Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Every week (or so), two Torontoist staffers square off to debate an issue that's important to our city. We invite our readers to join the debate in the comments section following the post.
This month has seen protests at Queens Park by students who are angered over rising tuition fees at universities and colleges, and want the province to do something about it. So are high fees really hurting students and limiting access to higher education, or is this just a case of a small group pursuing its own interests at taxpayer expense? Read on to find out what we think.
|
KEN HUNT The best chant students protesting tuition hikes could come up with during their recent march on Queen’s Park was "Liar, liar, pants on fire! You said fees would go no higher!" Apparently the vast majority of our university students have not improved their rhetorical skills since kindergarten. They were soundly defeated in the sloganeering contest by the small group of counter-protesters holding up signs that read "Get back to class, you truant hippies!" But students have every reason to be upset. Fees for general arts programmes have doubled in the last ten years. Costs of other programmes have tripled and some profession programmes have seen increases of even larger multiples; at this rate, students will soon have no money left for beer, Ramen noodles or condoms. Yet, during this period of massive increases, the system as not improved: class sizes have not gotten smaller, facilities have not gotten better, and libraries are not better stocked. Quality has not improved because rising tuition fees have not been about getting more money into the education system. The increases are simply about shifting costs from the government unto the backs of students. In the mid-1990’s the federal government changed the funding formula for transfer payments to the provinces. This resulted in nearly $2 billion dollars disappearing from the post-secondary education system. The provinces failed to pick up the ball and this burden was passed along to students. The result is a system that is chronically under-funded and university graduates who are saddled with record levels of debt. If anyone else were paying two or three times what they used to pay for a product or service and the quality continued to drop, everyone would agree that they had a right to be angry, but when students protest they are called hippies. Contrary to opinion, most students are more than willing to contribute to the cost of their education; they just want to be treated fairly. The parents of many of today’s students came of age in an era where 80% of the cost of a university education was provided by the government. Today, even though a university education is more important than it has ever been, the government covers less than 60% of the cost. Sure, in a just and perfect world, a university education would be freely available to all qualified candidates. In this dream world, we would find the money to fund a post-secondary education system that was absolutely top-notch: we would find the best researchers, hire the most compelling professors, and fill our classrooms and libraries with first class technology. We would realize that investing in education is investing in our future. And, of course, all of the raindrops would be lemon drops and gum drops. But, oh, what a world it would be! Until we get that perfect world, can we at least make this one a bit fairer? It’s time to restore the federal funding to post-secondary education that was cut in the 90’s and any future increases to student fees should be tied to measurable improvements in the quality of education. Fair is fair.
| PATRICK METZGER Shades of the sixties – angry students carrying signs and marching on Queens’ Park, voices raised in protest. And what are they demonstrating about? Genocide in the Sudan, the disastrous US war in Iraq, government failure to act on imminent climate catastrophe? Nope, not in 2007. This overwhelmingly middle class collection of youth has taken to the streets to complain that their education is being insufficiently subsidized by the working people of the province. There’s no doubt that higher education is a social good, and a franchise that must be available to people from all income groups. However, statistics demonstrate that there’s virtually no relationship between tuition fees and educational access for students from low income families. A 2005 Statistics Canada study showed that after professional program fees were deregulated (and rose dramatically), “Ontario students from the least educated families, whose parents had no post-secondary qualifications, were …more likely to pursue professional degrees”. More than twice as likely as they had been previously, in fact, possibly due to increased availability of grants and bursaries. While it’s true in Canada as elsewhere that children from higher income families are more likely to attend university, a report released this month found that the difference could be attributed almost entirely to differing family expectations and to lower marks in high school. Coming from a family that places a high value on a university degree is the most important factor in predicting whether a person will pursue post-secondary education, and economic status proves to be a very small determinant. Consequently, the primary beneficiaries of lower tuition fees would the children of upper middle class parents who, for entirely non-economic reasons, constitute the majority of university students. Beyond that, Ontario fees are not particularly expensive by international standards, at an average of $4960 per undergraduate student. By comparison, rates in the US for public universities average about CAD6719 annually (private schools can be three to four times as much), and in the UK the maximum fee, which has become the de facto standard, is around CAD6830 a year. Bob Rae, former Ontario Premier and sometime socialist, undertook a comprehensive study of the subject a couple of years ago. His conclusion? That tuition fees should be deregulated and students supported by a better system of grants and loans. Canadian universities are already falling behind their US counterparts in terms of class size, up to date lab and other equipment, and ability to attract well-qualified faculty. Lower tuition fees will only accelerate that process, without making any meaningful difference in the numbers of low income students able to benefit from post-secondary education. If the goal is truly to ensure that a university education is available to all qualified applicants, resources would be better allocated towards supporting those students rather than giving a broadly based subsidy to a largely affluent group.
|
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I love how, when people do anything that isn't protesting a war, they're wasting their time!
I read recently that QC has something like 30% college enrolment but the lowest fees in Canada. There are protests about $100 increase over 5 years there!
Shut up and go back to the peace rally! :)
There are plenty of things worth doing that don't involve protesting a war. It just happens that protesting tuition fees isn't one of them.
Do we really want to be using the US as a yardstick for comparing social indicators? Why not do the same for health-care? Hey it's not as expensive, you have *nothing* to complain about! Or maybe we could do the same for murders or crime rates. Just because it's not as bad doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to better.
While it may be true that income disparity is not a determining factor in whether one goes to university, it does effect people in a big way; student debt. I forget the exact number but there are a great many students that will be over $30 000 in debt by the time they finish university, myself included. It's a tremendous strain, and it means that rather then having an entire focus on academics or extra curriculars that could help in acheiving future goals, people have to work, often at crap jobs, in order to subsidize thier education. And after school, rather then contributing to the economy, we are mired in paying of our debt plus interest. Less tuition means less debt, which is an improvement for everyone but especially those in the low income bracket.
"Sure, in a just and perfect world, a university education would be freely available to all qualified candidates."
Let me introduce you then to the dream world of Europe, where in many nations post-secondary education is free and of high quality. Providing lower or no tuition fees is not an impossible dream. What I think the issue in Canada is that, as you stated, federal government funding needs to be reinstated, but as well we need a re-examination of how universities themseleves run. I know that the general feeling on campuses is that school is big business, more concerned with research dollars and the number of students they can cram in. For the quality of schools to change, then maybe the focus needs to move.
more loans are not the answer....
i was lucky: only $13k worth. i know people coming away from an undergrad with $40k-$60k. way to get your life as an adult off to great start, eh?
23 years old and already in debt up to your eyeballs just because you thought it would be better than working for min wage all your life! whheeeee! way to encourage people, you gready bastards!
Despite being a student, I'm still undecided on this issue but perhaps I can share my perspective.
Personally, my debt will reach $14,000 by the time I finish my undergraduate degree. If prime +1% stays steady at 8% it will take me 10 years of $169 monthly payments to pay off.
During my nearly three years of university I have lived cheaply to keep this amount low. I worked during my first year to supplement my income but found it came at the cost of my grades, which are vital for acceptance into graduate school. In order to keep a competitive GPA, I now only work during the summer. Besides rent, I only have spent $203 this month - this number includes groceries.
My understanding is that with $14,000 in debt, I am one of the lucky students. According to Statcan in 2000 the average student with debt from a government loan (45% of graduates) owed $20,000. This was 7 years ago. Tuition rates have gone up since then, so debt loads will have also increased.
What I can say is that higher education is becoming increasingly important in our society. The manufacturing and agriculture industries have shrunk (42% combined in 1980 to about 32% in 2005) and the demand for skilled labour is on the rise. This increasing need for a university education doesn't force anyone to take on post-secondary training (and thereby take on student debt), but it is a strong incentive considering the alternatives.
I do believe that from an economic perspective the financial resources we allocate to education are a worthwhile investment - one that ultimately benefits all members of society. I also believe that having overfilled university classes due to a lack of funding lowers the quality of education. Besides the cost to society that comes alongside rising bankruptcy rates due to student debt, I also believe that when students graduate owing large sums that require immediate payments they are more likely to take on a job that requires lower qualifications rather than waiting for a more-suited job - from an macroeconomic perspective this translates into a less-than-perfect use of human capital and therefore decreased output.
I would like to see tuition fees come down a bit - there's no need to follow in the footsteps of the US - and I would like to see a modified loan repayment system. Right or wrong, I believe these things would benefit all of Canada.
The problems with charging tuition are not solely related to access.
They also relate to efficency.
An an example, the combined cost of tax-credits for education, books etc. from the provincial and federal governments is estimated to be $700,000,000 per year (in Ontario)
When one adds the additional $400,000,000 in student aid provided directly by universties in Ontario (and not included in the above figure), you then have a totat of 1.1 billion expended on student aid.
According the Rae report, wiping out tuition in Ontario all together would have a gross cost slightly greater than 2 billion dollars per annum.
However, if you deduct the 1.1 billion in student aid. You have a net cost of only $900,000,000.
The same Rae report, and others before it, noted that Ontario spends far less per student that the provincial average across Canada (at the post-secondary level).
In fact, we finished 10th out of 10 provinces in per capita spending on universities.
Simply raising that total to the provincial average would result in new spending of 1.5 billion dollars.
Such an increase would represent less than 2% of all provincial government expenditures in 2006.
In the final analysis then, were Ontario to raise its per-student funding to the current national average, it could completely abolish tuition and have 600,000,000 left over additional student spaces and improved program quality.
All while eliminating hosts of un-necessary aid programs, layers of bureaucracy.
Surely that is the most reasonable course.
30k in debt? Sure that's a big number - especially if you view education as a purchase and not an investment. University graduates make more money than non-University graduates, that's been proven over and over. And like all investments there is an element of risk that you must take on.
There's a reason why Law School, Medical School, and Business School tuition is so high - because that education leads directly to a higher income. And it would be foolish for these schools not to generate revenue for faculty, studies and facilities based on the money that their graduates will be earning because of the education they received.
And I do not think the government should foot the bill for a middle class kid to study Art, English or Film because they just have to show how "special they are" (disclosure, I have degrees in both English and Film).
We must also not forget about the schools themselves. As someone who has languished in Academia for the better part of a decade in both Canada and the US, I've seen the differences and the problems. Canadian Universities are underfunded, period. My alma matter, McGill, is coasting on it's reputation and amazing students. It can draw amazing faculty on prestige alone, but not facilities. But universities need more than that. They need libraries, journals, labs, buildings, dorms, and is it so wrong to ask the people who are using them to pay for them?
University is an investment for a better quality of life, and investments require an outlay. 30k seems like pennies compared to the extra income you will make for having that degree.
Christian:
Co-sign, co-sign, co-sign. I've been reading these comments and have been hesitant to say anything, but you said it perfectly. I worked every summer while an undergrad and managed to get through with no debt. I then took a year off to work to help me with grad school tuition, but when I am going to have over $20K in debt after my post-grad. It sucks, but I think of it as an investment. I'd happily pay %10 more for better facilities and staff. At Queen's, where I took English and History, we had terrible facilities; whereas, the Commerce and Engineering programs, where tuition was almost double what I paid, were constantly getting new, state-of-the-art buildings. Now, there must be limits - it would be terrible if we went the American route (although it must be pointed out that they offer tremendous scholarships and bursaries that we can only dream of) - but I think allowing a modest increase in tuition every few years is okay.
James - what you suggest sounds reasonable, but even assuming that all your facts are accurate, there are still a couple of obvious issues.
Firstly, since tuition fees are a lesser cost to most students than the living expenses, books, etc, financial aid in some measure would still be required for most low-income students. That number, whatever it is, would have to be added back in.
Secondly, reducing tuition fees would also have the effect of increasing the number of marginal and part-time students (as well as students taking longer to complete degrees)since there would be a decreased financial incentive to complete a program. Moreover, unless fees were applied to out of province students, logically there would be a flood of applications from other provinces. Under these circumstances, resources at post-secondary institutions would be further strained and costs increased.
Thirdly, even under your decidedly optimistic scenario, someone would have to pony up at least $1000 for every man, woman and child in the province. This could be done through ruinous taxation or slashing other, presumably less deserving programs, or maybe the Feds will pay up. But I doubt it.
That's just off the top of my head.
Sadly, I don't think that tuition is the major cost that is hampering students. It is easy for them to cap the tuition rates at universities; nominally they are public institutions. However, the major cost to most students are living expenses and books. Tuition doesn't include Lab fees, or photocopies. I think most students will be able to pay off 15-20$K after five years. Regrettable but true, it is the other 'invisible' cost of living, either on campus, or commuting that really lowers the standard of living, causes the most stress and is the debt that will stay with them for longer. Even if you work a part time job, and get reasonable employment during the summers, a full-time student will have a hard time supporting themselves. (And grad students pay tuition for the summer and have to take 'course work' - or at least I do!)
So what could the solution be? Affordable student housing would be big. Incorporating lab fees and other things like health care and student fees into tuition so that it can be a tax-deductible expense would be another. I'm sure more avenues exist.
James, you're forgetting the fact that tution is quality enhancing revenue for universities.
If you want to take away the $1.1B of aid provided directly to students, institutions are still going to need that $900M in revenue to keep the lights on.
The $1.5B doesn't cancel it out.
And 2% of the provincial government budget is not exactly chump change.
My first year at UBC cost $2000. Now I am in fourth year at York, and it's costing me $5000. That's a big ol' tuition increase.
Patrick - You added one too many zeros to your costing.
With 12,000,000 citizens in Ontario, the cost would be between $100-$150 per person, or about $170-240 per taxpayer.
Not $1,000 plus.
Given average income in Ontario in the range of $40,000 (among taxpayers) that's not an inordinate hit.
In fact, its far less that the total tax reduction during the Mike Harris era.
I am not, for one, suggesting a return to peak-taxation under the NDP.
However, there is a happy medium.
The issue of allocation is to me, is 'value for money'.
When you factor in the enormous cost of student aid programs, of which there are many, (if the Rae report is implented, there are soon to be more); the cost of loans, grants, burseries, scholardships, waived fees, from the Feds, the Province, and the actual institutions we spend hundreds of millions to achieve very little.
Too much bureaucracy for a simple issue.
Re-set tuition to a very affordable rate, that anyone can afford, on a minimum wage job for 8 weeks in the summer and abandon student aid altogther.
I suggested free tuition simple because you can save further adminstrative expense, and dont' have to worry about defaults etc. But a tuition of $1,000 per year would not be un-reasonable, except is so far as 1/5 of that amount would cover the cost of the tuition collection itself.
To be sure, any serious tuition reduction and/or free tuition would result in addtional demands on the system.
However, as Ireland has established (when it abolished tuition for post-secondary) the economic benefit of a high proportion of the population being well educated pays for itself, with higher average income, and higher average income tax paid.
Though, there is a lag of 6-10 years to see the full benefit of such an initiative.
***
Oh, and out-of-province students and foreign students are now and should remain a separte issue.
Quebec charges out of province students extra (to compensate for their low tuitions), while U of T charges foreign liberal arts students more than double what Ontario students pay. As well they should.
I don't expect a subsidy from France if I study at the Sorbonne.
***
As for whether money can be found in other programs.......hmmm, didn't the province give our automakers about Billion dollars in corporate welfare? Before those same companies decided to close plants here?
I think it is a bit ridiculous that the Torontoist uses a link to a CFS (Canadian Federation of Students) press release for its information about the Bob Rae report on higher education. Considering the attempt to present two fair perspectives on this issue, the "Con" position should clearly be linked to another source: not one that is so narrow-minded, inflamatory, and biased as the CFS. This insiduous error should really be corrected.
James - My bad about the numbers - once I get past 3 zeros, I lose track.
That said, I don't think the numbers fall out nearly as neatly as you've described, for the reasons I've noted above. These days even European countries like Germany with long standing traditions of free or near-free education are moving towards tuition fees.
The crux of the argument, however - backed up by the data - is simply that tuition fees at these levels do not keep people away from higher education. That;s a sociological phenomenon, not an economic one. That being the case, why should the entire province be taxed to further subsidize a group of people with above average family incomes?
Eleanor - the link to CFS is mine. A quick google on the subject finds very articles that are not inflammatory and biased; there's a self-selection process in terms of commenting on government reports where people who agree don't say much of anything and people who disagree won't shut up about it. Anyway, I thought it was kind of ironic-cool.
Heres a less slanted link if you're still interested...http://home.cogeco.ca/~wad/files/Summary%20Final%20Report.doc
I'm tired of heating the "I'm going to owe $X when I graduate" complaint.
Things cost money, nice things cost a lot of money. A university degree is a nice thing, if you can't pay for it initially, you're going to owe a lot of money.
Post-secondary education is not a right, but it should be accessible to all. (ie, loans).
Yah, but you know a heart transplant is a nice thing. Learning English as a Second Language is a nice thing. Getting a high school diploma is a nice thing. And these are all things that increase your earning potential. And these are all things that society as a whole, through our elected governments, have seen fit to fund. Because healthy and educated people make our society a better place to live. They earn more money, pay more taxes, commit less crime, are less likely to go on welfare.
So just because a university education is "nice" doesn't mean it should cost as much as a small mortgage!
Tuition should be more affordable than it is without saddling those not lucky enough to be born rich with huge debts, debts that will slow down our abilities to buy homes and cars and start families.
Health care and secondary education are rights. University is not.
Once again, I'm for accessibility through total loans for everyone, I just don't believe the taxpayer should have to pay for someone else's high-yield investment. If you have rich parents, then you have an easier life, that's just how capitalism works. If everyone has an equal chance to make it to the top, it's fair.
"debts that will slow down our abilities to buy homes and cars and start families."
Too bad, life isn't Disney World.
Access to education should be based on one's report card, not their credit or debit card.
Those that argue for higher fees for education, please consider the following:
1. The reality is that Tuition Fee increases don't increase quality but rather fund government funding decreases. Plenty of data available to show government funding decreases that started in the 90's along with tuition fee increases. I think even this poorly written "for" argument mentions that.
I do have to admit, deregulating all tuition fees and setting them at whatever the "market" can bear... might improve class sizes in the short term by kicking out the rest of the lower income students. In the long run though, Universities will probably have to lower admission standards to maximize capacity. As a solution, why don't people just go to the US if you want to pay up to $40,000 in tuition fees per year?
2. Higher Tuition Fees will decrease access. Pretty basic concept, if prices increase, less people will be able to afford it. More loans = more student debt, which is already approaching an average of $28,000. Indirectly, our government is transferring the government debt on to the backs of students who are just starting out their life in the real world. And having a huge debt at the end of 4 years acts as a deterrent to education just as higher tuition fees for lower income families, I know it did for many of my friends who were discouraged from going to University because they felt it was out of reach due to the costs. It is for them that I make this post.
3. Education is not like milk or bubble gum! It is fundamental to having a civilized society and higher education means lower costs for health care, lower crime rates & costs associated, more opportunity (aka human capital). Therefore, it is in many ways a public good. This is especially important in Ontario's knowledge based economy, without a highly educated population, we will not be able to compete. Thats the bottom line.
4. Higher Tuition Fees is a double tax on the middle class. Even in the progressive income tax system that we have, the middle class is still paying the majority of the taxes in this country. The middle class is largely left out of any financial aid schemes. Since post-secondary education is becoming more of a basic requirement for most jobs, high tuition fees represent a 2nd fee after taxes that the majority of families have to pay. Add costs of books, transportation, etc. and this becomes a major squeeze.
5. Well funding Education & Lower Tuition Fees is a political choice we can currently afford without any new taxes. If you do the math, with the surpluses the Fed's are seeing, tuition fees can be eliminated all together. Reducing Tuition Fees slightly & proving enough funding for post-secondary education to improve quality is a POLITICAL CHOICE that our elected governments CAN make if there was the political will. Statistics show that 84% of Ontarians are against tuition fee hikes and that Education is 3rd on the priority list after health care and environment.
Oh and for the The Tony Robinson argument - "if you just try hard enough you'll get it!" This is the argument I mostly hear from people driving a BMW to class. I'll address this argument if people really want me to but its such poor argument that I think I'll just move on and end this already long post.
To end it, I do agree with Mike that "life isn't Disney World" but the role of government is to make life better for its citizens and lowering tuition fees and providing funding for education that at least keeps up with inflation at the very least is something very basic.