Tuition, damned lies and statistics

TRAVIS FRIESEN

The recent referendum in engineering has forced the opponents of increased tuition to bring out their favourite statistics. These statistics attempt to illustrate two recurring themes: that lower tuition forces the government to increase funding to the university and that higher tuition is an insurmountable barrier to the accessibility of university education. Critical examination of some of these arguments brings to mind Mark Twain’s popular quip about “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

To prove their first point, proponents claim that the tuition fee freeze has caused the provincial government to increase funding by about five per cent per year, resulting in a cumulative increase of 42 per cent since the policy was implemented in 2000. No evidence is given that the freeze actually caused the funding increase, and several other important factors are ignored.

First, this value ignores inflation. According to Statistics Canada, inflation was more than 13 per cent since January 2000. The math is easy: 42-13= a 29 per cent relative increase in government funding since 2000. That’s still pretty good, all things considered.

But we must consider all things. According to Rachel Gotthilf (March 14) “enrolment since 2000 has also increased by more than 30 per cent.” I could not manipulate the enrolment figures to obtain that value, but let’s safely assume a 31 per cent increase in enrolment. Doing that math thing again: 29-31= 2 per cent less government funding per student since 2000. Some might claim that a “per-student” metric is not valid, that “one or two more students” do not significantly increase the cost of delivering an education.

However, a 31 per cent increase in enrolment means about 8000 more students than in 2000. These students require professors, classrooms, and TAs. The extra cost of educating these students should be mitigated by increased tuition revenues, which increases directly with enrolment — no 31 per cent adjustment required. But tuition paid by students accounts for only 25-30 per cent of the cost of educating them, and inflation must still be considered. Despite minor increases in ancillary fees, today’s tuition is worth about eight per cent less than when the freeze began. This means

Tuition freeze subsidizes those who can afford an education as well as those who cannot; it is terribly inefficient, and resources for addressing accessibility would be better spent elsewhere.

there are now 8,000 more students to educate with less government funding and less tuition revenue per student.

Touting increased government funding as a result of the freeze, proponents warn that allowing fees to increase will let the government “off the hook.” Unfortunately, the government was never really “on the hook” in the first place. The provincial government instituted the freeze, but has not supported it financially, providing meagre increases and one-time pittances to pay lip-service to its own policy. Only the university is feeling real pressure from the freeze. With insufficient provincial funding and policies against both increasing tuition and running a deficit, the university has made sacrifices to balance its books, leading to the gradual erosion of quality of education.

As to the idea that tuition presents an insurmountable barrier to obtaining higher education, one need only read the recent Statistics Canada study by Marc Frenette. The study found that financial constraints account for less than 15 per cent of a student’s decision to pursue post-secondary studies, even among low-income families. Ultimately, a tuition fee freeze subsidizes those who can afford an education as well as those who cannot; it is terribly inefficient, and resources for addressing accessibility would be better spent elsewhere.

Misleading figures have also been used by critics of the engineering referendum. First, many sources have proclaimed that engineering students will now be paying $1,600 more per year. While plausible, this can only occur in a pathological worst-case scenario where an engineering student takes 40 credit hours of purely engineering courses. For more typical scenarios, the increase will average $1,000 per student each year. We have also been told that the increase translates into 38 per cent higher tuition fees. While tuition for engineering courses will increase from $104 per credit hour to $144, engineering students also take many courses in arts and science that are not affected by the increase. In all, students will face an increase of 23-28 per cent over their entire degree.

The most egregious abuse of statistics was committed twice in last week’s issue of the Manitoban, by both Rachel Gotthilf and Parneet Mavi: essentially, that “two out of three” engineering students ultimately did not vote in favour of this increase, so the university or the provincial government can’t say that students want this. The results of the referendum have been well-published: 64 per cent in favour and 35 per cent opposed, with a 58 per cent turnout. It is obviously wrong to suggest that non-voters have an official opinion — the same logic with a different spin could justify a claim that 80 per cent of engineering students do not oppose increased tuition. Gotthilf should be mindful of the implications of her argument, as it would suggest that 90 per cent of UMSU members did not support her taking office as vice-president in the 2006 election.

To put things in perspective and assure those who claim I cannot possibly sympathize with the plight of the starving student, I come from a rural, low-income family. My parents have been unable to contribute financially to my education and school is a long way from home. Food, rent, tuition, and everything else have come from my own pocket. Yet like many other students, I have always been able to find a way to afford it, through loans, work and bursaries. I may be graduating with $20,000 in debt, but a quality education is an investment, and the money I pay now will be made up for in the long run.

Travis Friesen is a fourth-year computer engineering student at the University of Manitoba.





Volume 94 Issue 25	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	March 21, 2007

Home About Us Advertise Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Personals Volunteer	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly Tuition, damned lies and statistics TRAVIS FRIESEN The recent referendum in engineering has forced the opponents of increased tuition to bring out their favourite statistics. These statistics attempt to illustrate two recurring themes: that lower tuition forces the government to increase funding to the university and that higher tuition is an insurmountable barrier to the accessibility of university education. Critical examination of some of these arguments brings to mind Mark Twain’s popular quip about “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” To prove their first point, proponents claim that the tuition fee freeze has caused the provincial government to increase funding by about five per cent per year, resulting in a cumulative increase of 42 per cent since the policy was implemented in 2000. No evidence is given that the freeze actually caused the funding increase, and several other important factors are ignored. First, this value ignores inflation. According to Statistics Canada, inflation was more than 13 per cent since January 2000. The math is easy: 42-13= a 29 per cent relative increase in government funding since 2000. That’s still pretty good, all things considered. But we must consider all things. According to Rachel Gotthilf (March 14) “enrolment since 2000 has also increased by more than 30 per cent.” I could not manipulate the enrolment figures to obtain that value, but let’s safely assume a 31 per cent increase in enrolment. Doing that math thing again: 29-31= 2 per cent less government funding per student since 2000. Some might claim that a “per-student” metric is not valid, that “one or two more students” do not significantly increase the cost of delivering an education. However, a 31 per cent increase in enrolment means about 8000 more students than in 2000. These students require professors, classrooms, and TAs. The extra cost of educating these students should be mitigated by increased tuition revenues, which increases directly with enrolment — no 31 per cent adjustment required. But tuition paid by students accounts for only 25-30 per cent of the cost of educating them, and inflation must still be considered. Despite minor increases in ancillary fees, today’s tuition is worth about eight per cent less than when the freeze began. This means Tuition freeze subsidizes those who can afford an education as well as those who cannot; it is terribly inefficient, and resources for addressing accessibility would be better spent elsewhere. there are now 8,000 more students to educate with less government funding and less tuition revenue per student. Touting increased government funding as a result of the freeze, proponents warn that allowing fees to increase will let the government “off the hook.” Unfortunately, the government was never really “on the hook” in the first place. The provincial government instituted the freeze, but has not supported it financially, providing meagre increases and one-time pittances to pay lip-service to its own policy. Only the university is feeling real pressure from the freeze. With insufficient provincial funding and policies against both increasing tuition and running a deficit, the university has made sacrifices to balance its books, leading to the gradual erosion of quality of education. As to the idea that tuition presents an insurmountable barrier to obtaining higher education, one need only read the recent Statistics Canada study by Marc Frenette. The study found that financial constraints account for less than 15 per cent of a student’s decision to pursue post-secondary studies, even among low-income families. Ultimately, a tuition fee freeze subsidizes those who can afford an education as well as those who cannot; it is terribly inefficient, and resources for addressing accessibility would be better spent elsewhere. Misleading figures have also been used by critics of the engineering referendum. First, many sources have proclaimed that engineering students will now be paying $1,600 more per year. While plausible, this can only occur in a pathological worst-case scenario where an engineering student takes 40 credit hours of purely engineering courses. For more typical scenarios, the increase will average $1,000 per student each year. We have also been told that the increase translates into 38 per cent higher tuition fees. While tuition for engineering courses will increase from $104 per credit hour to $144, engineering students also take many courses in arts and science that are not affected by the increase. In all, students will face an increase of 23-28 per cent over their entire degree. The most egregious abuse of statistics was committed twice in last week’s issue of the Manitoban, by both Rachel Gotthilf and Parneet Mavi: essentially, that “two out of three” engineering students ultimately did not vote in favour of this increase, so the university or the provincial government can’t say that students want this. The results of the referendum have been well-published: 64 per cent in favour and 35 per cent opposed, with a 58 per cent turnout. It is obviously wrong to suggest that non-voters have an official opinion — the same logic with a different spin could justify a claim that 80 per cent of engineering students do not oppose increased tuition. Gotthilf should be mindful of the implications of her argument, as it would suggest that 90 per cent of UMSU members did not support her taking office as vice-president in the 2006 election. To put things in perspective and assure those who claim I cannot possibly sympathize with the plight of the starving student, I come from a rural, low-income family. My parents have been unable to contribute financially to my education and school is a long way from home. Food, rent, tuition, and everything else have come from my own pocket. Yet like many other students, I have always been able to find a way to afford it, through loans, work and bursaries. I may be graduating with $20,000 in debt, but a quality education is an investment, and the money I pay now will be made up for in the long run. Travis Friesen is a fourth-year computer engineering student at the University of Manitoba.


Terms of Use \| Member of the CUP \| RSS Newsfeeds © Copyright 2006 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation