Stephen Downes

Alex Usher returns to one of his favourite topics: increasing tuition fees. He offers two basic arguments: first, fees are lower than in the recent past as a percentage of median family income (aged 45-54), and second, if we total aid from all sources, "we spend about $3 billion more in student aid than we take in from tuition fees." He ends with an appeal for "the courage to put the requirements of institutions that actually build economies and societies ahead of the cheap, short-term sugar highs of chasing things like 'affordability'." Now there are good arguments for funding these institutions, but given that, if you're a government, why would you ask the least able to pay to pay the cost of supporting them? And if these institutions are so important for the economy, why would you make it harder to benefit from them? This is especially the case where we expect institutions to support lifelong learning, not just the 18-23 rich kid set. If you're a young adult without parental support (as I was) then forget about education. If you have low income parents, then forget about education. How does this help the country? The higher tuition fees are, the less institutions are doing for the country as a whole, and the less likely it is that governments will want to fund them.