Notes from the tuition petition whirlwind: since the petition was launched on February 4, it was signed by 400 students and delivered to Dean Duggan. The Dean responded. The administration released a discussion document and the administration and SLS are planning a town hall on the subject. There was a teach-in, and students (current and prospective) made the issue part of Welcome Day. There is a website and an alumni campaign.
Let me remind you of what the petition called for. It’s pretty mild. There are three parts: Firstly, that the administration and students make a plan together for weaning the school off of annual eight percent tuition fee hikes. Secondly, that a plan be drafted to reverse the growing gap between tuition fees and financial aid. And thirdly, that, as a show of good faith, the administration freeze tuition until such a plan is in place.
I don’t need to preach to the choir. Tuition is too high. Financial aid is a mess. It’s causing stress and anxiety, and knock-on stress related to summer jobs, grades, and general competitiveness. Naturally, there are a few skeptics, and so I want to address some possible counterarguments. (I write this having not read my classmates’ pieces in this issue of UV on the subject.)
Myth #1. There is nothing the administration can do to keep costs down
A school chock full of brainiacs can find ways to cut costs. I think it’s too early to debate specifics, and smart people will disagree about what’s the best way to keep costs down. Is it administrative cost-cutting? A major alumni campaign? A hiring freeze? Renting out the building in summer? Let’s talk.
One example: I’m taking bets that the new building is designed to allow for increased enrolment. Again, we can agree or disagree on the merits of increasing enrolment. But in the event that enrolment goes up, could tuition be held steady during those years, since the school’s coffers will be expanding through an alternative means?
Myth #2. Increases in tuition make U of T Law a better school
A decade ago, when tuition was much lower, what did the law school experience look like at U of T? The first year curriculum was virtually identical, and it was structured in the same way, with mostly big classes plus one small group. Upper year classes were taught by a mix of tenured professors and adjunct practitioners. You would have recognized many of the faces behind the lecterns as the same men and women teaching you now.
It’s true that over that period, the school expanded its clinical programs—which is surely a great benefit to students, and expensive to run. But the school gobbled up huge increases in tuition fees and with little else to show for it. Tuition increased seven hundred percent. For what?
Because the admin did not revolutionize its program during the period of seven hundred precent increases in tuition, I think it’s naive to think that the quality of education will greatly improve with the next rounds of fee increases.
Myth #3. It costs more to run U of T Law because it is a better school
Students might accept higher tuition fees because it’s a better school, but that doesn’t mean it actually requires more money to run a good school than a bad one. And certainly not twice as much, which is roughly what we pay compared to students at the University of Ottawa, Queen’s and Windsor.
I would like to point out that the very most valuable things that the University of Toronto Faculty of Law offers, the things that actually motivate students to shell out the big bucks—stellar reputation, high articling placement rates, alumni networks, brilliant classmates—don’t cost the university a cent.
Myth #4. Financial aid is working
The theory is, those who can afford it (because of means, family money or corporate law careers post-graduation) should pay more, while students who cannot afford it (the asset-less, those from low and modest income families, students who choose a career in public interest law) should have access to robust financial aid. I like the theory. It’s basically the American model.
The problem is that the American model relies on giant endowment funds, which simply don’t exist here at U of T Law. So instead, most of the increase in financial aid comes from tuition fee hikes. But because only a portion of tuition fee increases go to financial aid, the gap keeps widening.
And we know what the result is. On the front end, students from the lowest income brackets at one time got a full tuition waiver; now no one does. Instead, students from modest income families can expect to graduate with $100,000 in debt. Many do not qualify at all. There is a back-end debt relief program, which looks great on paper, but is rarely used. The American model got us into this mess; we shouldn’t expect the American model to get us out of it.
Myth #5. The U of T Law administration is the wrong target
It’s true that there are lots of players who could help us end tuition fee increases. The Province is the most obvious. It could either increase funding to the university or lower the ceiling on tuition increases for professional faculties (currently set at eight percent). Others say that the central university administration could do more.
The Faculty of Law is the smallest unit in the hierarchy, so there’s wisdom in starting there. In terms of leverage, 400 U of T Law students may not mean much to the Provincial government, but it’s a sizable constituency to the administration. And once students convince the administration that annual eight percent tuition fee increases must stop, students and the administration can work together to lobby the bigger players. How powerful will it be when students and the Dean can work together on this issue?
Myth #6. If you don’t like it, you should go somewhere else
This is essentially a law and economics issue: if tuition were really higher than the market could bear, more and more students would choose schools other than U of T, which would either entice the administration to reduce fees, or else the school’s reputation would suffer. Either way, it’s a self correcting problem. Student can simply vote with their feet.
How would a law and economics person respond? It’s a collective action problem. If everybody stops accepting offers from U of T, the above theory works; if only a few people do, it doesn’t.
But I’m no law and economics guy, so I find this argument unpersuasive for a different reason. Surely voting with your feet is an option; that doesn’t mean it’s the only option. Other options include petitions, lobbying, town halls, protests, letter writing campaigns. Public embarrassment also works. Change often comes from within; I think we’re seeing the nascent stages of that now.
Myth #7. Signing a petition won’t solve anything
A petition is a means, not an end. A petition can do many things. It can educate, inform and incite. It can spark public dialog. It can highlight or build popular support for an idea. But a petition, by itself, can’t end annual eight percent tuition fee increases. That’s true. It can, apparently, prod the SLS and the administration into organizing a town hall meeting on this subject. So that’s a start.
Now that the petition has been delivered, students are moving into the next phase of the project. If you are interested in getting involved, drop an email to [email protected] or find us online at tuitionpetition.ca.
