As you’ve all probably noticed over the years, I have little patience for most arguments for free or reduced tuition. There’s not much evidence it improves access. Sure, it reduces costs for poorer students, but there are cheaper and more progressive ways to do that than to simply provide aid to all, regardless of ability to pay.
The argument in favour of charging fees is threefold. One is about fairness: people who gain a personal advantage from using a service (and private returns to education are still excellent, no matter what the “hell-in-a-handbasket” crowd says) should contribute towards its upkeep; the “positive-externality-of-
The zero-tuition folks really only have one semi-effective rejoinder to this, which is that most of this is also true of secondary education. Why free education for one and not the other? The answer, of course, is that secondary education is compulsory and post-secondary is not. But this answer is getting less obvious all the time. A large majority of young people now do get some kind of post-secondary education, and we’re getting closer to universality all the time. If higher education is becoming universal, would it not make sense for at least some of it to be free? Not all of it, mind you: the fairness and equity rules above would still apply. But if it were introduced for higher education programs where the students aren’t disproportionately drawn from upper SES groups, and where the returns to education are fairly low, free tuition wouldn’t violate those rules.
An interesting movement is developing along these lines in the United States, with calls from both the left and the right to make two years of community college free. In fact, the Governor of Tennessee (long a low-tuition state, like much of the South and West – it’s a legacy of 1890s populism) has put such a proposal in his State of the State address. Since US associates degrees tend to draw lower-income students, and lead to less well-paying jobs, it meets the fairness and equity tests.
Something similar wouldn’t make quite as much sense in Canada because more of our college credentials are longer, more specialized, and have high private rates of return; you wouldn’t want to do this with Sheridan’s animation programs, or SAIT’s pipeline technology programs, for instance. But college ECE or pre-apprenticeship programs? Free tuition there would be significantly more progressive than, say, grants to university students from families making $160,000.
Worth a conversation at least.