FUNDING HIGHER EDUCATION

Sep 25, 2016 Editorial, Features / Columnists

In Guyana, a substantial increase in revenue from the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) and VAT should enable the government to subsidise tuition fees at the University of Guyana (UG) for the less fortunate students.
While many persons may agree that the government ought to financially assist some students who are pursuing higher education, others may disagree as to the extent to which tertiary education should be funded.
Education, like many other social programmes, confers benefits not only on students, but also the entire society. There could be spillover benefits to the wider community, because better educated persons earn higher salaries than less educated persons and they are more productive and are more informed on current issues.
They also tend to be politically active which could further improve governance. These spillover benefits could contribute to an efficient society and foster the goal of equity in education.
If students had to pay the full tuition fees for 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 and thus enhance their status in society. The poor would be stuck in lower-paying jobs and some will more likely become involved in criminal activities in order to survive.
But has society reaped the benefits from the billions of dollars spent on tertiary education over the years? Anecdotal evidence suggests that society has hardly benefited, because as reported in the media, about 82 percent of UG graduates migrate to greener pastures every year.
In spite of the billions of dollars pumped into the University of Guyana over the years, the country’s socio-economic problems have persisted. Crime has escalated, corruption is widespread, unemployment has risen, and there is a lack of critical thinking skills in the country.
On the other hand, the arguments against full or partial subsidization of higher education are that it creates inefficiency and lowers the educational standards. It could also create all sorts of useless degrees and subjects.
Further, some of the students who earned degrees in those areas eventually end up in the same job they would have had directly after secondary school.
It is true that not all students are capable of higher learning. Many would be more productively employed in any number of jobs that do not require a degree or diploma. By subsidizing higher education for everyone, the government could be encouraging such students to waste time.
Forcing students to pay some or all of the cost of their university education would encourage them to be responsible. It would allow the resources to be used elsewhere. However, if the government does not subsidize higher education, only students who are able to pay or could obtain students loans would have access to university education.
It should be noted that the notion of equity is not inconsistent with the requirement that students pay for higher education. Even the poorest 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 the taxpayers.
The debate on Government subsidy of higher education is not a simple black and white issue. There is merit on both sides of the argument, some more profound than others. Many believe that support for a partial payment of tuition by students depending on income and a partial subsidy by government could benefit society.
However most would agree that subsidy should be targeted towards those areas of higher education that foster national development, innovation, creativity, science and technology and the strengthening of democracy.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News