Inkless Insiders

Posted by: | January 30, 2007 | 30 Comments

Without a doubt, my favorite political journo is the intrepid Paul Wells; I get downright giddy when he posts about University affairs, which he does with some regularity.

Today’s post is noteworthy. It explains quite succinctly why tuition reduction is a profoundly misguided way to increase access, and how lower tuition actually keeps the under-privileged out of universities. Call that access? (Click here for the article.)

The issue has been raised by Quebec Universities, trying to end that province’s freeze, and using BC as an example. Read the G&M story here.

PS – Please visit the Radical Beer Tribune. We like them today.


Comments

30 Comments so far

  1. Fire Hydrant on January 30, 2007 8:57 pm

    Even with excellent financial support, one major issue with high tuition is what Brian Sullivan unpopularly described as “sticker shock” — if tuition sounds really high, some students will be scared away. Any uncertainty over whether they’d get scholarships/bursaries would also not help in the least.

    It’s unfortunate that the best term to describe this equates getting a university education with buying a car.

    — Darren Peets

  2. Fire Hydrant on January 30, 2007 8:57 pm

    Even with excellent financial support, one major issue with high tuition is what Brian Sullivan unpopularly described as “sticker shock” — if tuition sounds really high, some students will be scared away. Any uncertainty over whether they’d get scholarships/bursaries would also not help in the least.

    It’s unfortunate that the best term to describe this equates getting a university education with buying a car.

    — Darren Peets

  3. tariq on January 30, 2007 9:05 pm

    Can’t we have our cake and eat it too? Isn’t it reasonable to have tuition reduction and the shortfall made up by the government? Lower tuition may have been accompanied by the mentioned effects, but I don’t think that it’s the true cause (post hoc, ergo propter hoc!). It’s been governments (provincially, both NDP and BC “Liberals”) talking out of both sides of their mouths, saying that they support education and students and yet failing to adequately fund post-secondary institutions, that is largely responsible for the problems we’ve seen. “Progressive” students make a convenient scapegoat, especially when they have a far smaller microphone to use, but aren’t the ones that are really responsible for these problems.

  4. tariq on January 30, 2007 9:05 pm

    Can’t we have our cake and eat it too? Isn’t it reasonable to have tuition reduction and the shortfall made up by the government? Lower tuition may have been accompanied by the mentioned effects, but I don’t think that it’s the true cause (post hoc, ergo propter hoc!). It’s been governments (provincially, both NDP and BC “Liberals”) talking out of both sides of their mouths, saying that they support education and students and yet failing to adequately fund post-secondary institutions, that is largely responsible for the problems we’ve seen. “Progressive” students make a convenient scapegoat, especially when they have a far smaller microphone to use, but aren’t the ones that are really responsible for these problems.

  5. Reka on January 30, 2007 9:54 pm

    I haven’t read the Paul Wells article (yet). I do however love your photos. ;)

  6. Reka on January 30, 2007 9:54 pm

    I haven’t read the Paul Wells article (yet). I do however love your photos. ;)

  7. Tim Louman-Gardiner on January 30, 2007 10:04 pm

    Tariq,

    Shouldn’t you be in Int’l Trade with me right now?

    Yes, in dream world we’d have no tuition and free res for everybody. but when gov’ts have limited resources, I’d support the Wells hypothesis.

  8. Tim Louman-Gardiner on January 30, 2007 10:04 pm

    Tariq,

    Shouldn’t you be in Int’l Trade with me right now?

    Yes, in dream world we’d have no tuition and free res for everybody. but when gov’ts have limited resources, I’d support the Wells hypothesis.

  9. Mike Thicke on January 30, 2007 10:05 pm

    In analyzing any complex situation, you choose to keep some variables constant while varying others to see what effects result. This is the essence of the “scientific method”. In this case, we are keeping the level of funding by the government constant, while varying the ways those funds are allocated. It avoids the real problem – lack of funding. When people like us argue for lower tuition or zero tuition across the board, we are not saying we should reallocate funds away from need-based grants to broad-based reductions. We are saying that funding needs to be dramatically increased.

  10. Mike Thicke on January 30, 2007 10:05 pm

    In analyzing any complex situation, you choose to keep some variables constant while varying others to see what effects result. This is the essence of the “scientific method”. In this case, we are keeping the level of funding by the government constant, while varying the ways those funds are allocated. It avoids the real problem – lack of funding. When people like us argue for lower tuition or zero tuition across the board, we are not saying we should reallocate funds away from need-based grants to broad-based reductions. We are saying that funding needs to be dramatically increased.

  11. tariq on January 30, 2007 11:21 pm

    Tim,

    No, sorry I’m not in that class, which is too bad because this is a bigger debate that really deserves more than a few hurried words between (and during!) classes…maybe over beers tomorrow.

    Mike is right on the money (or lack thereof). There should be more investment in the system as a whole. Either education is a priority or it isn’t. I think that recent governments of all stripes have shown that the latter is the case by a country mile. Would the government allow UBC to be in a position where it’s running a deficit that seems to be balloon every time I hear an update if this wasn’t the case?

    I’m not even in favour of zero-tuition proposals. In addition to being completely unrealistic, I think they would also serve to devalue education in the eyes of students. A reasonable tuition cost represents a trade-off between the personal returns that students get as individuals and the benefits that society gets from having an educated population. It’s fair to expect us to pay to be here, but it’s not fair to expect us to mortgage our futures.

  12. tariq on January 30, 2007 11:21 pm

    Tim,

    No, sorry I’m not in that class, which is too bad because this is a bigger debate that really deserves more than a few hurried words between (and during!) classes…maybe over beers tomorrow.

    Mike is right on the money (or lack thereof). There should be more investment in the system as a whole. Either education is a priority or it isn’t. I think that recent governments of all stripes have shown that the latter is the case by a country mile. Would the government allow UBC to be in a position where it’s running a deficit that seems to be balloon every time I hear an update if this wasn’t the case?

    I’m not even in favour of zero-tuition proposals. In addition to being completely unrealistic, I think they would also serve to devalue education in the eyes of students. A reasonable tuition cost represents a trade-off between the personal returns that students get as individuals and the benefits that society gets from having an educated population. It’s fair to expect us to pay to be here, but it’s not fair to expect us to mortgage our futures.

  13. Reka on January 30, 2007 11:53 pm

    Are enrollment rates for local students in Quebec any different than for local students here? While their tuition for Quebec students in stuck in ’94, their out-of-province tuition rates are the highest in the country. Could that just be driving other Canadian students away? I considered going to McGill way back when, but was put off by the high out-of-province tuition rates (and the fact that there was a separate out-of-province rate to begin with)

  14. Reka on January 30, 2007 11:53 pm

    Are enrollment rates for local students in Quebec any different than for local students here? While their tuition for Quebec students in stuck in ’94, their out-of-province tuition rates are the highest in the country. Could that just be driving other Canadian students away? I considered going to McGill way back when, but was put off by the high out-of-province tuition rates (and the fact that there was a separate out-of-province rate to begin with)

  15. Spencer on January 31, 2007 2:25 am

    It’s true, you don’t have to decide between generalized tuition reductions, increased capacity, and financial aid, but only if it’s true that government doesn’t also have significant choices to make.

    There are other urgent areas for government attention: health care wait list reductions, the environment, making sure our military has equipment to keep it safe, to name a few. There’s also money for social housing, foreign aid, and even tax cuts. Yes, you need tax subsidies or tax cuts in order to attract *business* to an area, compared to other jurisdictions, and business is where local jobs come from.

    These, of course, are the normal decisions that need to be made when a government has money, but what about when a government is in debt? Then you need to be tackling that as well.

    Government is about balancing all of these issues and it’s entirely reductive to say you can have your cake and eat it too.

  16. Spencer on January 31, 2007 2:25 am

    It’s true, you don’t have to decide between generalized tuition reductions, increased capacity, and financial aid, but only if it’s true that government doesn’t also have significant choices to make.

    There are other urgent areas for government attention: health care wait list reductions, the environment, making sure our military has equipment to keep it safe, to name a few. There’s also money for social housing, foreign aid, and even tax cuts. Yes, you need tax subsidies or tax cuts in order to attract *business* to an area, compared to other jurisdictions, and business is where local jobs come from.

    These, of course, are the normal decisions that need to be made when a government has money, but what about when a government is in debt? Then you need to be tackling that as well.

    Government is about balancing all of these issues and it’s entirely reductive to say you can have your cake and eat it too.

  17. Gina Eom on January 31, 2007 6:18 am

    Germany had free tuition and parallel subsidy on student housing, food, and additionally offered scholarships. Furthermore, if your parents made less than a certain amount, you can apply for a grant which will help you with living expenses. If your parents make more than a certain amount and don’t help you out in living expenses, you are entitled to sue.

  18. Gina Eom on January 31, 2007 6:18 am

    Germany had free tuition and parallel subsidy on student housing, food, and additionally offered scholarships. Furthermore, if your parents made less than a certain amount, you can apply for a grant which will help you with living expenses. If your parents make more than a certain amount and don’t help you out in living expenses, you are entitled to sue.

  19. Anonymous on January 31, 2007 6:39 am

    tim:
    how high do you think tuition fees should be for undergrad arts and science? is it at a “perfect” level now? or should it be increased? in your opinion.

    also: how much should high school cost? should we implement school fees for high school to “create more spaces”?

  20. Anonymous on January 31, 2007 6:39 am

    tim:
    how high do you think tuition fees should be for undergrad arts and science? is it at a “perfect” level now? or should it be increased? in your opinion.

    also: how much should high school cost? should we implement school fees for high school to “create more spaces”?

  21. Spencer on January 31, 2007 1:27 pm

    Gina, you’re absolutely right. But that also exists in a background of a country where 1/5 in the East are unemployed and 1/10 in the west are unemployed. So while that funding is good and socially just, I suspect the tax regime is too greedy to promote job growth.

    All that being said, I think we should recognize that there are colleges and universities. I’m quite comfortable with college being free or even less costly than it is right now. The new “high school” isn’t university but a post-secondary diploma from a 2-year program.

  22. Spencer on January 31, 2007 1:27 pm

    Gina, you’re absolutely right. But that also exists in a background of a country where 1/5 in the East are unemployed and 1/10 in the west are unemployed. So while that funding is good and socially just, I suspect the tax regime is too greedy to promote job growth.

    All that being said, I think we should recognize that there are colleges and universities. I’m quite comfortable with college being free or even less costly than it is right now. The new “high school” isn’t university but a post-secondary diploma from a 2-year program.

  23. Gina Eom on January 31, 2007 4:08 pm

    Spencer that’s not fair. You’re mixing up timelines. Tuition used to be free pre-reunification.

    Yes West Germany underestimated the economic situation of the East and we are still paying for this difference. Don’t use that as an indicator of taxation records. Even the Christian Democrats have increased taxes recently, only in disproportionate ways.

  24. Gina Eom on January 31, 2007 4:08 pm

    Spencer that’s not fair. You’re mixing up timelines. Tuition used to be free pre-reunification.

    Yes West Germany underestimated the economic situation of the East and we are still paying for this difference. Don’t use that as an indicator of taxation records. Even the Christian Democrats have increased taxes recently, only in disproportionate ways.

  25. Spencer on January 31, 2007 4:55 pm

    Gina, it’s entirely fair. West Germany would not have been able to afford it if the Marshall Plan hadn’t given it such a modern industrial infrastructure. The same for France.

    And yes, Germany has had a history of free education but it was also a history of very limited space. Marx railed against the German university system because he saw it as no more than the wealthy elite being given “meritocratic” reasons to continue their class hegemony, all paid for by the proletariat. That’s improved since then but it’s things like the Marshall Plan that are the reason.

    The only point is that it’s unfair to reduce the issue to “have our cake and eat it too” because it neglects other, worthwhile issues. That’s why I separated out unemployment for West Germany. 10% is still *huge*.

  26. Spencer on January 31, 2007 4:55 pm

    Gina, it’s entirely fair. West Germany would not have been able to afford it if the Marshall Plan hadn’t given it such a modern industrial infrastructure. The same for France.

    And yes, Germany has had a history of free education but it was also a history of very limited space. Marx railed against the German university system because he saw it as no more than the wealthy elite being given “meritocratic” reasons to continue their class hegemony, all paid for by the proletariat. That’s improved since then but it’s things like the Marshall Plan that are the reason.

    The only point is that it’s unfair to reduce the issue to “have our cake and eat it too” because it neglects other, worthwhile issues. That’s why I separated out unemployment for West Germany. 10% is still *huge*.

  27. Gina Eom on January 31, 2007 6:29 pm

    Let’s focus on pre-unification then.

    Absolutely there are waitlist in some programs. Germany also streamlines the student populace early on in the middle school system (Orientierungsstufe). So yes the waitlists have improved since Karl Marx was alive. The waitlist does not differentiate between the burguoise and the proletariat. It’s in registration order, blind to some status label.

    Accessibility is absolutely improved with free tuition and subsidized living in my mind. The allocation of resources is an investment, and really the only way students can graduate without debt which in itself creates wealth/class disparity.

    The reason I focussed on Germany is because I know the system very well. I focussed on pre-unification because I wanted to avoid the whole “20% unemployment rate in Berlin” arguments, which should be teased out.

  28. Gina Eom on January 31, 2007 6:29 pm

    Let’s focus on pre-unification then.

    Absolutely there are waitlist in some programs. Germany also streamlines the student populace early on in the middle school system (Orientierungsstufe). So yes the waitlists have improved since Karl Marx was alive. The waitlist does not differentiate between the burguoise and the proletariat. It’s in registration order, blind to some status label.

    Accessibility is absolutely improved with free tuition and subsidized living in my mind. The allocation of resources is an investment, and really the only way students can graduate without debt which in itself creates wealth/class disparity.

    The reason I focussed on Germany is because I know the system very well. I focussed on pre-unification because I wanted to avoid the whole “20% unemployment rate in Berlin” arguments, which should be teased out.

  29. Spencer on January 31, 2007 9:50 pm

    That’s fine Gina, but you missed my other point about why Germany has had a greater capability post-WW2 to provide social services. My Marx point was only to talk about pre-WW2 Germany.

    Of course reduced tuition and subsidized living increases accessibility. My point is that it doesn’t increase accessibility as fast as targeted funding and that there are good reasons why not all countries can provide free education. As an end-goal, sure, but that doesn’t mean we stop living in the now.

  30. Spencer on January 31, 2007 9:50 pm

    That’s fine Gina, but you missed my other point about why Germany has had a greater capability post-WW2 to provide social services. My Marx point was only to talk about pre-WW2 Germany.

    Of course reduced tuition and subsidized living increases accessibility. My point is that it doesn’t increase accessibility as fast as targeted funding and that there are good reasons why not all countries can provide free education. As an end-goal, sure, but that doesn’t mean we stop living in the now.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

Spam prevention powered by Akismet