Abstract

Advocates of tuition-free four-year public college make the argument for it too easy by asserting that it would be paid for out of taxes on the wealthy. Other uses of the revenues are possible. In this paper, Harry Brighouse and Kailey Mullane establish two criteria for comparing different uses of the revenues: the first criterion is, will the policy increase the overall level of educational goods?, and the second is, will the policy reduce inequalities of educational goods? Here, Brighouse and Mullane compare tuition-free four-year public college with two alternatives: (1) spending the revenues in pre-K and K-12, and (2) spending them on expanding the Pell Grant Program. Both alternatives are superior with respect to reducing inequalities, and spending in pre-K and K-12 is superior with respect to increasing the overall level of educational goods. While on some assumptions tuition-free four-year public college might prove better than expanding Pell Grants at increasing the overall level of educational goods, there are good reasons, nevertheless, to prefer expanding Pell Grants.