Two per cent isn’t a tuition hike
On the whole, BC Liberals treat higher education better than the NDP
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009
It was somewhat disappointing to see the front page article last Friday about the tuition increase (“Tuition to rise by two per cent,” [March 20]). I have come to expect a more nuanced look at things from The Ubyssey over the past year than this article presented.
I think we should look closely at whether this is really an increase for domestic students. The soft cap (which is basically a hard cap, but whatever) of two per cent adjusts our contributions by inflation every year. This is not unreasonable—assuming that the value of our education is similar to the year before, and acknowledging that our money is worth less than the year before, the actual value exchanged is not different. (Although there is a case to be made that the value of our education is starting to increase for the first time since it started to fall at the beginning of the 1990s, according to quality of education scores from the National Survey of Student Engagement.)
The most damaging thing that has ever happened to post-secondary education in this province was the NDP tuition freeze. The freeze represented not only a freeze in prices, but a freeze in funding. As students paid less and less for their education, so too did the government, and the quality of education declined by over 30 per cent. The decline in funding put pressure on the university to generate more funding sources, and so campus opened up for business to everyone with a developer’s permit and a dream.
If the NDP had increased funding, some of the root causes of the War on Fun would never have germinated. Presidents Strangway and Piper would not have been able to embark down the development path. Condos would not have had to be built. Our campus would have never transformed from the fun-loving, student-centred, largest-student-run-event-in-Canada hosting place it was into the Boringitarian police state it is now.
The graph on the front page was eye catching to be sure, but didn’t tell the whole story. If you drew a line straight up through the tuition increases at the beginning of the 90s, ignore the tuition freeze, and see how it matches up with the figures after 2003, you’ll see something shocking: only one of the years would have been above the trend line of the early 90s. The rest all fall below. That’s right—tuition is rising less under the BC Liberals than under the NDP.
A nice complement to that graph would have been the amount of inflation-adjusted dollars per student the government chipped in. During the years the NDP froze our tuition, you would have seen a steady decline. You would have seen a similar decline as well if you looked at our quality of education scores. By contrast, when the BC Liberals were in power, more money was pumped into our schools year after year, and our quality of education scores are starting to go up. Even the “cuts” that people spoke about last year still represented more money being transferred to universities than ever before—it’s that the increase was smaller than expected.
I do not, by any means, think that the policies of the BC Liberals are perfect—the tuition rises we saw six years ago should never happen again. The price increases on international students are disproportionate to their domestic counterparts—this needs to change. International students should also be able to get tuition breaks if they indicate that they intend to stay in Canada post-graduation. Again, I’m not saying that important work doesn’t still need to be done, but rather that people need to take a look at who does the work in the first place, and who will do it best.
Since the deregulation shock, the BC Liberals have done a better job of keeping tuition under control than the NDP, and managed to do it all while increasing university funding year over year. To illustrate, this year the domestic student tuition is going to go up two per cent. By contrast, the year over year increase in the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development was seven per cent. And this is in a recession, when only 5 out of 19 ministries escaped the finance minister’s scalpel.
I’m not defending government’s advanced education policy because I’m a BC Liberal. On the contrary, I’m a BC Liberal because I believe in the policies. I think advanced education can be the silver bullet for so many of the woes facing society, so I make my choices very carefully. When it comes down to it, the choice for me is clear—who can help advanced education? And who will damage it? For my education, I’m casting my ballot for Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals.
scott Mar 24
this is ridiculous. he’s trying to defend increasing tuition while saying he doesn’t tow the BC Liberal prty line?
i, for one, do not support tuition increasing by at least 8% by the time i graduate.
Reply
Rory Green Mar 25
Matt,
I do not see this tuition increase as a political issue. I oppose it for three reasons:
(1) Many international students are already struggling with tuition, the proposed increase (over $1,000 to a full time student) is disproportionate to inflation.
(2) The university has an obligation to consult with students before increasing tuition, I do not feel that this consultation has been done
(3) Minimum wage and student aid BC is not increasing with inflation, making it harder for UBC students who pay their own tuition to do so.
-Rory
Reply
esteban Mar 25
maybe by the time you are (partially) universally educated you should be making more than minimum wage? Unless you have a womyn’s studies degree or the like, in which case I concede the point
Reply
Rory Green Mar 25
Esteban,
A lot of UBC students are making minimum wage (all of us who work at starbucks, blenz, earls, safeway, iga, American eagle, gap, most restaurants, most retail locations, most coffee shops, need I go on?) or very close to it.
When you are taking a full course load, some times part-time minimum wage jobs are all you can get. But this is very off topic.
-R
Reply
FD Mar 25
“maybe by the time you are (partially) universally educated you should be making more than minimum wage? Unless you have a womyn’s studies degree or the like…”
My goodness, esteban, you really are one ingnorant dick.
[Maybe this'll be up for a few minutes before it get's spotted by the moderators. I take my chances.]
Reply
esteban Mar 25
i just like the irony of calling someone ignorant while spellling it atrociously. I know, grammar police blah blah blah, but FD has certainly proved him/herself on this site to be anything but informed
Reply
Matthew Naylor Mar 25
Rory,
The thing is, everything is a political issue in an election year. I should also point out that it was the University that raised the tuition, not the government. What I was defending was the government policy on the cap.
More consultation should have been done, but again, this was the university. I think that the policies behind the increase are good. I would also prefer for there to be a system in place where those who have to work get assistance. What I had a problem with is people crying foul without understanding the context, which can lead to the wrong actions being taken.
My article was talking about the domestic increase. I did say that “The price increases on international students are disproportionate to their domestic counterparts—this needs to change”.
Reply
FD Mar 25
Oh, grammar policing is just fine by me. Typo-policing, on the other hand, is just the cheapest possible excuse of someone thinking that being unreflectively pro-life, pro-leadership and evidently either utterly indifferent to or unaware of the everyday economic hardships of mere mortals should pass for being “informed”.
Reply
esteban Mar 25
oh come on, even you should appreciate the irony in your conjecture, even if it is marked by a lack of self awareness. A refusal to look past your own preconceptions does not imply anything about my views, and using straw men about what direction my views take is certainly not a good way to distract from your own superficiality.
Reply
stebe Mar 25
None of your letters are capital—you clearly don’t understand the situation.
Reply
Rebecca Coad Mar 25
Anyone who pays for their own tuition cares about a 2% increase.
Reply
Ed Durgan Mar 26
If anyone needed more evidence that, at least some, ams student politicians were padding their resume’s in order to go into regional or national politics later, they should now be satisfied. This Liberal party ass-kissing and belittlement of student hardships is sickening. But it will help Naylor look good with his bosses in the party.
Also; Students are not motivated to pursue an education for the sake of making more money. Calculating our debt and when we can pay it off should not be part of academic planning.
Reply
Benson Mar 26
It’s sad that expectations have been so lowered by the Liberals. 2% only seems good because it’s compared to the 40%-50% increases we had the 1st few years of their reign. Glad to hear some people’s parents are still able to pony up.
Reply
Alum Nye Mar 27
You get what you pay for in this world. Ask yourself why you go to UBC. If the answer has anything at all to do with “Because it’s a good-quality school”, increases in tuition that are on par with inflation should be eminently reasonable. I would say that in many (certainly not all) of the programs at UBC, the current tuition is a laughably good bargain for the quality of education received.
Nobody who has posted so far opposing the increase has spoken to the fact that freezing tuition puts even more strain on the university’s financial resources and that it negatively affects the quality of education.
Reply
lsf Mar 27
Alum Nye,
I think the fear is that the good quality will put it out of the price-range of some students who are otherwise capable succeeding here. Or that the added strain of needing to hold down a job during exams or when papers are due will limit what someone can get out of the classes. Or that even when kids do graduate, they’ll get trapped into whatever job pays enough to make the installments on their student loans, which can mean not using their degree at all.
The idea of a freeze is awful if it’s not planned for. The obvious solution is to replace the funds a freeze takes out of the system. It’s pretty simple book keeping, but, from a government’s perspective, it can be advantageous to pretend you don’t know how to do it.
I know there are counters to what I’m saying here—scholarships and government loans can step in for people who wouldn’t be able to afford university; it’s possible to work when you’re in school, and might even help you develop a stronger work ethic or teach you to survive; and sometimes we just use this issue as an excuse or an easy out.
All I mean to point out is that higher tuition can put a strain on students that can have nothing to do with their ability to succeed at the university. It’s a part of the province that should be about merit, I think.
Reply
FD Mar 27
“You get what you pay for in this world.”
True. But, tell me: Is that a natural law? You know, like gravity or your ears growing all your life?
Reply
Matthew Naylor Mar 27
Quality is important. Quality is why a bunch of us are here, which is kind of the point that I’m trying to make
I didn’t say a freeze in and of itself was damaging, but rather that the NDP freeze was damaging. It’s not that I don’t think that the NDP wants to improve education, it’s that I don’t trust them to. The oversimplification of PSE problem by the both the Federal and Provincial NDP candidates in this riding (see above, and a letter response) is why I don’t vote for them.
The cost of rental housing is a bigger problem for many people – rent in this city can cost thousands more than our tuition, but for the CFS and NDP, it seems to be ALL TUITION, ALL THE TIME, to the detriment of quality. We still have a low proportion of tuition payment nationally – eastern students can pay upwards of 45-55% of their educational costs. We pay 28%. Thing is, we rank near the bottom in student engagement – it’s getting better, but it needs more change, and that means more money as well.
I honestly don’t get why people, on a policy level, would trade quality for affordability. Is the NDP so dumbfounded by the math involved in some progressive tuition system that they’d choose easy-to-understand, bad policy over something a little more complicated? I mean, I realize that worked out really well for Stephane Dion and the Green Shift, but still, this is our education we’re talking about. Let’s take a different look at the system, ensure that participation is equalized across income quartiles by using grants and rebates rather than a universal reduction – I don’t need the cut, but someone else does. By not cutting my tuition, you have $80 more to put into improving quality and creating grants to bring people to University who otherwise wouldn’t be here. It’s great for everyone! Or I could go buy a big bottle of Tequila… hmmm, on second thought…
I do believe that people take university degrees because it improves their lot in life – more money, better health, more knowledge. Learning is a part of it, sure, but University is as much about building life skills to use in our careers as it is about what we learn in class. I do not think it’s appropriate to stay in school forever, leeching off the taxpayer. Eventually, we all should work, pay taxes, and ensure that funding is directed to the next generation of students – after all, the average PSE graduate contributes 800% of the tax base contribution of a non graduate, making it the singular best investment for a government to make.
Reply
Alum Nye Mar 29
I would just like to go back to the title of this piece: “Two percent is not a tuition hike”. At this rate it will take 20 years for the tuition to double again. Would anybody be shocked if tuition fees were twice as high in 2009 as they were in 1989? Probably not. It’s just keeping pace with inflation.
Reply
Rory Mar 30
“By not cutting my tuition, you have $80 more to put into improving quality and creating grants to bring people to University who otherwise wouldn’t be here. It’s great for everyone!”
That’s all well and good, but student aid bc, minimum wage and student financial assistance remains frozen. You shouldn’t kid yourself that this 2% will be used to help students. If you are that deluded, you must not have been paying attention during your time at the AMS.
Reply
esteban Mar 30
hey rory whats up with the negativity dawg? Maybe, just maybe, it might be concievable that extra income for the university could positively affect students in several probable ways.
Reply
Matthew Naylor Mar 30
I dispute that tuition money has not gone to help students. The philosophy of BCLP on how student aid should run needs diversification, but things like the loan remission program are really good. Also, other, more important changes have been taking place – for example, a tangible increase in educational quality, the first since 1990.
Reply
erin Mar 30
Why did I not pay attention to the AMS elections? I can’t believe that Mathew Naylor is supposed to represent student interests.
There has never been a politician that has had a more profoundly negative direct impact on my life than Gordon Campbell. Next year I will be spit out into the job market during a recession with $80,000 in student debt. At least $30,000 of this can be attributed to the change in policies since the NDP. The tuition increases have hurt, but it’s the elimination of grants for low income students which has greatly increased the possibility of bankruptcy in my future.
Where did you get the number “the quality of education declined by over 30 per cent”? What does that even mean? Had the grants been cancelled before I invested two years into my undergrad then I wouldn’t have bothered to go back to school. This would have decreased the quality of my education by 100%.
I compensated for the loss of grants through a good Work Study position. This is another option for low income students that your hero Gordon Campbell cut. Kudos to UBC for maintaining and improving it.
I think that Gordon Campbell has pulled out all the stops to ensure that people from my economic background are discouraged from pursuing a degree.
Thank you for your column Mr. Naylor. I will never sleep through a student election again. It is clear that you are not looking out for what is in my best interest.
Reply
erin Mar 31
Ok Naylor, I read your post on the Radical Beer blog. And the policies you claim to support absolutely would make sense for my situation.
So why on god’s green earth are you endorsing Gordon Campbell? He doesn’t support student grants. He told me that personally to my face. I’ve never heard him mention a hard cap on tuition, or expanding the loan remission program, or giving international students a break.
The election is only a month away, yet the educational platform advertised on his site is still just a bunch of empty fluff: http://www.bcliberals.com/?section_id=1576§ion_copy_id=13386
How can I take you seriously when Campbell represents the polar opposite of the proposal you put forward? This cat is not “licking it up”.
Reply
Matthew Naylor Mar 31
I love this comment. Finally, something I’m doing is getting people interested in the rather important student politics process. IT MATTERS!
@erin, make sure to, when you graduate, check out the BC Loan Remission Program. It’s a program designed to reduce the principle of a student loan post graduation. The address is here: http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/studentaidbc/repay/repaymentassistance/loanremission.htm
The thirty percent statistic comes from the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Canadian Universities Survey Consortium, which evaluate perceived quality of institutions. It’s the closest thing to a quantitative evaluation of quality that we have, and the AMS has been accepting it as such for years.
Saying that choosing not to pursue an education is the same as a poor quality one is disingenuous. Typically students will overestimate the cost of an education while underestimating the cost – reform of the CAPP course has been … OK, but does need to do more to educate prospective students about financing options – the very idea that student rewards go unclaimed is nauseating to me.
I want my government to make sure that the education offered here is worth getting. The best evaluators of quality that we have indicate improvement. People think their education is getting better. They are beginning to feel more engaged. Young people are no longer leaving this province when they finish high school.
Reply
erin Apr 1
I am familiar with the BC Loan Remission program. It covers student loans from banks that were issued prior to the year 2000, requires a mountain of paper work and if I ever wanted to apply for it the deadline was about 8 years ago.
There are no viable options provided by the provincial government to reduce my government issued loans.
“I want my government to make sure that the education offered here is worth getting. The best evaluators of quality that we have indicate improvement. People think their education is getting better. They are beginning to feel more engaged. Young people are no longer leaving this province when they finish high school.”
That is word for word the same nonsense talking points Gordon Campbell says. Please see my response below.
Reply
grandpa simpson Apr 1
erin,
I think a better way of going about this would disproving these things, instead of personal anecdotes or easily dismissing them as “talking points”. I’m pretty much a fence-sitter on this issue, but the fact remains that statistics, surveys, and work by accredited institutions all support educational improvement, improved public perception, and less students leaving after highschool. To dismiss these important aspects of the debate as ‘nonsense’ is pretty intellectually dishonest.
Reply
Matthew Naylor Apr 3
I don’t really know what to do now – I provided a link to the website of a current government program. Saying that it doesn’t exist is inaccurate.
My ‘talking points’ were made based on the NSSE and CUSC surveys, and migration rates. What else can I do if I’m not allowed to cite the statistically significant trends demonstrated in independent research to support my point.
I, in all honesty, have not really understood why you don’t think that education has been well served – I’ve provided my argument.
On grants, the BC Liberals seem to collectively be concerned about up front grants, afraid that some people would ‘take the money and run’. I feel that this risk is perhaps overstated, but the Ministry has shown openness to the implementation of something like an institution tied credit. However, they prefer the back end loan remission program (which, I reiterate, exists – quoted from website: The federal and provincial government offer programs that can help you repay your Canada and B.C. student loans.).
A hard cap on tuition doesn’t have to be called a hard cap to be a hard cap. The government has, through regulation, made the soft cap into something that the Universities are so reticent to exceed that it is practically a hard cap.
The party website you linked to is part of the OpenPlatform consultation. The party hasn’t launched its platform yet – the election hasn’t even started. I support the party because I believe that past performance is an indicator of future performance. The NDP did a very bad job last time. The BC Liberals have done what I would characterize as a good job, and I believe that Campbell will get us to what I want quicker.
Reply
erin Apr 6
Please visit step 5 on the link to the government program. It is only available for loans that were cashed before July 31, 2000. That was 9 years ago! The deadline to apply for the program is one year after you graduate. How many students graduating right now can benefit from reducing their loans from the 90’s? The program has outlived it’s use and when I called StudentAidBC last week they said it might be scrapped.
Back end loan remission is fine by me, but what I have received so far doesn’t come close to what I had received in front end grants before they were cancelled.
It sounds to me like you haven’t had to rely on loans to finance your education. Gordon Campbell’s education policies discourage otherwise qualified low income students from pursuing post secondary education. These are voices that are not reflected in the MacLean’s surveys because they are not in University, they’re in the tar sands and on the construction sites.
I have many friends who have not bothered with University because they were unwilling to take on that much debt. Well meaning friends and family have questioned my decision to go to University, and rightly so, I’m in way over my head. The student loan system as it exists now creates and reinforces class division.
Reply
grandpa simpson Apr 7
yeah but those are all just talking points, right erin?
Reply
Alex Apr 8
People can defend this increase based on policy and checking inflation and suspect measurements of the quality of education but that fact of the matter is that less and less people can afford to go to school. Some people will not even be able to finish their degrees, at least without taking on massive student loans before graduation.
It is all well and good to balance quality with cost but we aren’t taking about a consumer product here. Education should not be subject to the same criteria as those of someone buying a new macbook. If people want to go to school, it should happen, and unfortunately any government that raises tuition rather than lowering or abolishing it is not allowing this to happen.
Reply