Misconception #13: Free or affordable college will help reduce the gap between the rich and poor

There used to be a time in America when we believed that improving access to the K-12 system would reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. The K-12 system has become more accessible, but we still have a huge gap. In recent years, we have started making the same arguments regarding college.

Why didn’t the K-12 system fix the gap between the rich and the poor? There are a lot of reasons, but one stands out above all else. As I have mentioned before, businesses use schooling as an application filter. If there are a lot of applicants, they will look at high school graduates before dropouts. If there are a lot of applicants who completed high school, they will look for college graduates before high school graduates.

College graduates today are equivalent to high school graduates in the past. High School graduates today are the equivalent of those who did not receive schooling in the past. Colleges require money. They target the slow just like the K-12 system, and success comes primarily from getting in. Thanks to the expenses, the rich can use it as a buy in for the more desirable fields.

What happens if we improve accessibility to college? We will only make things worse. Jobs that currently require college will start to require more prestigious (expensive) colleges or even post-graduate work (which would not be included in plans to improve accessibility). The buy ins for the more desirable fields will actually increase as a result of the improved accessibility. Additionally, jobs that currently require a high school diploma will start to require college.

Let’s just imagine if we managed to completely subsidize colleges and anyone could attend for free. With the continuous push for more schooling, we are delaying entry into the workforce. People who are desperate for money might not want to wait until 20, 30, or however old we are going to eventually push for an acceptable employment age. Even if colleges were free, the poor would be among the least likely to take advantage of the opportunity.

Since college is an expensive process, all plans to improve accessibility must include significant subsidies. Money has to come from somewhere. While a lot of people don’t believe in the concept of trickle-down economics, there are components that are valid. No matter who is responsible for the expenses, it will likely be passed down through the increased costs of goods and services. Even the poor will be responsible for picking up part of the tab.

A lot of people feel that schooling entitles them to more money. With buy ins to the more desirable professions increasing, the rich will demand even more money. Paying higher wages for the rich would also trickle down to an increasing burden on the poor. Despite our insistence that college accessibility is vital to eliminating the gap between the rich and the poor, this approach would likely increase the gap. The idea is expensive and counter-productive.