A year of ups and downs for students

At the stroke of midnight, 2007 will come to an end; another year come and gone and with it many successes and failures, many highs and lows.

CBU managed to be the sole university in Nova Scotia that increased its enrollment in 2007, the CBU Women’s Capers won the CIS national soccer championship, and celebration of the 50^th anniversary of CBU’s Beaton Institution were all highs.

The biggest bumps in the road – their drop in the MacLean’s rankings and the vandalism of their soccer field – were managed well and countered. The university took a positive step in publically recognizing the flawed methodology utilized by MacLean’s and the women won CIS nationals in spite of the dimwitted vandal (or vandals).

John Harker, President of CBU, believes that 2008 could be a year of significant achievements. In a recent interview with the Post, he mentioned he believes that the university is on the verge of getting their own nursing and education degrees and, in doing so, become a master of its own destiny.

While these programs will no doubt help the university, the extent of their impact remains unknown. It seems as though the university will gain a newfound level of legitimacy from increased programming. However, unless that intangible change translates into increased numbers of students and increased revenues, it will mean very little.

A report early in 2007 stated that universities in Atlantic Canada are facing a climate of continually declining enrollment for some time. This means that all universities in our region will be forced to do some soul searching and ask some tough questions. It is in this area that CBU has taken some of the most serious criticism.

An editorial published in the Post charged that CBU based its strategic plan on the rankings of a magazine. It was a charge that resounded with many within the university – both faculty and students.

In light of the criticism, the question remains: What is CBU’s vision, its goals in the short and long term, and, more importantly, how will it achieve these goals?

National titles and increased international student enrollment are all fine and well, but sports titles last for one year and international students faced increasing differential fees that make a post-secondary education in Nova Scotia increasingly less affordable.

The same question exists at the federal level as well. A recent report issues by The Canadian Council on Learning argues that a lack of long term vision for Canada’s post-secondary education system will eventually cripple public education and place Canada at a significant economic disadvantage.

Many critics argue that a publicly funded education system is inherently inefficient because it relies on the government’s purse. To an extent, the current state of publically funded post-secondary education in Canada proves their point. It is true that the current state of our post-secondary education system operates poorly; however, it does not mean that a publicly funded education is necessary inefficient.

This is a significant distinction because it means the solution is not de-regulation and privatization of our post-secondary education system. It means that the solution is greater coordination at all levels of government and better oversight.

The Canadian Council on Learning shows that many other industrialized countries have systems in place that monitors the state and quality of post-secondary education in their respective countries and provides important information to help guide policy. Australia, the United States, the European Union, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand all have such reporting and monitoring systems; however, Canada has no such reporting and monitoring mechanisms. The absence of such mechanisms jeopardizes our post-secondary education system and places it at a huge international disadvantage.

One thing is clear: the post-secondary education system in Canada needs a better long term vision, one that can only be guided by improved policy and reached by greater accountability.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, December 31, 2007.

AIMS off the mark on PSE

On December 18, the Herald published an editorial by Charles Cirtwill, the President of AIMS. In his editorial, he called for a “radical re-think” of how we fund post-secondary education in Nova Scotia.

His argument ended in suggesting that the Government of Nova Scotia should stop funding post-secondary institutions and give all of the money normally allotted for institutions to students through “an enriched student loan program, expanded bursaries and grants, debt relief, and, if you must, student incentives in fields where we have a demonstrable skills shortage.”

He arrives at this overly simplistic solution to the post-secondary education problems facing Nova Scotia’s university students after giving nothing more than a shallow refutation of what he called, “the three basic truths that drive out collective decision-making about post-secondary funding.”

The three basic truths Mr. Cirtwill identified are that governments set tuition fees, that universities are not businesses, and that supporting institutions is the same as supporting students.

He argues that the government pays universities to lower their fees; that universities are business because they have assets, human resources, and exchange a service for a fee; and that we give money to post-secondary institutions only because we want to support students.

After attempting to refute the “three basic truths” his argument flows like this: the government does not set tuition fees, universities are business, and when we invest in post-secondary education we do so ONLY to benefits students and ourselves, therefore, we must stop giving money to post-secondary institutions and give all post-secondary education funds directly to students.

Tuition fees are determined by the difference between government funding and the operational costs. This means that while the actual decision to set an institutions tuition fees is made by the respective boards’ of Nova Scotia’s post-secondary institutions the government sets the reality in which a decision must be made. Even though, as Mr. Cirtwill points out, cost cutting measures can reduce tuition fees to a degree, the manner in which he characterized tuition fees over simplified the complex reality in which that decision takes place.

According to Mr. Cirtwill, universities are businesses and since we do not cover the operating costs of all business to the extent we cover those of post-secondary institutions we should stop. We should stop because we only give post-secondary institutions public money because we want to support students. We want to support students for both “altruistic” and “selfish” reasons. While it is impossible to be both altruistic and selfish at the same time, I’ll ignore this contradiction.

Mr. Cirtwill is wrong. We give money to post-secondary institutions for many reasons, not one. To name a few, we give money to post-secondary institutions because they are essential for a vibrant and lively economy and because they attract immigrants that increase an areas creative capital, population (when it is desperately needed), and social diversity. Mr. Cirtwill would have us believe that the correlation between the location of universities and the economic success of areas is an accident.

If we were to follow Mr. Cirtwill’s advice, our post-secondary institutions would receive no money, be forced to compete with one another, drastically cutting costs (and, therefore, quality) or face a mass exodus of Nova Scotian students to other provinces. Such an exodus would force massive cuts in some institutions and the shutdown of other institutions. Since there is such correlation between economic success, creative capital, and the presence of universities, losing university would be a direct blow to the economy.

To completely cut funding to post-secondary institutions is typical of AIMS’s view of government spending on social services. They repeated argue that greater government spending necessarily means inefficiency while ignoring that an actual measure of inefficiency is the proportion of effort to achieve a desired end.

The “radical re-think” championed by AIMS would throw our post-secondary institutions into a downward spiral of cannibalistic competition and cost cutting actions that will serve no one, certainly not our students.

Nova Scotia's students, universities looking for new deal with province

The Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia's universities will expire as of March 31, 2008. This past week, a committee of student leaders, university presidents, and government bureaucrats began meetings to develop a new MOU before the expiration of the current agreement.

The current MOU capped tuition increased at Nova Scotia's 11 universities for two years and, in the third year, saw a province wide tuition free. According to a spokesperson for the Nova Scotia Department of Education, last year the province spent $12.4 million on universities.

The new MOU will be an important indicator of how genuine Premier MacDonald was when he committed to reducing the province's average tuition to the national average by 2010.

If Premier MacDonald is sincere in his desire to reduce the average tuition in Nova Scotia, the new MOU will have to look drastically different that the agreement that is currently in place. In order to reduce the tuition to the national average by 2010, the new MOU will have to start taking progressive steps in that direction; this MOU cannot guarantee tuition increases. Also, future provincial budgets will need to allot more than last year's total of $12.4 million on universities.

There are four student representatives on the committee, three of whom are members of the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations and one of whom is a member of the Canadian Federation of Students. With this system of proportional representation, each student group appoints the people they want to have as their group's representatives on the committee.

The Cape Breton University Students' Union has no representation on the committee. This is because we are members of the Canadian Federation of Students and they only get to appoint one representative to the committee. Even with our status as a member of the Canadian Federation of Students, the Cape Breton University Students' Union was shut out of some of the most important negotiations related to education in the last few years.

ANSSA has been especially vocal in the lead up to the negotiations. They have been arguing that Nova Scotia's post-secondary education system has suffered for long enough and that continuing at the status quo runs contrary to the direction of many of the province's policies.

ANSSA is also hoping to have the province introduce some sort of protection for international students through the new MOU. Currently, international students are charged differential fees that, in many cases, result in them paying almost twice as much as a Canadian student. Our province needs to attract more immigrants; not just for population and demographic reasons, but for what they can contribute as productive members of our society – they have skills and knowledge we need in Nova Scotia. To put universities in a situation where they can charge exorbitant international differential fees when they need to attract and keep international students is completely counterproductive.

University presidents will justifiably be looking for more money to invest in their universities' crumbling infrastructure. Buildings are old and energy inefficient, windows have drafts, and ceiling tiles have mould; something needs to change.

The new MOU will be a sign of whether Premier MacDonald is willing to put his money where his mouth is. If this new MOU is signed and it does not move to far from the status quo, very little will change. Our universities in Nova Scotia have faces cuts and tight budgets for far too long and students have been the ones taking the brunt of the assault on our post-secondary education system. If Premier MacDonald wants to changes things, this MOU is the time to start.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, December 17, 2007.

Nova Scotia's archaic student loan system finally undergoes a review

The Nova Scotia Student Assistance Program (NSSAP) recently paid a visit to students at Cape Breton University. The stop at CBU was one of several consultations across the province where student loan borrowers were given the chance to provide input on the system that has been described as archaic. Those in attendance voiced a wide range of concerns; varying from the time it takes to receive a loan to the loan's consideration of parental income.

The events have received terrific turnouts across the province; a sign that people are genuinely upset with the program, that they want to be heard, and that they believe change is necessary. Some students have become emotional when describing the effect their student debt will have on their future. One young woman was quoted saying, `You can`t afford to buy a house, you can afford to buy a car, you can`t afford to have children. `

We may view such a statement as extreme; however, it describes the situation of many university graduates across the province. Imagine start life with $20,000, $40,000, or even $50,000 in debt. When you take these figures and consider that 60% of student borrowers get their funding from the federal government who, according to a freedom of information request filed by the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness, charges interest rates between 8.4 % and 11% (they borrow money at a rate of 4.1%.), it is not improbable.

Students in Nova Scotia face higher tuition fees, on average, than anywhere else in Canada. Logically, this leads one to conclude that they will be facing some of the highest student debt loads in Canada. The situation this creates is one where some of the financially worst off university graduates in Canada leave to enter into a job market with some of the lowest wages in Canada. Is it any wonder outmigration is a problem?

Of all the issues raised across the province at these consultations, the two most commonly voiced concerns were those surrounding single mothers and parental contributions. Under the current NSSAP structure, single mothers are denied social assistance when they are approved for a student loan. Not only does this practice make it harder on women to get access to post-secondary education, it increases the burden they face when they graduate and have to pay back massive debt loads.

However, the most contentious issue, by far, was the issue of parental contribution. Part of your student loan application asks you to supply your parents` income. This consideration has probably cost more students the loans they needed than any other. It makes the faulty assumption that a parent will automatically pay for their adult child`s education. There are, of course, the apparent flaws in this line of reasoning used by the NSSAP: there is no legally binding reason for a parent to pay their child`s way, it ignores other social and economic factors that would have to be taken into consideration, and it bases a students` loan, their responsibility, on someone else`s earnings.

The current student loan system is supposed to help individuals gain access to the post-secondary education system. However, if you are an 18 year old on the outs with your parents or a single mother, the NSSAP does very little to help you. I am glad to see that the provincial government has finally lived up to one of the promises they made to students; we have our NSSAP review, but we are still waiting for our tuition cut. The series of public consultations means that the provincial government is willing to admit that there are some problems with the NSSAP. However, what we do not know is whether all of the input will fall on deaf ears; I hope it does not. I would like to believe that the input will make its way to someone with enough political will power to finally stand up for Nova Scotia`s students, but we will not find out if that will happen until 2008.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, December 10, 2007.