Confused by that as well.
Loved bernies answer though.

Even if tuition were free, most students would have to work more than 10 hours of work study or another job to meet their living expenses and nobody was talking about giving them living stipends like they do in some European countries. It make me feel like this isn't a very serious proposal or anything she has thought about seriously. I agree with her, though, that Universities have to cut their expenses, and the cuts need to come from the explosion of high-salaried administrators who have come from the business sector and have pretty much taken over academia. Unfortunately, they are the very people who decide what to cut.

I couldn't imagine having to have added an additional 10 hours to my week while raising kids, working and going to school full-time. Does Clinton really think taking more time away from families is the answer?

I attended college beginning in 1970. I also attended college in 1996. The demands in 1996 were so much more than 1970 because there was so much more one needed to learn and master. Hillary's "I don't want government to have to pay for the children of Donald Trump's" (paraphrased) is specious in the extreme. First, in general, the 1% don't send their children to public universities (Berkeley might be a possible exception); second, she is willing to deny the 99% the opportunity of an unencumbered free college education so as to avoid the possibility of paying for free educations for the scant few children of the 1% that might conceivably attend a public university. To require students to put in 10 hours of work in addition to attending college amounts to creating greater stress and less attention on studying for those students, and likely will result in an increase in the college dropout rate resulting in more wasteful government spending than could possibly result from underwriting the 1%'s college educations. Since Hillary's plan is means tested, poor and middle income students would be at a distinct disadvantage compared to students who can attend college without participating in Hillary's plan. Way to go, Hillary. But then, this is a fine example of how Hillary thinks through solutions to issues.

Rich people would still just have their parents pay for it.

Poor people would be required to work it off.

Pretty yeah what you said. Means tested. It's still "need based". Which means it's kind of seen like welfare.

Contrasted with the idea of true universal public provision.

It's a big difference.