Dear Globe and Mail, we are not the problem

If you are a domestic university student, you should pay more for school. In fact, you’ve been getting an “easy ride” on tuition for the past 15 years. 

Or at least that’s what the Globe and Mail’s editorial board says. The Globe, one of Canada’s biggest national newspapers, recently published an editorial article titled “Sorry postsecondary students, tuition needs to rise.”

The spur for the Globe’s article is a real problem: universities and colleges are facing financial crises across the country.

The Globe attributes this crisis to a reduction in international student visas issued by the federal government over the past two years. International student tuition rates were, and still are, extremely high. At the University of Toronto, international students can pay more than 10 times what Ontario students pay  — and post-secondary institutions relied on those exorbitant tuition fees to balance their budgets. 

But since that option is gone, the Globe says universities “need a lifeline, and a sizable portion of the funds should come from those who benefit from them the most.” By which they mean you. 

Since the Globe addressed its article to post-secondary students, I’d like to address mine to them: Dear Globe and Mail, are you stupid?

The Globe argues that domestic undergraduate students should be able to stomach a tuition increase because they currently pay less in inflation-adjusted tuition than they did during the 2018-19 school year. 

Coincidentally, 2018-19 was the most expensive year for inflation-adjusted tuition in Canadian history. Today, tuition is still near record highs. There have only been nine years when inflation-adjusted tuition has been higher than it is today.

The Globe’s use of “inflation-adjusted” is also misleading. While the measurement adjusts tuition figures for inflation, it fails to account for inflation’s impact on students’ living costs. While tuition today is roughly equivalent to that of the 2013-14 school year in inflation-adjusted terms, Nova Scotia’s maximum student loans have barely increased, falling from covering 59.1 per cent of tuition to just 40.8 per cent today.

But the Globe’s statistical cherry-picking doesn’t end at inflation-adjusted tuition figures; it’s also geographic. The Globe chose to chart the national average tuition alongside the provincial averages for Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. But there are universities outside those provinces whose students’ tuition rates aren’t accurately represented by the national average. 

In Nova Scotia, domestic undergraduate tuition is almost 30 per cent higher than the national average — exceeding it by more than $2,000 — making the provincial average the highest in the country. Post-secondary education, particularly tuition, is provincial jurisdiction, and the Globe is trying to oversimplify and nationalize a problem that affects every province and student differently. 

This attempt to generalize is part of a larger attempt to shift the blame for Canadian universities’ financial crises. By saying students have gotten an “easy ride,” the Globe attempts to blame the problem on students, so that the solution will also fall on them. But the real financial crisis stems from the universities and government, so the real solution should come from them too.

Canadian universities built their business models on the borderline financial extortion of international students. It was the government that allowed so many international students in the first place, and later decided to cut visas and, as the Globe put it, “wind down the party” for domestic students. Students didn’t cut public funding to domestic university students by 15 per cent since 2009 — the government did. 

The architects of the post-secondary financial crisis are not the students — yet they’re the ones the Globe is suggesting pay the price. The federal and provincial governments, along with the university administrations, made a mess, and now the Globe wants students to clean it up. 

Yes, university graduates benefit from their degrees, earning more than those without one on average. But the people who benefit the most from more university grads aren’t just the grads themselves — it’s all Canadians. A well-educated, skilled and well-paid populace is good for everyone in the country. Lowering, not raising, tuition should be the priority in order to invest in our collective future through the next generation. 

The Globe’s editorial board knows this; they know that investing in universities is investing in Canada’s future, and they want to see that investment, but they don’t want to shoulder it themselves as the taxpayer. The Globe’s readership, according to their own statistics are 83 per cent more likely to hold a post-graduate degree or higher than the average Canadian, and 65 per cent more likely to have a household income over $200,000. For older, successful university grads, like those who make up the Globe’s editorial board and their readers, Canada’s investment in them has already paid off. And they want to kick the ladder out from under them. 

All taxpayers pay into government subsidies and loans, but as universities face financial crises, we’re at a crossroads; the money needed can either come directly from students or increased taxpayer support. Obviously, there’s nuance, and it’s different in each province, but when the Globe’s editorial board says students should “invest in themselves,” they’re really saying students should be the ones bankrolling the future of Canada. 

But the Globe’s editorial board can’t have its cake and eat it too. If they want a skilled and highly-paid next generation to pay their pensions as they retire, they have to step up and use their power to support Canada’s future, rather than trying to shirk that responsibility onto the students themselves. Successful Canadians — like those on the Globe’s editorial board — should be the ones paying more to subsidize tuition rather than just passing the buck to students, and they should be happy to do it. Because they’re investing not just in students’ futures, but their own. 

What I’m trying to say is: dear Globe and Mail, you’re welcome.