Tuition issue requires a nuanced solution,
In anticipation of next week’s Summit on Higher Education, I spoke with former colleague Michael Goldbloom, principal and vice-chancellor of Bishop’s University. He was publisher of The Gazette between 1994 and 2001 and subsequently published the Toronto Star. He was named to his current post in 2008.
We both have grave concerns about the future of high quality university education in Quebec. I believe strongly that the populist tuition policies of Quebec governments over the past two decades have begun to stunt our charter universities and present a serious danger, especially to McGill, Concordia and Bishop’s, that must compete for anglophone students, faculty and administrators with hundreds of better-funded North American universities.
Goldbloom is (as always) more nuanced than I in his views. I tend toward a dual structure that would see a government-funded “public university” system alongside chartered or private universities that would operate in the free market with set grants for Quebec students. Harvard, MIT and Brandeis manage to coexist nicely with the University of Massachusetts. McGill, Concordia and Université de Montréal could equally thrive alongside Université du Québec if the former were given the freedom to operate independently.
Allnutt: We have talked in the past about similarities between leading a newspaper and a university; what are they?
Goldbloom: Jour nalists and professors have a lot in common. We expect them to be critical thinkers, to be skeptical about conventional wisdom and to be prepared to challenge authority. As you would expect, they apply those qualities not only to the outside world but to the institutions they work for as well. So they are stimulating colleagues but these are challenging institutions to lead.
As a newspaper publisher or a university principal, one of your critical responsibilities is to ensure that the institution has the financial means to be autonomous — to be immune from outside influences. That’s one of the many reasons why I think that free tuition would be a major mistake.
As public institutions, universities are dependent on government funding, but I think that a degree of financial independence from government is critical to maintaining our universities’ autonomy.
Allnutt: Let’s talk about tuition. It seems clear that the government is going to propose an indexation of fees. The premier has said that indexation is effectively a freeze. Do you agree?
Goldbloom: Yes. Each year students would pay the same amount in constant dollars as their predecessors. But I should point out that that was exactly the reasoning that led to the tuition increases proposed by the previous government. The increased tuition would have meant that, taking inflation into account, current students would have paid the same tuition as students were paying in 1969.
Forty years ago, students paid approximately 26 per cent of the cost of their university education. Now, on average, they only pay 13 per cent. It is reasonable to require students who can afford it to contribute to the cost of their educations as their predecessors did.
Allnutt: Do you make a distinction between Quebecers and foreign students when it comes to tuition?
Goldbloom: Absolutely. Although I don’t agree with it, I can understand that a Quebec government would decide to have a policy of very low tuition. But I don’t under- stand why Quebec taxpayers should be subsidizing foreign students as well.
Quebec has a public policy of subsidized electricity rates, but we don’t prevent HydroQuébec from selling surplus power to the United States at market rates. Many foreign students do pay higher fees. But not only are tuition fees capped for undergraduate students in several disciplines, most of the fees they pay are taken by the provincial government. This is particularly prejudicial to McGill, Concordia and Bishop’s.
In addition, students from France pay the same low tuition as Quebecers, which means that French students pay significantly less than students from the rest of Canada. That’s not right.
(Students from the rest of Canada pay a “national average” tuition of about $6,000. The government collects about $4,000 of that fee and then redistributes the money in per-student grants.)
Allnutt: Speaking of nonQuebec students, this week a columnist in Le Devoir decried the fact that McGill has many students who are not from Quebec or who do not stay here after graduation. How do you respond to that?
Goldbloom: First, it is beneficial for Quebec to attract students from other parts of Canada or the world, regardless of whether they choose to stay here. In an increasingly connected world, it is critical for Quebec to have people in other provinces and countries who have connec-
tions with Quebec.
Second, can you imagine a serious columnist writing in the Boston Globe questioning the value of Harvard to the state of Massachusetts because the majority of its graduates don’t live there? We are fortunate to have one of the world’s outstanding universities in Montreal and we should be doing all we can to support and celebrate it. (Editor’s note: Goldbloom is an alumnus of both Harvard and McGill.)
Allnutt: One of the unresolved questions from the student turmoil last spring is whether students have the right to strike. The courts were clear that no such right exists, but student associations disagree. As someone who practised as a labour lawyer, what is your view?
Goldbloom: The origins of the right to strike are in the private sector where employees acting collectively can put economic pressure on their employer by withholding their services. In the student context, the consequences of a strike are on the students themselves.
I think that students who wish to act collectively by boycotting their classes should be free to do so, but they shouldn’t be able to stop those students who want to go to class.
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, it is clear that the government needs to clarify what the rules are. If a so-called right to strike is going to be recognized, there have to be rules put in place — like requiring a secret ballot
and requiring a majority vote of all eligible students before a strike can be declared.
We did not have any disruptions at Bishop’s, but my colleagues at some of the other universities were placed in an untenable situation. If the rules are not clear, we are setting ourselves up for more unmanageable conflicts.
Allnutt: One of the tuition options raised is to have fees vary by program — charging more for medicine or engineering than for the humanities, for example. Would you support that?
Goldbloom: It is an option to consider, but it would not be a panacea. I recognize that certain disciplines are more expensive to deliver. But the Bishop’s model is expensive as well. We believe in small classes taught by full-time professors. The typical experience for many undergraduate students in other universities is to find themselves in classes with several hundred students. The direct contact they have is frequently with teaching assistants.
Bishop’s students are amongst the most satisfied in Canada. I believe it’s because the model of the small, residential, undergraduate institution is a very good one. But it is expensive to operate and differential fees would not help us. So we need a funding model that will allow different types of universities to pursue excellence each in their own way.
I still believe that the most socially progressive and effective social policy is to raise tuition across the board. Require students and families who can afford it to pay more and provide enhanced financial aid to those who cannot. Allnutt: What about the idea I raised about distinguishing between the charter universities and those in the “public” or “state” university system offering programs at a subsidized (low) tuition rate for Quebec students? Goldbloom: One of the strengths of the Quebec system is the diversity of our institutions. We need to preserve and enhance that diversity not diminish it.
All of our universities are underfunded. I wouldn’t favour increasing funding for the research intensive institutions alone or creating distinct private and public systems. But an approach of higher grants and lower tuition in the “public” or “state” university system and lower grants and higher tuition in the charter universities is worth debating. The non-negotiable starting point, however, must be that we preserve accessibility to all of our universities regardless of a student’s financial means. Allnutt: To be clear, I am certainly not advocating unequal provincial government funding in favour of the charter schools. Though if McGill or U de M can source federal or private research funds based on their capabilities, they should be allowed to do so without limitations. What do you hope and what do you expect to come from next week’s summit? Goldbloom: I don’t expect very much. In comparison to the rest of Canada, our universities are seriously underfunded. The student associations previously acknowledged and decried the underfunding, but now they deny it. They are so focused on their goal of freezing (or doing away with) tuition that they are prepared to compromise the quality of education that they receive.
This has been a very damaging year for our universities. It would be best that the government begin by reversing the funding cuts and reinvesting in our universities now.
My modest hope is that the summit will be used by the premier, the minister of higher education and all of the participants to set ambitious educational and research objectives for our universities. It would be good if we could at least agree to measure our universities not just against ourselves but against the best universities in Canada and the world.