[Gunnair]

$1:

Andrew Coyne: Students should pay for the entire cost of education — later
Andrew Coyne Apr 20, 2012 – 7:29 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 21, 2012 1:36 AM ET

If you were trying to make an argument against higher education, you could not do a better job of it than the striking students of Quebec. A more self-serving, self-satisfied, self-dramatizing collection of idiots could not have been assembled in one place without prolonged exposure to Foucault and Lacan.

The students have been “on strike,” i.e. skipping classes, for months in protest against a scheduled increase in tuition fees. Until lately they have relied upon intimidating other students and annoying the public; in recent days they have displayed an escalating propensity to outright violence. All in response to a plan that, while it will oblige them to pay much more than they were, will still leave them paying much less than students in the rest of Canada.


The 75% increase in fees over five years would raise the basic undergraduate tuition fee to $3,792 — versus the $5,000 or more common in other provinces. That would still leave Quebec’s undergraduates paying just 17% of the costs of their education. Indeed, it is just enough to return fees, frozen for many years in the province, to where they were in 1968, after inflation.

Nevertheless, that could still pose a barrier to students from poorer families. That is, it might have, had not the province offset the increase in tuition with an equally hefty increase in bursaries: enough to entirely wipe out the increase for anyone on low income.

So what we are left with is a collection of mostly well-to-do students — for that is who, disproportionately, go on to higher education, for reasons that have less to do with fees than with family background, starting with whether their parents did — agitating against any increase in the amount they contribute to their own education, preferring instead that they should be supported out of general revenues. And, by and large, I agree with them.

‘But to say that students should pay more does not mean they should pay now’
Well, in a way. All of the things I’ve said above are true, not just of Quebec, but for the country as a whole. Students, especially in undergraduate programs, still pay a fraction of the cost of their education, though they tend to come from wealthier-than-average families and though the cost of their education, as every study shows, will be repaid many times over in the higher earnings they will enjoy.

That argues pretty strongly that students should pay a greater share of the tab. Indeed, I’d argue they should pay all of it. This isn’t only a matter of fairness. When universities depend on students, rather than governments, for the greater part of their revenues, they will devote a lot more energy and resources to their core mission — teaching students — than they do now. Conversely, students who are paying full freight will devote a good deal more time and attention to getting the most out of the experience than, for example, I did.

But to say that students should pay more does not mean they should pay now. It isn’t so much the cost of tuition that can impede accessibility as the timing. It’s all very well to provide assistance to students in need, but it is sometimes unclear exactly who is in need: just because a student’s parents have adequate income does not mean he does. Student loans, meanwhile, impose the same monthly payment schedule, regardless of the ups and downs — or just downs — a recent graduate’s earnings may experience.

So while it is true that there is little correlation between tuition fees and access overall — about the same proportion of Quebec’s population goes on to higher education as in the other provinces — that does not mean all is well. The one-third increase in student fees (after inflation) across the country over the last decade has been accompanied by a similar increase in student debt. Even at current historically low interest rates that cannot be an easy thing to carry around. One-third of graduates reported difficulties repaying their student loans in 2007, versus one-quarter 20 years before.

‘What if, instead of paying tuition now, students could pay it later?’
As I say, it’s cash flow that’s the issue, not the amount. So: What if, instead of paying tuition now, students could pay it later? That is, what if they were staked all or most of the money up front, and repaid it over the course of their working life? Only what if, instead of repaying principal plus interest in fixed amounts, as with conventional loans, they paid a share of their earnings? As they earned more, they’d pay more; as they earned less, they’d pay less.

The model is not new. It’s sometimes called an income contingent loan, or a graduate tax. But in reality, it’s not a loan or a tax. It’s an investment. Think of a student as a kind of high-tech startup firm. Like students, these entrepreneurs are often wary of taking on debt, again because of cash-flow uncertainties. (For their part, banks aren’t always keen to lend to them, given the difficulties of assessing the risks of such enterprises.) So typically they turn to venture capitalists, who take a share of a firm’s equity in return for their investment, rather than charge interest.

That’s what the government (it could even be the universities themselves) would be doing here. In return for investing in students’ “human capital,” they’d be entitled to a share of students’ lifetime earnings. That’s not only fairer to students, it’s fairer to everyone: fix the cash-flow question, and you can begin to ask students to pay the full cost of their education.

Indeed, a modest scheme along these lines was proposed earlier this month by the Charest government, in an attempt to mollify the strikers. It doesn’t seem to have worked.

Postmedia News

[jeff744]

$1:

That argues pretty strongly that students should pay a greater share of the tab. Indeed, I’d argue they should pay all of it. This isn’t only a matter of fairness. When universities depend on students, rather than governments, for the greater part of their revenues, they will devote a lot more energy and resources to their core mission — teaching students — than they do now. Conversely, students who are paying full freight will devote a good deal more time and attention to getting the most out of the experience than, for example, I did.

Go to hell, university students today are paying a higher percent of the real costs than our parents and grandparents did. In my university the tuition has been going up 4-5% every year and for Law students it went up over 16% (no decimal). The reason 33% can't pay back their loans is because the generation before us decided to be the generation of debt and now that retirement age is sneaking up they have found that they have to work because they were too stupid to save up and live an affordable lifestyle, thus forcing the people with $40,000 in student loans to work at Burger King because nothing else is available. Quebec is an exception, when Law tuition went up there were no protests, just grumbling about how we are expected to foot more of the bill, again.

[Gunnair]

jeff744 jeff744:

$1:

That argues pretty strongly that students should pay a greater share of the tab. Indeed, I’d argue they should pay all of it. This isn’t only a matter of fairness. When universities depend on students, rather than governments, for the greater part of their revenues, they will devote a lot more energy and resources to their core mission — teaching students — than they do now. Conversely, students who are paying full freight will devote a good deal more time and attention to getting the most out of the experience than, for example, I did.

Go to hell, university students today are paying a higher percent of the real costs than our parents and grandparents did. In my university the tuition has been going up 4-5% every year and for Law students it went up over 16% (no decimal). The reason 33% can't pay back their loans is because the generation before us decided to be the generation of debt and now that retirement age is sneaking up they have found that they have to work because they were too stupid to save up and live an affordable lifestyle, thus forcing the people with $40,000 in student loans to work at Burger King because nothing else is available. Quebec is an exception, when Law tuition went up there were no protests, just grumbling about how we are expected to foot more of the bill, again.

Entitlement alert...

[Lemmy]

The major reason the cost of education has gone up is technology. Just as industrial workers have been victims of computers and robots, so have undergraduates.

[ShepherdsDog]

I paid 100%. No loans at all.

[Gunnair]

Me too. Funny what you can do when you work your ass off and live frugally.

[Zipperfish]

Andrew Coyne Andrew Coyne:

So what we are left with is a collection of mostly well-to-do students.

Mostly well-to-do, maybe. But not all of them. If tuition in Canada were the same as the US, speaking for myself, Canada would have one less scientist and one more bartender. Some say that might not be a bad thing. "Full freight" as Coyne says, is hundreds of thousands of dollars for a law or medical degree, if the US is any indication. That puts those fields out of range for your lower economic strata.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Me too. Funny what you can do when you work your ass off and live frugally.

Really - you attended a private institution where your fees covered the true cost your education? (I did). Otherwise you may want to read the article again.

$1:

The 75% increase in fees over five years would raise the basic undergraduate tuition fee to $3,792 — versus the $5,000 or more common in other provinces. That would still leave Quebec’s undergraduates paying just 17% of the costs of their education. Indeed, it is just enough to return fees, frozen for many years in the province, to where they were in 1968, after inflation.

Most students don't pay nearly the cost of their education, never have.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Me too. Funny what you can do when you work your ass off and live frugally.

Really - you attended a private institution where your fees covered the true cost your education? (I did). Otherwise you may want to read the article again.

The 75% increase in fees over five years would raise the basic undergraduate tuition fee to $3,792 — versus the $5,000 or more common in other provinces. That would still leave Quebec’s undergraduates paying just 17% of the costs of their education. Indeed, it is just enough to return fees, frozen for many years in the province, to where they were in 1968, after inflation.

Most students don't pay nearly the cost of their education, never have.

Irrelevant. Entitleists like yourself and the tantruming youth in QC want it all for free.

[Thanos]

You also end up paying back the entire cost of your education in the payroll taxes you pay when you get your career started.

[andyt]

jeff744 jeff744:

Go to hell, university students today are paying a higher percent of the real costs than our parents and grandparents did. In my university the tuition has been going up 4-5% every year and for Law students it went up over 16% (no decimal). The reason 33% can't pay back their loans is because the generation before us decided to be the generation of debt and now that retirement age is sneaking up they have found that they have to work because they were too stupid to save up and live an affordable lifestyle, thus forcing the people with $40,000 in student loans to work at Burger King because nothing else is available. Quebec is an exception, when Law tuition went up there were no protests, just grumbling about how we are expected to foot more of the bill, again.

$1:

That’s what the government (it could even be the universities themselves) would be doing here. In return for investing in students’ “human capital,” they’d be entitled to a share of students’ lifetime earnings. That’s not only fairer to students, it’s fairer to everyone: fix the cash-flow question, and you can begin to ask students to pay the full cost of their education.

I like this idea - you pay the true cost of your education, but you pay it back over your lifetime, and the more you earn the more you pay. Andrew Coyne is a socialist at heart. Some would argue that's what the tax system is for - the more you earn, the more you pay. Higher education isn't the only social benefit people use to make money.

[Lemmy]

You are a "thought-out-mouth" kinda guy, aren't you, andy? Is there any internal thought process and censor operating before pressing "submit"?

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You are a "thought-out-mouth" kinda guy, aren't you, andy? Is there any internal thought process and censor operating before pressing "submit"?

You mean like Thanos?

Thanos Thanos:

You also end up paying back the entire cost of your education in the payroll taxes you pay when you get your career started.

Not sure what you're on about. While his idea would be hard to put into practice, it certainly is a fair one. Except people will whinge, because a fine arts student will have to pay back a lot less under Coyne's scheme than a engineer. In fact he seems to contradict himself because he says the more you earn the more you pay back - so somebody's isn't paying back the cost of their education. The high income earner either pays back more than it cost, or the low income earner doesn't pay it all back. And as Thanos pointed out, the tax system already does that - it should just be more progressive.

[Lemmy]

So you're telling me "the system" should build in an incentive for graduates to earn less so that their tuition is reduced. Is that it?

[Tricks]

I was fortunate to have parents who could pay for it, but my dad went through on a full ride scholarship.