Here's a policy I like. I like Pete’s education and economic policies, and I think the universal option proposed by Bernie is naive, at best. It's not because I don't like the universal option, either—it's because that option doesn't best address the systemic issues with education in our country.

First, education is too expensive, but by just instituting a universal option, you're cheapening the value of a public college degree. If everyone has one, it will become more common, not less, that people are expected to have dragged themselves through four years of college just to get an average, entry-level position. What I like about Pete's vision is the emphasis on other life paths, where most people don't actually have to have a college degree to have a meaningful, productive career. This includes trade schools and apprenticeships, but it also includes more robust unions and livable wages. This brings me to point two.

College used to be an investment, not a roadblock. It used to be true that you got a degree to increase your earning potential, so the amount you spent on it would be paid back, and paid back well, by the increase in your earning potential. It is not progressive to suggest giving everyone free college, because that suggestion ignores the fact that people whose degrees pay off—the way they should, when the system works correctly—are in the best position to pay that cost back in the future.

What's remarkable about Pete's plan is it would open that route on the front end for almost all but the wealthiest Americans, by making that investment cheap or low-cost. His plan acknowledges that many people don't realize their dreams because they come from poorer backgrounds, so it removes the hurdle of cost—but it also acknowledges the reality that people best able to shoulder the cost of their investment in their future are those who are already well-off, either from a legacy of family wealth or from their own achievements in life.

Which brings me to my third point. Bernie's plan creates problems both with regard to the value of a public degree and what college is actually supposed to do—increase your earning potential. With regard to public colleges, you're not addressing, at all, the problem faced by graduates of public schools versus private ones like Harvard. The Harvard grad will still be hired, and rich families will still spend egregious amounts of money to go there. With regard to increasing your earning potential, the goalposts are pushed back to post-graduate education, because, to actually increase your earning potential, you have to go to graduate school, and that will still be prohibitively expensive. It's already what we see in the current system, because such a huge chunk of people are expected to have college degrees. I had to get a doctorate and a mountain of student loan debt to get a good job, and just because I managed to as a first-gen college grad, it's not easy. Having a free undergraduate program, without more, would not alleviate any of these issues.

I believe that having robust K-12 education and accessible, livable job options, where people can actually prosper—both for high school graduates, tradesmen, and college graduates—is the most progressive, most functional, thing being proposed out there.