A political gimmick?

NEWARK, California – Just before Christmas, some of my economist friends in one of my e- groups were not too happy with the announcement of free tuition for all students in state colleges and universities or SUCs. It isn’t because they are anti-poor, on the contrary, they are against programs that pretend to help the poor but end up perpetuating an exploitative system that keeps people poor.

My well meaning economist friends are well aware of our limited budgetary resources and that’s why they oppose proposals that tend to waste such resources. The free college tuition in SUCs is one such example of a populist measure that win votes, but not the most efficient way of spending taxpayers’ money.

To begin with, why should obviously well off students at the University of the Philippines be given free college tuition? They should be made to pay not just the significantly lower tuition cost at UP. They should pay the equivalent cost of tuition in Ateneo or La Salle, if not a bit higher to account for the higher ranking of UP among universities worldwide.

Indeed, it seems there are a lot of rich students in UP, judging from the crowded parking lots. During our time, there were more of us who commute to UP on public buses. Giving rich kids free tuition does not serve the equity objectives for which SUCs are created and funded by the national budget.

Washington SyCip, in a speech he once delivered on education, asked: “Should the students from upper income groups not be asked to pay for the full cost of education? When upper income families send their children abroad, they pay full tuition. Should they not be asked to do the same in their own country?”

UP already has a system that provides free tuition to those in most need. UP’s socialized tuition system is designed to make college education affordable. Students are classified into various categories to determine their tuition fees: from no discount to 33 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent to full discount and full discount with stipend. What is needed is to further refine this system rather than a blanket no tuition fee regardless of ability to pay.

UP’s share of the national budget is also misleading. Some 45 percent of the budget allocated to SUCs go to UP. But 80 percent of that goes to UP-PGH which essentially provides health care to the poor. A separate budget under DOH should cover the needs of PGH.

My economist friends also do not think free higher education tuition is the way to go to get the best outcome. They think money is better spent on vastly improving basic elementary and high school education.

Indeed, one reason why there is a preponderance of UP students from well off families who studied in private schools is the inadequacy of public education in the pre college level. Many public school graduates find the UP College admission test more formidable to pass. And once they do manage to get into UP, many have to take remedial classes in English and math to keep up with UP’s standards. Free tuition in UP won’t help an inadequately educated public school graduate.

Perhaps, taxpayer money is better spent funding more science high schools nationwide. Our government-funded science high schools have produced students who are well prepared to handle the challenges of a UP education. Or paying better salaries to get the kind of science and math teachers and facilities that would make public high school graduates fully competitive.

As for the goal of promoting social equity, my economist friends believe the voucher system already provided for in the Unifast Law is more appropriate. It is more targeted to help those in real need rather than a blanket tuition fee exemption that leaks scarce budgetary resources to an economic segment with no need for it.

The voucher system already enshrined in an existing law seems the better way to go. The student is given a choice of school to go to, including private schools. Many private schools have reasonable tuition fees and may have better capability to teach certain courses than SUCs. It may also turn out cheaper for government than to give assured budgets to SUCs that were created because of political accommodation and not that good.

Not all state colleges and universities are alike in providing the kind of quality education we should spend money on. Free tuition for every SUC can give a farmer’s child a diploma that may have little value in landing a job or a livelihood. A guaranteed subsidy gives state university officials little incentive to improve quality standards of education. They must compete for students on the basis of quality reputation.

The free tuition idea is still being debated in Congress, but the DBM already allocated P8 billion for its implementation next year. The intention for it is laudable, but the actual program must be refined. As it stands, it looks like a populist measure that in the end may harm what we already have going for us.

It should not, in any case, stop government from investing further in the top SUCs like UP beyond tuition subsidy. UP is the top Philippine university as rated internationally. Even then, it should be doing better than its current rating in the mid range, if it had more resources for academic research.

When I visited the UP campus two weeks ago, it was obvious it could use more funds to maintain its buildings and other physical facilities. Hopefully, our officials will not think their job ended by giving this tuition subsidy. We need to build on what we already have to make our institutions not just socially relevant, but internationally competitive as well.

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @boochanco.