Post-Secondary Education Policy

My contention is this: there is no good reason for governments to subsidize post-secondary education in any way, shape, or form.

Because here’s the thing: either the educational investment is a good one, in which case the student will be able to make up for the cost of the education in extra future income, or the educational investment is a bad one, in which case the government shouldn’t be wasting taxpayer money on it.

Let us consider the good investments first. Let’s assume that with only a high school education, you could earn a yearly salary of $40,000, while with a Computer Science Bachelor’s Degree, you could earn a yearly salary of $90,000. Now let’s assume that the tuition required to obtain this degree is $50,000. A loan provider offers you a deal: he will pay your $50,000 tuition, in exchange for $80,000 due 4 years after the degree has been completed. You accept the deal. Once you have your degree and get your $90,000 job, you take $20,000 off your salary each year to pay to the loan provider. You effectively earn $70,000 each of these four years, $30,000 more than without the degree, and after four years, you are free and clear. You win, the loan provider wins, the university wins, the skills-seeking employer wins: everyone is happy.

In this situation, there is clearly no need for the government to step in. When a deal is mutually advantageous to all parties, the free-market will make it happen. If you are a bright young person with high marks and a clear aptitude for your chosen, practical discipline: loan providers will rush to make such deals with you, because it is likely that you will be able to succeed in the job market and pay them what they’re owed.

Now let’s consider the bad investments. You want to do a degree that is unlikely to make you much more valuable to employers than someone with just a high school education (ie. something like ‘Women and Gender Studies’). Loan providers will be reluctant to loan you money for this education because of the high risk that you won’t pay it back with the requisite interest. So should the government step in and fund this person’s education? No! Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the luxury spending of university students?! Because a degree whose purpose is to ‘introduce students to differing perspectives’ is just that: luxury spending. One does not need to get a fancy university education in order to be exposed to differing perspectives: an Internet connection will do just fine for that. If a student (or their parents) can afford to pay for this kind of education, then absolutely they should be entitled to. But there is no good reason for the government to subsidize it.

Oh, and one more thing: the government shouldn’t be in the business of determining what post-secondary institutions are worthy of being ‘degree-granting’ institutions and which are not. Private professional, trades, or scholarly associations are perfectly capable of deciding what institutions and educational programs meet their desired criteria, and certifying them based on that. They will certainly be better qualified at doing so than governments, who often care more about political considerations when making such decisions than they do about things that actually matter to the future employers or colleagues of these students.