Subscribe
Live Blogging From The Freeze Tuition Fees Campout
January 31st, 2007 by JP
As I’m typing (which is quite a challenge right now, with cold hands and mittens on), UTSU and crew are setting up their campsite for the Freeze the Fees Campout. The tents have been assembled and the message “Freeze Tuition Fees” is spray-painted red-on-white on the snow, on front campus in front of University College.
It’s cold here, but spirit are high. People are shouting instructions, mattresses are being unrolled, tarps are being pinned down, and tents are being blown over in the wind.
“We’re going to have a campfire, hot dogs, and marshmallows”, Jen, the UTSU president tells me.
Well, a campfire sounds good. It’s really cold out here. Oh, did I say that already? My best wishes to the campers. I hope they don’t literally freeze for a tuition fee freeze.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Just a thought here, re tuition freezes - no matter what post-secondary tuition fees are - including Quebec’s traditionally almost non-existent ones - only about the top quartile of the country, economically speaking, ever goes to college or university. So by demanding, as students do every year, that tuition fees either be frozen or rolled back, and therefore for current government subsidies to stay at least as high as they are, what they are in fact demanding is for the bottom three quartiles of the Canadian population to subsidize the education of the relatively rich.
Now, who knows, the poorest two thirds or three quarters of the population may be quite pleased to kick in some tax money to pay for their bosses’ kids to go to school, but to demand it like this on campuses across the country, well, that seems rather grabby, don’t you think? Rather entitled?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:40 am
Coming from a relatively poor family, I am always astonished at Ontario’s widely accessible post-secondary education system. With financial programs (OSAP), there is really no limitation for its residents.
Of course, if the tuition fees are too high, students may have trouble repaying the loans after they graduate (especially if they have trouble finding a job). This could deter students from pursuing post-secondary education in the first place, and would have drastic implications on the economy.
Therefore, there should be a balance between tuition fees and the social benefit of having educated citizens.
So no, it is not entitled to demand a tuition freeze.
The poorest three quarters of the population that are helping to subsidize the tuition fees through tax money will reap the benefits of living in a more economically thriving society. Therefore, more job availability for the poor etc.
Besides — I’m poor to begin with!
February 1st, 2007 at 12:59 am
Hi Bert. That’s an interesting view you’ve brought up.
I’m not an expert in the topic, and I don’t know the stats (do you have a reference to suggest?). Without getting into who’s paying for whom, my understanding is that the call for a tuition freeze has the goal of improving (or maintaining) the accessibility of post-secondary education.
Universities need money to operate.
If we take away government subsidies, and have tuition fees cover the entire cost of post-secondary education, tuition fees will sky rocket and only a handful of the very rich will be able to afford university. That, in my mind, is a bad thing.
And on the issue of money. It would seem to me that the tiered taxing system and percentage taxing would mean the rich are paying far more in taxes than the poor.
To my understanding, the goal of government subsidies is to “level the playing field” so to speak, so that money is redistributed in such a way that rich and poor have equal access to services.
So unless you want to argue that post-secondary education is or should be a service only for the rich, lower tuition fees are a desireable thing.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 am
I thought the whole point of a tuition freeze was to help the poorer students who were prevented from attending solely by financial reasons…
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 am
The stats are available from StatsCan. I’m not arguing that higher education shouldn’t be accessible, just saying that the facts, gathered over decades, shows that pricing has almost no influence on who goes to college or university. It is always the rich, relatively speaking, no matter how cheap or how expensive. So whereas in theory tuition fee freezes sound like a good thing, and a noble cause to allow those with less money to go more easily, in fact, for the most part, those with less money will not go anyway which means that in reality, calls for freezes disproportionately benefit the richest sector of the country.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 am
Can you point us to some concrete stats, then?
I know several people who’ve had to turn down prestigious grad schools because they were unaffordable. I also know several people who’re mired in debt because of their undergraduate education.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Okay, Bert. I understand what you’re saying: that the people with less money do not benefit much from government subsidies to Universities because they’re statistically less likely to attend post-secondary education.
But I think we’re looking at another problem there. How do we improve chances for post secondary education among the poor? Perhaps we have to look at improving the neighbourhood/highschool/family environments.
So I think rather than saying, forget about government subsidies to post secondary education, we should be looking at two things. One, government subsidies to keep education accessible. Two, efforts to improve chances of post-secondary education for the poor.
February 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Here’s a piece that quotes some of the salient stats: http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_08.29.02/news/editorial.php
The thing is, Quebec is accounted for in these stats, too, and they had tuition fees so low for years as to be practically free. The point it, you may say you’re fighting for the rights of the poor, and you may even believe it, but the fact is, you’re just not. There may be ways to improve chances of post secondary education for the poor, but lowering tuition fees, no matter how attractive it sounds, is not one of them.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I quote the stat from the Eye article: “38.7 per cent of kids from the highest-income quartile attend university, versus 18.8 per cent from the lowest”
You seem to want to say tuition fees have nothing to do with accessibility… which is an interesting claim. You cite Quebec as an example.
I point you to here.
I quote: “Quebecers aged between 20 and 24 have a university attainment rate of 12.3%, slightly below the national rate of 13%.” So that could support your point. However, stats are hard to read sometimes. For example, maybe a higher proportion of the 12.3% of Quebecers who obtained a university degree were of lower income. Maybe not.
Then there’s also: “Ontarians between the ages of 20 and 24 had a university attainment rate of 14.7%, slightly above the national rate of 13%. Ontario�s rate was the country�s second-highest, behind Nova Scotia.” Should we interpret this as higher tuition equals better accessibility?
Regardless of stats, I guess it all comes down to this. There are students (perhaps those from the lowest-income quartile, perhaps not) who want lower tuition fees. They protest for lower tuition fees.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:17 am
[…] all heard a lot about the tuition fees issue recently, with the February 7th Rally and the Freeze Tuition Fees Campout. There are a lot of students who wish for lower tuition fees, and they’re pretty vocal about […]