Last week, Hillary Clinton's campaign released its own college affordability plan, called the “New College Compact.” The thrust of the plan is to increase aid to states and to make college “debt-free” by partly subsidizing tuition if students agree to a work requirement.

The plan came on the heels of Bernie Sanders' plan, which is much simpler. Sanders has called for “tuition-free” public colleges, similar to how college used to be for most of U.S. hiistory and in most of our economic rivals abroad.

Over the weekend, the Sanders camp released a statement on the Clinton plan, commending her on releasing a plan of her own but also pointing to the differences. Here are the key portions of the statement:

In that regard, Secretary Clinton’s “New College Compact” is something of a disappointment. Instead of placing college “within reach” of every qualified American, it should be available to all people, as a public good—not contingent on individual family sacrifice, or student work requirements. The Sanders plan, which was released last May, would make all public colleges and universities tuition-free. It would eliminate the federal “profit” from student debt and would allow students to refinance at significantly more favorable rates. (Under current conditions the undergraduate student loan rate would drop from 4.29 percent to 2.37 percent.) There would be no payment requirements for middle-class families, and no 10-hour workweek to add on to a student’s class load. Students would be able to use federal, state and institutional need-based aid to cover room and board, books and living expenses – all major contributors to student debt. It would triple the size of the federal work-study program, and offer significant relief to current student debt holders. Other nations have seen the wisdom of tuition-free public higher education, including Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Mexico. We understood the same thing in this country for much of the 20th century in states like California and New York. The Clinton plan is a step in the right direction. But it’s not debt free. The Sanders plan offers real solutions to the high costs of college tuition and student debt, and progress towards the building of a robust democracy.

The difference between the two plans seems to be the difference between Sanders' democratic socialist worldview and Clinton's neoliberal one. For Sanders, college is a right, just like K-12 education, or police and fire services. You will get it, fully subsidized, because it is an essential. For the Clinton campaign, college is still a privilege, something you have to pay for and work for, even while you are a student. It's a consumer good. The competing plans are a microcosm of the two candidates' approach to policy.