the gre atg lob ali stb log

My project is, admitedly, an attempt to rationalise the value of education. Assigning a monetary value to advanced education is a natural inclination considering that we do this every year when we pay our student fees anyway, it would be nice to be able to do so comprehensively. The Marginal Social Welfare approach, however, is little-known in economics, much less at large. So, perhaps its effectiveness as a policy tool is ill-placed.

Last year the University was given a warning from the Provincial Government: "balance your books or we will cut your funding." The University has run deficit after deficit; students here have seen tuition increase after tuition increase--the highest rate hikes in all of Canada. But, of course, the University must have realised that the demand for advanced education in today's market is relatively inelastic, hence the fee hikes.

This year, the University has posted a $10MCAD profit. In no small twist of irony, the Provincial Government has pledged to eat the proposed 5.6% fee increase. But still, is this an equitable Provincial subsidy?

I met someone today who had to drop out in her third year of a B.Sc. because she could no longer afford to go to school; the demand, then, is not completely inelastic. Certainly, it seems unfair that income could be a means of discriminating potential intellectuals. But, there is a cost to the provision oof education, someone has to pay for it. And, to some extent, students should have to bear the burden. There is some notion that an optimal mix between government subsidy and private payment indeed exists, though elusive.

I have a friend who swears that tuition is borderline unaffordable, any increase is not possible. Yet, she just bought a $3KCAD computer. Examples like that, though, give a bad name to student activists. For, there are those who have been unfairly forced out of the market, and still must payback their loans.

I never took out student loans--actually, I tried, but I didn't qualify. I figure that it's for the best; I will graduate this year with no debt, having paid for my school experience out of pocket. Though, I must also acknowledge the other extremes: there are those who live a life of privledged, who gripe and complain while having all the opportunity and means one could ever want; and there are those who can only dream of the meager opportunities available to me. And, somewhere, these three prototypes of society converge on the market for advanced education, look to the institution with inquisitive minds and ask, "what is fair?"

What I paid was fair enough, I could afford it. What my rich friend paid was fair enough, she could more than afford it. But the other: what a waste! Not even having the means to finish her programme!

It doesn't matter necessarily if my rich friend and I pay less than we can afford. However, there is a problem when, barring all other circumstance, someone is denied the opportunity to pursue education because of her socio-economic background. And, it is wholly unfair that the price of education be adjusted by the vocal so that she may afford another toy--that is not the mandate of government support of the education system. In fact, it is my humble assertion that my rich friend should pay more (to the benefit of my poor friend), while the price to me remains unchanged.

A system as I suggest, however, is impossible to implement, fraud would be inevitable (I am, of course, assuming that most people are opportunistic--this is an appropriate assumption). So instead, a necessary condition of government education subsidy is for the social benefits to advanced education to be provided, while the sufficient condition shall be that it is affordable for the most impoverished, so long as they seek it.

11 comments