The topic revolves around the question of why state schools, which are taxpayer-funded, still charge tuition, and what larger systemic issues are at play.

1. Double-Dipping: The Illogical Practice of Charging Tuition

• Taxpayer Funding: State schools are largely funded by taxpayer dollars, meaning that the public has already contributed to the institution’s maintenance and operation. Yet, despite this funding, students are still required to pay tuition fees.
• Double Financial Burden: This creates a scenario where citizens are paying twice — once through taxes and again through direct tuition payments. This arrangement feels inherently unfair and unnecessary, especially when the purpose of state-funded schools is to provide accessible education to all.

2. Global Perspective: Free Education in Other Countries

• Education as a Public Good: In many other nations, particularly in Europe, education is treated as a public good. Countries like Germany, Norway, and Finland offer free or heavily subsidized education to both their citizens and international students, regardless of their immigration status.
• Free Tuition with Living Stipends: Countries such as Germany not only provide free tuition but also offer living stipends to help students focus solely on their education without the burden of working while studying. The idea is that an educated population benefits society as a whole, and therefore, investing in human capital through free education makes long-term sense.
• Contrast with the U.S.: By comparison, the U.S. is one of the few advanced nations where higher education is increasingly treated as a commodity. The high tuition rates prevent access for many, creating a system of inequality where only those who can afford the exorbitant costs, or take on massive debt, can participate.

3. Historical Context: Rising Tuition in the U.S.

• Affordable Education in the Past: Historically, tuition at state schools in the U.S. was very affordable. For instance, tuition at public universities like the University of Texas was once as low as $100. This low-cost education was accessible to a broad swath of the population, allowing more people to attain degrees and skills necessary for career advancement.
• Strategic Increase in Tuition: Over time, tuition rates began to increase dramatically. The argument presented suggests that this rise in costs wasn’t purely a matter of inflation or the need for additional funding. Instead, it points to a more calculated reason — to prevent students from protesting or becoming politically active.

4. The Impact of Tuition on Student Political Engagement

• Neutering Student Activism: By increasing tuition fees, students are forced to take on part-time jobs or internships to pay for their education. This leaves them with little time or energy to engage in activism, political organizing, or other forms of social engagement that were more common when students had less financial pressure.
• Controlling the Narrative: Historically, university students have been at the forefront of major social movements. The financial burden of high tuition can be seen as a way to divert their energy from organizing protests or challenging societal norms to simply surviving and paying their bills.
• Silencing Dissent: The result is a generation of students who are too financially strapped to challenge the system, ensuring that the power structures within society remain relatively unchallenged.

5. Economic Inequality: The Ultra-Wealthy Benefit

• Education as a Commodity: In the U.S., education has become increasingly commodified. Elite institutions and state schools alike charge high fees, and those who can afford the best education get the best jobs, further reinforcing economic divides.
• Widening Wealth Gap: This system benefits the ultra-wealthy and the corporations that thrive on maintaining the status quo. It limits the mobility of lower- and middle-class individuals by saddling them with student debt, while the children of the wealthy can access the best opportunities without the same burdens.
• Perpetuation of Inequality: In a world where higher education is necessary for career advancement, making education difficult to access through high costs ensures that the gap between the wealthy and the rest continues to grow. This perpetuates a cycle of economic inequality, where the rich get richer and the poor remain disadvantaged.

6. Conclusion: The Need for Reform

• The Call for Free Education: Given the economic and social benefits of an educated populace, the U.S. should consider moving towards a model where public higher education is free or at least far more affordable.
• Global Competition: With countries like Germany offering not just free tuition but also stipends to students, the U.S. is falling behind in producing a highly educated workforce. This has long-term economic implications as American students face barriers to attaining the skills needed to compete in the global market.
• Reevaluation of Priorities: The current model in the U.S., where higher education is a financial burden, is not sustainable. There needs to be a shift in priorities, recognizing that investing in accessible education benefits not only individuals but society as a whole.

In summary, the U.S.’s insistence on charging tuition at state-funded schools is illogical, particularly in a high-tech world where education is critical. While other nations are investing in free education and supporting students, the U.S. continues to create barriers to access, silencing student activism and perpetuating inequality. A fundamental reevaluation of the system is necessary to ensure that education becomes a right, not a privilege.