In a period of spending cut backs, the government has sought to shift a greater part of the cost of university education onto students. In the UK, the government have phased out grants and introduced top-up fees. No longer is university education free, increasingly students have to pay an increased part of the cost.
Reasons for Free University Education
- Positive Externalities of Higher Education. Generally, university education does offer some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidising higher education.
- Equality. There is also a powerful argument that university education should be free to ensure equality of opportunity. If students have to pay for university education, this may dissuade them. In theory, students could take out loans or work part-time, but this may be sufficient to discourage students from studying and instead may enter the job market earlier.
Why University Education Shouldn’t be Free
- Opportunity Cost. If we spend billions on free university education there is an opportunity cost of higher taxes or less spending elsewhere. Arguably, there is a greater social benefit from providing vocational training – e.g. so people could become plumbers, electricians e.t.c. There is often a real shortage of these skills in an economy. There is not a shortage of people with non-specific degrees.
- Higher Quality of Education. The rapid rise in university numbers means that higher education is taking a bigger share of the budget. If universities can charge students, it will help maintain standards and quality of teaching.
- Makes People Value Education More. If people have to pay to go to university, you could argue that they would value the education more.
- Signalling function of higher education. Arguably, higher education acts as a signal to employers that graduates have greater capacity. People who gain a degree, end up with a relatively higher salary. Therefore, if they financially gain from studying at university, it is perhaps fair they pay part of the cost. This is especially important for middle-class families, who send a higher proportion of people to higher education.
Another issue is whether we need 50% of 18 year olds to go to university. The increase in student numbers is a significant contributory factor to the increased financial pressures on universities. Rather than encouraging students to automatically go to university (as some schools do), it would be better to encourage more students to take vocational training and avoid three years of academic study. If less went to university, it would mean the cost per student would be relatively lower.
Related
ILY thanks
This analysis, dare I call it that, leaves out the fact that if students don’t have to pay for tuition, that means they don’t come out of University with debt. Without debt they have money to put back into the economy that they wouldn’t otherwise be able too. And a less educated population is more easily manipulated by the elites who then can wield the leavers of power without question. Which has occurred with neo-liberal globalization and economics. In just about every single western country, since the 1980′s we have seen the disparity between the rich and the poor rise to levels not seen since the great depression of the 1930′s. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this rise began happening in the Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman era of deregulation, corporate tax cuts, and defunding of public institutions, such as Universities and Colleges. The evidence of the failure of these neo-liberal ideologies is readily apparent in the apt Occupy movements analysis of 1% holding inordinately more wealth and power than the 99%. And adequate public funding of Universities, rather than massive amounts of money poured into militarism and security supported by the fear economy, ensures higher education is kept at a high standard. Instead of relying on corporate donations to University departments, which enables them dictate the curriculum and thus ensure the indoctrination of students into neo-liberal ideology, especially the indoctrination of economic students into outdated economic models that are not appropriate for a finite planet that cannot sustain overpopulation and unlimited growth. Again the evidence of the failure to adopt progressive and fair economic models is readily apparent in just about every single problem we have today. These so called experts deal in compartmentalization of these issues, everything is connected this is reality and we are dealing with peoples lives and dignity. I don’t know on what ethical grounds restricting a certain segment of the population from participating in higher education is based on, but it sure is faulty. And if you make College free as well, than people have a choice. Trade schools should be partially funded by industry, as they immediately benefit from students coming out with the specific knowledge of each individual industry.
And people who are poor are not poor because they want to be, they are poor because most are born into it, don’t have the tools to get out of it, and face many barriers. Others are mostly just lucky to be born into the middle class or wealth, placing barriers is not an incentive for the majority. When you eliminate barriers for people, you give them opportunities to enrich and forward their lives. As I just mentioned, a barrier to them rising up out of poverty is that they don’t have the same tools as the privileged, because public education is being defunded by neo-liberal economics, and in Canada private and religious schools are funded by the tax payers, by eliminating this sort of funding more funds can be put towards better public education. But the 1% don’t want that, then their power would be challenged by a better educated population.
I’ll be surprised if this get’s posted.
great information, helped me a lot with my essay! thanks.
Atreu’s comment I find quite dispicable, you clearly have no idea how it feels to not be able to afford school. My parents gave me a grand total of nada for my schooling, but I had high ambitions, I applied for and got accepted by Queens university international study center in England. Now I couldn’t afford this, so I got scholarships, bursary’s, grants and osap. I also did a power of attorney before I left. And guess what I’ve been screwed over, at a time when I cannot work and have almost no money I have to do another power of attorney in england, and do it very quick or I don’t get my loans. If this happens I cannot study next year and the almigthy dollar has thrown my dreams of not being a blue collar worker in my face. For the record, the majority of people in my institution in England are quite wealthy, knowing this and my own circumstances, disgusts me on a very profound level. Education should be a basic right, and this includes higher education.
@Atreu:
I don’t know where in the world you get your information from, but it’s certainly not Canada. It is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, illegal to privatize ANY form of schooling in Canada. There are private preschools, elementary schools, high schools, colleges, and universities. While it’s true that the majority are public to some degree, to imply that none are private is completely false.
And even if your assertion were true, the public universities are still competing for students and tuition, especially in the more populated areas.
I would have to say I am completely behind privatizing school. I live in Canada where it is illegal to privatize school and I pay for it. When in College, I was hardly noticed. The academic advisors would make clerical errors, cost me lots of time and stress and then shrug it off. There is no perfect syste, but I happen to agree with one of economics professors, who shared the belief that it would be best to foster competetion among colleges and unversities by having several in the same area. Each would compete for the students suitcase of money. This would increase the demand for students and voila! the supply of quality professors would increase to keep those students. If I had an issue, I would take my fifty thousand dollars to the dean and issue an ultimatum. Fix it or I’m gone. The same argument applies to everything that government currently controls. Allowing the market to use price signals will always ensure there is never a shortage for any substantial period of time.