Surprise! Low tuition fees are a benefit - to the rich
Starting in the fall of 2012, university students will see their tuition fees rise by $325 a year for five years. In 2016-17, this will represent an additional $265 million of financing for universities that desperately need it after so many years of being underfinanced. Students will certainly pay more on average, but in return they will get a better education that will grant them access to much higher salaries than their fellow citizens who don’t have a university degree.
The student movement is fighting this increase in the name of accessibility to university studies, and different social groups are supporting them in their battle. What they do not seem to realize, however, is that uniformly low tuition fees represent a wealth transfer - to the rich. It is the indignant Occupy Montreal protesters who should be upset, since what they are calling for is the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
The link between university accessibility and tuition fees is tenuous at best. Financial obstacles explain only a small part of why students from poor families have less university schooling.
According to Statistics Canada, with average tuition fees of $5,366 across Canada, we find 62 youths from poorer families in school for every 100 youths from families that are better off. But in Quebec, the proportion is 44 students from poorer families for every 100 from better-off families - despite tuition fees that are half as high ($2,519). It would take 18 more students from less-affluent environments just to reach the Canadian average. Very low tuition fees for all, even for the wealthiest, have not guaranteed access to these 18 youths.
Uniformly low tuition fees are tantamount to giving the same subsidy to everyone, regardless of their financial means. Accessibility requires instead that aid be directed toward those who really need it, as is done with loans and scholarships.
Since low tuition fees are not a decisive factor in university attendance, some people instead point the finger at student debt.