‘The more subsidised it is, the less free it is. What is known as ‘free education’ is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it cannot possibly be separated from political control.’
— Frank Chodorov (1887-1966); an American writer, editor, and thinker known for his contributions to libertarian thought and his advocacy for individualism and free-market capitalism.
Not that we can make higher education free of course – at least not until all those professors and admin staff start turning up to work for free. All we can do is change who pays for it. Should it be the students who pay for it or the society in general and at large through the tax system? We should note that there is an economic law that certain things really should be paid for, or at least subsidised, by that general taxation system.
Have you ever come across the term “public goods”? It’s not just stuff we like or things we all want. A public good is something quite specific. For something to qualify, it needs two main traits: it’s non-rivalrous (meaning if I use it, you aren’t prevented from using it too) and non-excludable (meaning we can’t stop anyone from accessing it).Think about Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. Once he put them out there in the universe, it was a free equation for everyone. You can’t exactly put a price tag on gravity.
When something possesses these characteristics, it becomes challenging to profit from it. If people cannot be stopped from using it, how can you charge them for it? This situation can lead to a shortage of such goods being produced or maintained. That’s when calls for government intervention arise.
However, we have to be razor-sharp in understanding what exactly qualifies as a public good. For example, we’re often told that vaccination is a public good – it isn’t. Vaccination though is the method of gaining the public good which is herd immunity. If 95 per cent of the population are vaccinated then there’s nowhere for the disease to hide. Thus that last 5 per cent, who cannot be vaccinated (depressed immune systems, babies etc) are protected.
Moreover, achieving a public good doesn’t always require direct government spending. Take vaccines, for example. The government may not pay for every dose, but they can make it mandatory for children to be vaccinated to attend school. This accomplishes the goal without spending money on the vaccines themselves.
With all that in mind, where does higher education stand? Is it a public good? At a glance, I’d say no. University slots are limited. If I nab a place on a course, you can’t take that exact spot from me. And imagine going through years of lectures at top-tier schools only to find out you won’t get that degree. It seems like the direct education process isn’t exactly a public good.
But what if there’s another way to see the public good created by education? Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, known for his contributions to laissez-faire economics, believed that basic schooling contributes to a generally literate and numerate nation, which can be seen as a public good. But does higher education meet that standard? Opinions can differ here but again, I would say no.
If higher education is merely a means to educate individuals and enhance their productivity, it’s a great idea. But if possessing a degree, even an associate’s degree is primarily for status purposes, it could prove to be an expensive mistake. Education is a combination of both improving labour productivity and acting as a status symbol, which complicates the matter.
We are uncertain about which aspect takes precedence, but we know that both exist. While we want to increase access to education, we don’t want to encourage a mindset of competing with others for the sake of appearances. Thus, the answer depends on how one weighs these aspects, and there is no single, clear-cut solution. Fortunately, F.A. Hayek was right when he said that this is not a problem we, including the bureaucrats, currently have the complete answer to.
Forty years ago, in the United Kingdom (UK), only about 10 per cent of people attended university, whereas in the United States (US), a much larger proportion did. In the US, a Bachelor of Arts (BA) or Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree was often necessary to start a professional career. A Master of Arts (MA) or Master of Science (MSc) degree would elevate one’s qualifications. However, with an abundance of BAs, having a degree no longer sets individuals apart, leading to a trend of pursuing master’s degrees. Unfortunately, it seems that this has not made us wiser or accelerated industrial progress. We are caught in a never-ending cycle of trying to outdo each other with degrees.
Considering the financial aspect, individuals who attend universities typically earn more over their lifetimes due to their degrees. Logically, they should contribute to the cost, right? That’s why I believe college loans are a sensible idea, although I understand that not everyone agrees.
The main goal of making college more affordable is to increase enrollment. However, it seems that those who choose not to attend college may not benefit significantly from it. If they don’t benefit, neither do we, right? Therefore, from a financial standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to subsidise these students.
People usually don’t put as much care or effort into things they get for free as they do with things they are paying for. When it comes to education, those who have a financial stake in it are likely to be more dedicated than those who don’t contribute financially. Over the years, I have noticed a decline in the number of hours students put into their coursework, and it’s easy to imagine a further decline if higher education is made free.
When we raise taxes for initiatives like free higher education, it puts a strain on the economy. We’ve got to make sure whatever we’re pouring that tax money into is actually worth it. If pushing more people into universities doesn’t add much value, then taxing everyone for it just doesn’t add up. So, the idea of free higher education for everyone may not be the best approach to take at this time.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the New Sarawak Tribune.
