In the 2000s, a city with a funny name in Michigan, once sprawling, starting looking a lot like a ghost town. Kalamazoo’s economy was once supported by all kinds of factories — for cars, musical instruments, medical devices, etc — which helped create the jobs that helped citizens feed their families. That all changed in the 1970s when globalization started going into full gear and factories started to move overseas; the jobs disappeared too. The people decided to move to the cities and suburbs. In their wake, they left abandoned buildings, empty schools and a loss of the tax revenue that allowed the city able to reinvest in itself. In 2005, the city of Kalamazoo decided to experiment with something new — Free college for all its citizens.

This initiative wasn’t kicked off by some “radical socialist;” It was the brainchild of a group of wealthy and anonymous residents looking to spur economic activity, population growth, and a more employable workforce. They wanted to save their city by providing everyone with 100% free tuition at any public college, and 15 private schools, in the state of Michigan for students who began in the Kalamazoo school system; it was intentionally designed to benefit all students who could maintain at least a 2.0 GPA, not just the poor. Since the program officially got started, the donors have spent about $124 million in tuition for over 5700 students. Clearly, these wealthy elites believed that free college was conducive to a more “healthy” capitalism — as did Polanyi, Gramsci, and do Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders. Were they right?

Kalamazoo College Humphrey

In the first year after “The Kalamazoo Promise” began, the population size of Kalamazoo grew by a whopping 10%. And, with an increase in population came an increase in spending and an increased need for housing; which created an increase in investment. Homebuilders and construction companies started applying for permits to build and created more revenue for the city. The increased revenue, in the form of taxes and more funding from the state due to a larger student body, allowed the city to improve its schools. People who planned on moving away from Kalamazoo instead decided to stay and many decided to invest in renovating their home. A higher percentage of Kalamazoo are employed relative to the rest of the country and their rate of poverty has dropped significantly. Thanks to “free college”, the city of Kalamazoo’s economy has been revitalized. But, that’s not all it did.

The care and attention that these donors put into their city, and the buzz it created around the state, created a sense community in the city. It also spurred on growth in college enrollment across all races and groups; overall enrollment rates went from 58% before the program to 75% in 2017, and more high school graduates are going on to graduate from college as well. Many students, who would’ve never even thought of going to college, are now going and exploring opportunities that would’ve never been available to them. All of this in a city which, just over a decade ago, looked like it was on the brink of disappearing off the map.

Yet, free college is not a “silver bullet” for solving the problems of inequality and a more productive education system. In fact, their program has revealed other factors that contribute to inequality. For example, white students in Kalamazoo still earn degrees at about three times the rate as black people do. However, research has shown that, when controlling for factors that often prevent minorities from attending graduating, the program has actually led to an increase in their graduation rates as well; the bigger issue is economic. The upper and middle classes benefited most, in terms of the dollar amount spent on them, because structural advantages help them achieve higher rates of enrollment than the poor — also often because of things like teen pregnancy, absent parents, or higher rates of crime. And, although the city’s rate of poverty has dropped, its rate is still higher than the national average at 31%. Some academics have even argued that, contrary to Bernie’s claims, free college would actually increase inequality.

Other regions, like San Francisco, have also discovered that providing “free college” doesn’t solve all problems; and in fact, sometimes it can create some. San Francisco made their community college free for all citizens but have found it difficult to manage their expenses and their budget. A successful free college program depends on the localities’ ability to manage funds. Some argue that not charging tuition causes resources to be spread thin and classes to become overcrowded. This was the case in Germany, where the cost to taxpayers went up as enrollment went up and some universities complain that not being able to charge tuition prevents them from generating the revenue they need to continue to survive. And, especially in cities like San Francisco, free college plans have done nothing to help the cost of living and it could even be a contributing factor in making inequality worse.

Still, despite all of these drawbacks, there are some clear benefits. There is empirical evidence that free college reduces poverty, helps inequality, and is generally good for the economy. It might be worth the investment; we can deal with the drawbacks as they arise. Also, the effectiveness of college as a means for preparing students for the marketplace needs to be considered. That is, without reformation of the college system itself, which often fails to produce graduates and even when they do graduate are sometimes not prepared for the demands of the market, free college might end up not being as fruitful as we’d hope.

And, arguing that “Free College for All” won’t solve all of society's problems isn’t a good argument against it. By that logic, we should never take any positive step towards improving society because no single step will bring about sweeping positive change. Change of this sort, argue people like Bernie Sanders, is incremental. Step by step we can address sources of unfairness and can work towards a capitalism that works for as many people as possible with as few negatives as possible. We design the rules so why not design them in a way that benefits many instead of just a few? Until we start reframing the way we look at markets and people’s role within them — structuring markets so that they work for us and not just us working for them — we are doomed to repeat many of our same mistakes.