That a reasonable amount of tuition combined with manageable payment options does not deter low-income students (at least not statistically) is not new [1]. Th

That a reasonable amount of tuition combined with manageable payment options does not deter low-income students (at least not statistically) is not new [1]. That said, the potential deterrent effect is not the only thing to be considered. We also have to look at fairness. Normally, a fixed [2] benefit paid out of flat or progressive taxes is itself progressive (because it provides proportionately more financial relief to low-income recipients). However, in the case of free tuition, middle- and high-income households are more likely to be recipients; this makes it potentially regressive and is one of the major arguments for not having free tuition; you might end up with low income households paying tuition disproportionately for high income households. Yet the UK's system (paying back tuition as an additional tax on your income, but only if you earn enough) does not really fix it; while it addresses the low/middle income disparity, it creates a regressive bump in the middle of the income scale; the cost hurts middle class students the most. Once you hit a point where you will pay your entire tuition, it's a fixed cost that is borne by everybody and then it becomes regressive. Creating a flat or progressive hypothecated tax for college graduates might address the issue of social fairness, but at this point it's not clear whether it's worth the complexity or whether just financing tuition (and also other forms of tertiary education) out of a sufficiently progressive income tax might not be easier. After all, governments do a lot of things that are likely to benefit richer people more and we don't create convoluted hypothecated taxes for all of them. The article is of course right that the problems that cause unequal access to college occur a long time before you worry about tuition, but this is really not an either-or situation. Free or affordable tuition isn't all that expensive (by the standards of the budgets of Western countries), not to mention that investing in human capital is generally a good idea. And, obviously, providing options for tertiary education and careers other than college is also a primary concern. [1] That said, I'm pretty sure that on an individual level, there are still plenty of cases where it does deter potential students – I know some myself – and there are other detrimental effects, such as the financial burden on dropouts. [2] Tuition varies by university, of course, but on balance it's close enough to a fixed expense to call it that.