Microeconomic class

hey guys,.. Here is an issue about the education system that we discussed a couple of weeks ago. It seems that professor Borland does not agree with the idea of giving free education to north Americans. Well, this can be understood if you only take in account the monetary benefits from giving free money as a subsidy instead to offer free education. To me the topic is very interesting and its a classic point of debate in politics and economics.
Well, I have to say that I agree with the free education idea and I will give you my reasons. First, even if this kind of subsidy is less effective and more expensive than give money to people, I think that unless the government provides free education to students they are going to spend this money in other things (thinks that give them more utility according to the indifference curves). As far as I remember we discussed this topic last semester in Public Policy Economics class with professor Goff and we concluded that from the economic theory view point it is not very effective, however, it assures in some how that young people go to school instead of spend the money in other things. Second, about the argument that the students are less productive if they receive free education, I think that this can be measured and compared with another systems. For instance, most of the European countries have free education systems even at the university level and they have been able to achieve great achievements in all the areas of sciences.
Therefore, I think that a free education system is the most fair way to redistribute the wealth among the society even if it is not the most effective economically speaking.