A friend alerted me to an article in this week's Hudson's Bay Post Review by Lee Harding, executive director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Saskatchewan branch, about hikes in tuition at Saskatchewan universities.
The thesis of Harding's article is that students shouldn't blame governments for rising tuition. As Harding puts it:
"For the first time in five years, there will be a tuition increase at Saskatchewan universities. Doubtless, many students will complain that if only the government increased funding their tuition wouldn’t have to rise. Whatever the problems of universities are, inadequate government funding is the last place blame can be laid."
The newspaper paper doesn't appear to have a website but Harding's article, which was actually written a couple weeks ago, is posted here on the CTF website (rural Saskatchewan papers run CTF columns because, one presumes, they're free).
Well, here's a surprise--I disagree with Harding's opinion.
In his article, Harding says, "Like much of the public sector, leaning on the government for ever-increasing dollars has become as much a preoccupation as its reason for existence—in this case, education." (Well, I'm sure the public sector loves you too, Harding.)
From there, he argues that the U of S has lots of lobbyists (which means...what?), that it has an allegedly gigantic workforce, that tuition is already sufficiently subsidized by taxpayers and that there are millions of public dollars flowing into the university anyway.
Some of that is just slime-tossing (universities overstaffed? Says who?), but regardless I don't get Harding's point. How should universities keep tuition down? Should campus worker pay be slashed (violating negotiated contracts?) Should workers be laid off? Should pensions be rolled back? Should professor salary be chopped? Should capital projects be cancelled? Should universities cancel research? Should departments be closed? What?
Harding doesn't say he supports these measures, but since tuition hikes, in his view, aren't caused by underfunding, you have to suspect he does.
"The bottom line is that taxpayers are doing more for universities than ever," says Harding. "Students angry about a tuition increase would do well to remember this. If they have anyone to blame, it’s those running their school of choice."
No, Lee--the bottom line is that students are paying more for university than ever and it's stupid and evil.
Other countries fund their universities more generously and have cheaper (or free) tuition. And we're seeing the results--according to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, as of 2007 our country was in the lower half of OECD countries when it comes to proportion of young adults enrolled--which is the telling statistic.
(The AUCC says Canada only had 23 per cent enrolment, against an OECD median of 26 per cent and a high of 37 per cent in South Korea. This ranks Canada at 18 out of 27--the bottom third. In the early 80s, we were number two. Source: Trends In Higher Education Vol. 1: Enrolment, 2007.)
You're trying to tell me high tuition--which has roughly tripled in the past 20 years--isn't the reason more students are avoiding university?
In Canada, starting with the Mulroney government in the 80s, we've moved away from generous public funding of universities (and, um, everything) and toward a culture of tax-bitching and spending cuts--and the result is a more expensive country to live in with a steadily growing gap between rich and poor.
Universities are just one area that got hit by this shift, which was never voter-directed but politician-imposed.
There is ALWAYS a need for criticism of public spending. But there's a difference between useful criticism--which someone like Canada's auditor general does annually, and which the media ideally would be doing a better job of--and flat-out attacks on the public sector, which the CTF is into.
If Saskatchewan's CTF branch--which has in the past criticized public sector involvement in health care, libraries, schools, the arts, the rumoured Rider stadium and rural bus service, among other things--wants to help Sask students, they need to ditch the tax-fetish and call for adequate funding so tuition can be lowered to a level students can afford without destroying their finances for a decade or more.
If a province cares about having an educated population, it funds its universities adequately so that tuition will be affordable. It it doesn't, well, then its real priorities are revealed.
Like a smart businessman once told me, money talks, bullshit walks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
2 comments:
The 2% cap on eduction funding for First Nations people has got to go for one thing. Universities are complaining of declining enrollment, but the federal government is denying tens of thousands of Canadians a post secondary education they desire (and is promised to them through Treaties).
Hi Stephen,
Obviously we agree to disagree. A few points...
This is the first tuition increase in 5 years. I graduated in '05 which means I was at the pinnacle of "expensive" university. I know what this is like.
The study you referenced where OECD participation rates were compared uses a chart from '03. University participation in Canada rose 31% between '00 and '06, so we are probably higher than the study indicates.
The United States placed 10th in university participation rates, while Canada's 18th was still higher than socialist Sweden. How much does government funding have to do with participation?
As my article stated, the U of S could fire hundreds of employees and still have 1 employee for every 3 students! Does this not seem incredible?! Until 2000, many of the staff at the U of S were on a defined-benefit pension plan. This means that even if the economy tanks, their pensions won't. This will cost the university for decades to come.
My point was simple: the government is doing an awful lot for students and is actually doing more now than ever.
Post a Comment