A substantial decline in government revenues has brought into sharp focus its ability to continue financing a number of transfer payment programmes including the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (Gate). While many may agree that the Government ought to financially assist students pursuing higher education there may, however, be serious differences about the extent to which tertiary education should be funded.
Education, like mass immunisation shots against contagious diseases, confers benefits not only to the immediate consumer—better educated people earn more than less educated—but the entire society.
There are spillover benefits on the wider community: a more versatile and productive labour force, smaller outlays on crime prevention, law enforcement, welfare programmes and more political participation as better educated individuals keep themselves informed on current issues and tend to be politically active which furthers improved government.
All these spillover benefits contribute to an efficient society and therefore, the argument goes, government should pay some or all of the costs of higher education.
Also, government financial assistance to higher education fosters the goal of equity. If students had to pay the full costs of their education, only the wealthiest would be able to afford university or other institutions of higher learning and, as a consequence, would continue to have higher-paying jobs. The poor would be stuck in lower-paying jobs.
But in the context of our country, a pertinent question is: has our society reaped the spillover benefits from the billions of dollars spent on Gate? Anecdotal evidence and casual observation would suggest that we (taxpayers) have hardly benefitted. Given the billions of dollars pumped into Gate, in a perverse sort of way our socio-economic problems persist: escalating crime (note largest allocation of country’s budget to national security), widespread lawlessness, rampant corruption, undiversified economy, lack of entrepreneurship, increasing unemployment and underemployment, rising inflation, lack of critical thinking skills, widespread cynicism and mistrust of government and politicians, ethnic voting and ineffective governance.
On the other hand, the arguments against full or partial subsidisation of higher education are that it creates inefficiency and the consumption of too much education, wastes resources and lowers educational standards.
Subsidisation, especially 100 per cent assistance as obtains with Gate, has created a virtual explosion in demand for all sorts of degree programmes. Many students earn degrees in obscure and “useless” subjects. Some of these students eventually end up in the same job they would have had directly after secondary school with fewer years of on-the-job experience. Other students are simply not cut out for tertiary education and would be more productively employed in any number of jobs that don’t require a degree or diploma.
By subsidising higher education, government simply encourages such students to waste time attending classes.
In response to the increased demand for higher education, there has been a mushrooming of schools and institutions of higher education, many of which are what may be called “agents” of institutions in other countries, mainly the UK. (These “agents” are akin to the import, mark-up businesses so prevalent in our economy). The intense competition among these schools to capture or boost student enrolment to increase income has contributed to lowering educational standards. Some are even promising degrees after 12 to 18 months of “study”.
The most troubling aspect of this is that employers, including the government, are giving credence to these types of qualifications by employing people with such degrees.
Forcing students to pay some or all of the cost of their education encourages responsibility on the part of students and promotes the efficient use of society’s scare resources. Students are more likely to seriously ask themselves, am I genuinely interested in higher education? What are the alternatives? Are the cost and time worthwhile? What am I foregoing?
Only students who are willing and able to pay have access to higher education. This eliminates unnecessary demand and frees resources to be employed elsewhere in society.
It should be noted that the notion of equity is not inconsistent with the requirement that students pay for higher education. Even the most impoverished student with the desire and ability to pursue higher education can do so through a properly administered student loan guarantee programme without imposing a burden on taxpayers.
With 100 per cent funding of student tuition regardless of household income, Gate, in its present form can be described as a programme of unbridled generosity or government largesse. It also makes the concept of equity a farce as all are subsidised regardless of income.
A review of the foregoing arguments clearly shows that the debate on Gate is not a simple black and white issue; there is merit on both sides of the argument. I therefore support a partial payment of tuition by students depending on income and a partial subsidy by government targeted towards those areas of higher education that foster national development: diversified, export oriented economy, innovation, creativity, science and technology and the strengthening of our democracy.
Bhagiratty Boodhan,
Avocat