Appeared in the Vancouver Sun, August 21, 2003
Cover your ears. University students are facing the largest tuition increase in years and we are all going to hear about it.
Its unfair, they will say. Our bright young people cant be held hostage by such punitive and unreasonable demands. The hikes will result in a mass exodus from higher education, particularly from lower income students, who will never be able to bear the burden of student loans.
Think again. The evidence shows there no such cause for concern. In New Zealand, where university tuition increased far more dramatically in the 1990s than it has in Canada or even BC, the effects are encouraging. Rather than laying waste to higher education as many student leaders predicted, the number of full time equivalent students almost doubled. Not only did overall participation increase over that period, but according to a study by the New Zealand University Students Association, so did the proportion of students from low-income schools (by 50 percent) and from low-income communities (by 44 percent). Increases in participation were also found true for the minority Maori population, for women and for graduate students.
In Australia, where they also introduced a new, higher tuition fees and income contingent student loans in 1989, higher fees have not affected the participation of students from relatively poor families. Two separate reports studying the effects of the reforms found that students were either not deterred by the tuition increases or participated in greater numbers when the fees were increased. OECD data confirms that, internationally, low levels of private spending on education are the norm in countries with the lowest enrolments in tertiary education.
This evidence suggests that the decision to enroll in university is based less on the cost to students and more on employment and earning prospects for graduates, both of which are much higher in Canada for university graduates than the rest of the population. Decisions to attend university are also based on less tangible characteristics such as culture, attitude and motivation, which are more difficult to change.
Tuition is fair to all of us when it reflects the real cost of education. Because students who attend university are destined to be the highest earners in our societies, it is only reasonable that they should shoulder a reasonable portion of their education expenses. Otherwise the burden falls solely on the rest of us, including the working poor and new Canadians, who are forced to subsidize the educations of doctors, lawyers and those of us in the chattering classes. Thats not fair. Even with these current increases, students wont be covering even half the cost of their education.
Its always going to be tough to sell tuition increases to students, who face the burden of juggling classes with part-time jobs and daily expenses with growing student loans. Fortunately, a recent study by Saul Schwartz and Ross Finnie at Carleton and Queens Universities indicates that coping well with the challenge. The vast majority of student borrowers are not having difficulty repaying their debts, they say. Less than half of students have government loans when they graduate, and only 7-8 percent have trouble repaying their loans long term. 25 percent of borrowers repay their loans within two years.
Students should remember the advantages from paying part education costs themselves. When tuition is substantial, universities are reminded of the importance of their students, and pay more attention to student concerns and teaching performance of faculty. Higher fees also encourages students to consider more realistically the costs and benefits of university education in comparison to other education and job opportunities, which further encourages universities to provide value for money.
As well as being good for students and taxpayers, tuition increases are good for universities because they guard intellectual freedom. If salaries are paid through the tuition of many thousands of students, academics can be assured that their ideas can never be held hostage by a single source of funds. Deregulated tuition also means that, over time, through the variations in public funding, universities will be able to maintain the quality of the faculty and facilities available to staff and students.
If I were a still student, Id complain aloud about the injustice of these increases, but silently remind myself that if I want to call the tune of my own education, I cant ask anyone else to pay the piper.
Its unfair, they will say. Our bright young people cant be held hostage by such punitive and unreasonable demands. The hikes will result in a mass exodus from higher education, particularly from lower income students, who will never be able to bear the burden of student loans.
Think again. The evidence shows there no such cause for concern. In New Zealand, where university tuition increased far more dramatically in the 1990s than it has in Canada or even BC, the effects are encouraging. Rather than laying waste to higher education as many student leaders predicted, the number of full time equivalent students almost doubled. Not only did overall participation increase over that period, but according to a study by the New Zealand University Students Association, so did the proportion of students from low-income schools (by 50 percent) and from low-income communities (by 44 percent). Increases in participation were also found true for the minority Maori population, for women and for graduate students.
In Australia, where they also introduced a new, higher tuition fees and income contingent student loans in 1989, higher fees have not affected the participation of students from relatively poor families. Two separate reports studying the effects of the reforms found that students were either not deterred by the tuition increases or participated in greater numbers when the fees were increased. OECD data confirms that, internationally, low levels of private spending on education are the norm in countries with the lowest enrolments in tertiary education.
This evidence suggests that the decision to enroll in university is based less on the cost to students and more on employment and earning prospects for graduates, both of which are much higher in Canada for university graduates than the rest of the population. Decisions to attend university are also based on less tangible characteristics such as culture, attitude and motivation, which are more difficult to change.
Tuition is fair to all of us when it reflects the real cost of education. Because students who attend university are destined to be the highest earners in our societies, it is only reasonable that they should shoulder a reasonable portion of their education expenses. Otherwise the burden falls solely on the rest of us, including the working poor and new Canadians, who are forced to subsidize the educations of doctors, lawyers and those of us in the chattering classes. Thats not fair. Even with these current increases, students wont be covering even half the cost of their education.
Its always going to be tough to sell tuition increases to students, who face the burden of juggling classes with part-time jobs and daily expenses with growing student loans. Fortunately, a recent study by Saul Schwartz and Ross Finnie at Carleton and Queens Universities indicates that coping well with the challenge. The vast majority of student borrowers are not having difficulty repaying their debts, they say. Less than half of students have government loans when they graduate, and only 7-8 percent have trouble repaying their loans long term. 25 percent of borrowers repay their loans within two years.
Students should remember the advantages from paying part education costs themselves. When tuition is substantial, universities are reminded of the importance of their students, and pay more attention to student concerns and teaching performance of faculty. Higher fees also encourages students to consider more realistically the costs and benefits of university education in comparison to other education and job opportunities, which further encourages universities to provide value for money.
As well as being good for students and taxpayers, tuition increases are good for universities because they guard intellectual freedom. If salaries are paid through the tuition of many thousands of students, academics can be assured that their ideas can never be held hostage by a single source of funds. Deregulated tuition also means that, over time, through the variations in public funding, universities will be able to maintain the quality of the faculty and facilities available to staff and students.
If I were a still student, Id complain aloud about the injustice of these increases, but silently remind myself that if I want to call the tune of my own education, I cant ask anyone else to pay the piper.
Author:
[1]