Towards a Constructive Tuition Debate

Web Editor

Kellie Mildren (3L)

Last year, the cost of a University of Toronto JD was approximately $56,000. That number rises to approximately $63,000 if the University of Toronto at large, and external fundraising, had not contributed the bulk of the funds for the new law building (as well as the cost of our current, rented space). Ancillary fees paid for by students brought the total cost up to $64,300. Of this, the University of Toronto kicked in approximately $15,000 per student. The province kicked in an additional $8,000. Tuition, of course, comprised the bulk of the school’s funding, at $31,000.

The school faces what it refers to as structural budget challenges: compensation forms the bulk of the school’s operating expenses (at 67%), and collective bargaining commitments have this expense slated to grow at 4.8% per year. Limited growth in provincial funding, and domestic tuition growth at 3% per year (even boosted by growth in international tuition revenues of 6.2%), is unable to cover growing expenses. As a result, the school has a structural deficit of approximately 1.5%, contributing to a growing annual deficit year over year.

So the structural deficit is one challenge, tuition is another; and students should contribute to this debate. When Harris deregulated tuition fees for graduate and professional programs in 1998, a number of Ontario law schools raised their rates: none as much as the University of Toronto. The University of Toronto channeled most of these revenues into increasingly competitive compensation packages, making the University of Toronto’s faculty line-up the best in Canada. By not increasing tuition, other Ontario law schools have expressed serious concerns that they have effectively tied their hands from using tuition increases to fund both teaching and other student programs.

Focusing on the revenue side of their budgets, other law schools have implemented revenue-raising strategies to improve funding prospects, including having professors teach undergraduate courses (and collect undergraduate tuition fees); developing professional certificate, diploma or LLM programs; or hosting continuing professional development (CPD) courses (at Osgoode Hall, some of these can be further purchased in video format online). Despite these strategies, most, if not all, law schools have continued to lobby the provincial government, who has re-regulated tuition increases, for relief from the annual tuition increase cap.

The expense side of law school budgets is more tricky. Growth in education costs for most university programs have greatly exceeded inflation. Why? Our school’s expenses are, for the most part, tied to the compensation packages received by faculty and staff (with a further 25% of expenses covering direct operating costs, and 8% going to financial aid). But the school also benefits from the teachings of a large slate of adjunct professors, many of whom continue to donate their compensation back to the school. In practice, this means that any debate about expenses must necessarily begin with the faculty-student ratio, or the compensation we provide (remembering that many faculty have equal opportunities south of the border).

We could also debate whether the tuition structure is itself equitable. If access is the issue, perhaps students from high-income families should pay fees closer to the international rate ($43,000). In that case, provincial funding used today to subsidize tuition across the board could instead be used to bolster both financial aid and (just as importantly) back-end debt relief. There are strong arguments that the high cost of education should be shared more by users, rather than society as a whole: post-secondary education is still largely confined to students from middle, upper-middle and high income families, and students’ life prospects are greatly enhanced by the investment in education they make. Unless you planned an alternative career as a doctor, the net present value of a law degree has been approximated at $1 million. Thus, provincial funding, borne by taxpayers at large, appears extremely regressive if applied to students across the board, instead of being targeted to those students from low-income families who pursue public interest careers.

Ultimately, tuition (and how it is structured) is one piece of the puzzle in a larger debate about how law schools raise revenues and spend those funds. The structural budget deficit highlights existing problems with our current structure. Student pushback over tuition fees highlights another. Other law schools have used creative solutions to raise revenues, taking for granted that increasing the expense-side of their budgets would overwhelmingly benefit students. Is the same true for our school? Are there creative ideas we could use to fix our structural deficit, or make tuition more equitable?

Categories:
Tags:

Advertisement

Begin typing your search above and press return to search. Press Esc to cancel.