Tuition freeze won’t help poor students

SP Opinions November 24, 2004 The StarPhoenix, Page A10 Whatever the good intentions behind it, the demand for a tuition freeze at Saskatchewan universities to make post-secondary education accessible and affordable is misguided. At their Moose Jaw convention in early November, the New Democrats passed a resolution calling for a two-year freeze on university tuitions. A week ago, defeated NDP candidate and former U of S professor John Conway echoed the call in releasing a study for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that showed Saskatchewan students pay Canada’s third-highest tuitions and graduate with heavy loans. From the students’ perspective, it’s understandable why they’d see a tuition freeze as a reasonable solution. But coming from the likes of Conway, it’s a ridiculous stance, given the realities confronting post-secondary institutions such as the U of S. Universities from Quebec to British Columbia, which have endured government-imposed tuition freezes, show the folly of suppressing fees. While institutions such as Montreal’s McGill scramble to cope with operating deficits, B.C. universities have levied double-digit fee hikes over the last few years to shed freeze-induced institutional malaise. "There are many capable lower-income students from rural Saskatchewan who simply cannot afford the costs," was how Conway justified a freeze. U of S student union president Gavin Gardiner agreed, and wanted the freeze followed by a cap on future tuition hikes. Yet a freeze on tuition is a huge subsidy for the wealthiest and comfortable middle-class families, whose children constitute the biggest cohort of post-secondary students. Meanwhile, it does little to address the needs of rural students or those from poorer families who need a better-structured assistance plan to make higher education more accessible and affordable. Despite blather from Learning Minister Andrew Thomson that Saskatchewan’s funding per university student has increased more than any other province, provincial funding hasn’t kept pace with rising university costs. Today, provincial grants amount to 58 per cent of university operating budgets, down from 63 per cent, while tuition fees generate 30 per cent of operating costs, up from 22 per cent a decade ago. If Conway truly has the interests of students in mind, he should be demanding that the government of Canada’s newest "have" province ante up something better than a below-inflation grant hike to Saskatchewan’s universities that are competing internationally to recruit top academics. And rather than spout nonsense about the U of S requiring to "shift its focus from landing research dollars and new buildings back onto students," Conway must accept that Saskatchewan’s best hope for retaining its graduates is to provide not only a quality education but research-generated opportunities to capitalize on their skills at home. Because high tuitions aren’t the real problem, a freeze on them isn’t the solution. Saskatchewan needs to revamp its student assistance plan so that those who most need the help get it, while it weans off those students who reasonably can be expected to pay a bigger portion of their education costs. It needs to start with student aid programs recognizing the real costs of post-secondary education, particularly living expenses of rural students required to move to Regina or Saskatoon. The next step is to set a realistic amount on what students are expected to contribute toward their education (say, $2,500 from summer employment and the like) and an annual ceiling on loans (for argument’s sake, let’s peg it at $7,500), with the remainder of demonstrated financial need met through a provincial non-repayable bursary. Further refinements are possible for higher cost programs – bigger loans, for example – by treating these as an investment in human capital and making repayment contingent upon a graduate’s employment earnings. If required, the education tax deduction, which disproportionately benefits the richest in society, can be fixed to offset costs to the treasury. The province should also be stepping up with more substantial scholarships to help the universities attract higher quality students. The U of S, for example, has already increased the average marks students must attain for admittance in recognition that quality, rather than quantity, is essential for student experience and retention. Such measures are a better way to address concerns about accessibility for needy and deserving students, while they ensure that universities won’t be forced to cut worthwhile programs and settle for second best in recruiting academics and researchers. Tuition freezes amount to selling a poorer quality education to students under the guise of equity, with attention diverted from the government’s failure properly to fund the institutions or develop a student aid system that meets their real needs.