
The Atlantic reports, “free community college programs that have been tried at
the state level have faced problems with class availability and student access
to support systems” (Wong). Such overcrowding has real consequences—students
may find it harder to get into required classes, experience reduced academic
support, or feel disengaged in large, impersonal classrooms. Enrollment figures
by themselves do not accurately reflect the quality of education. The most
vulnerable students—those balancing jobs, families, and other
responsibilities—frequently bear the brunt of resource constraints. These students
risk falling behind or dropping out if they do not have access to academic
counseling, mental health assistance, and tutoring. Colleges might even be
compelled to hire more adjunct teachers, who usually have fewer possibilities
for student engagement and less job security. Ironically, this can result in
lower outcomes for the exact populations that free education is intended to
assist if access is only increased without improving assistance.
4- BP3
Equally important is how free
community college might unintentionally harm student motivation.
While financial barriers are a real concern, studies have shown that students
who contribute financially to their education often demonstrate greater
commitment and perseverance. According to Inside Higher Ed, “there is
evidence that students who do not have financial skin in the game may be less
engaged, more likely to drop out, and less focused in their academic goals”
(Smith). By eliminating all costs, the system may attract students who are less
invested in their studies, potentially raising dropout rates and decreasing
graduation success. A well-balanced solution might involve low tuition with
strong financial aid to preserve student commitment while maintaining access.
5- BP4
Moreover, a universal free college
policy risks worsening educational inequality by treating all students the
same, regardless of their specific needs.
Students from underrepresented or low-income backgrounds often face academic,
cultural, and logistical challenges that tuition remission alone cannot solve.
These non-financial barriers remain unaddressed in a one-size-fits-all policy.
In addition, allocating massive public funds to cover tuition may divert
resources from vital student support services such as academic counseling,
mental health care, and childcare. As Sarah Goldrick-Rab warns, “Free college
programs that don't include investments in student services may look good on
paper but are incomplete” (Goldrick-Rab). Instead of blanket tuition coverage,
a more effective and equitable strategy would combine modest tuition, targeted
financial aid, and strong support systems to ensure student success and
retention.
6- Conclusion
In conclusion, since everyone wants
higher education to be more accessible and inexpensive, it seems like a
terrific idea to make community college free. However, excellent intentions by
themselves won't solve the issue. Universal free community college could
actually backfire, putting a pressure on finances, decreasing student motivation,
and taking money away from areas that need it most. We should concentrate on
more intelligent solutions rather than a general strategy, such as investments
in high-quality education, improved financial aid for those who actually need
it, and more robust student support networks. Getting more people in the door
should not be the only objective; ensuring their success after they are there
should be as well. We need a system that is equitable, workable, and
long-lasting if we are to see significant change.
Works Cited
Dynarski, Susan.
“The Trouble with Free College.” The New York Times, 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/upshot/the-trouble-with-free-college.html
Goldrick-Rab,
Sara. “Free College Won’t Fix Everything.” The Washington Post, 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/04/01/free-college-wont-fix-everything/
Hoxby, Caroline.
“A Progressive Case Against Free College.” Brookings Institution, 2021.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-progressive-case-against-free-college/
Smith, Alex.
“Free Tuition and Student Motivation.” Inside Higher Ed, 2019.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/03/19/does-free-college-undermine-student-motivation-opinion
Wong, Alia. “Why
Free Community College May Not Improve Completion Rates.” The Atlantic, 2017.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/free-community-college/538812/