Welcome back more expensive than usual

Students left asking questions

Amanda Aziz

As you may have noticed, this year’s return to school is more expensive than usual. All university students in Manitoba received a more expensive welcome back with a collection of new fees this September. And, as you may know, the extra $150 in fees is called an ancillary fee and can be found as the “UTech fee” on your statement.

While a $150 fee is bad, and goes against the tuition freeze policy, the situation could have been, and next year will likely be, much worse. This ‘tech’ fee, in addition to three other new fees totaling $465 per full-time student, was approved by the University of Manitoba Board of Governors in spring of this year. A joint campaign by students’ associations in the province led to a $315 reduction in ancillary fees. This was made possible through a one-time grant from the provincial government in the amount of $6.9 million. Unless universities receive additional funding this year, administrations will continue to lobby to ensure that your welcome back charge next year will be at least an additional $465.

$465 or bust

Something doesn’t sit right with the latest round of fee increases at the University. Despite the fact that students are protected under a tuition freeze, almost all Manitoba universities increased fees this year. In addition, due to the lack of transparency in the budgeting process, many are questioning how the funding situation at the U of M made an increase in fees of $465 (or an additional $7 million) necessary to balance the books.

Students should be asking why these fees were allowed to increase in the first place, despite the fact that it contravenes the tuition freeze, which, according to a poll commissioned by the Winnipeg Free Press, remains highly popular among Manitobans.

Questions should also be raised around University budget processes, which are notoriously closed to the public and lack any meaningful consultation of students. A true budget consultation with students on their spending priorities may result in a University budget quite different from the one we saw this year.

You do not get what you pay for

Since all user fees at the U of M are collected centrally and then dispersed, fees levied for a particular purpose — for example, technology may not necessarily be spent on that service. The new fees approved in June — which also include a registration fee, library fee and student services fee — were constructed to pay for things that tuition fees have always paid for, and arguably had no intention of actually paying for the services or items that were listed under each new fee.

How the University established the proposal for each fee is still unexplained, and the areas on campus that will receive increased funding have yet to be identified. With no explanation, one is left to conclude that the new fees introduced were nothing more than a sneaky way around the tuition freeze, which left students wondering if there wasn’t a better way to accomplish our goals as an institute of higher learning.

User fees are not the answer

The most unfortunate predicament over the increase in fees this year is not the lack of concern for students, but rather the dangerous precedent set for future funding arrangements. The increase in fees tells the province that when the University claims it needs additional revenue, students will be the ones who make up the shortfall. Consequently, this lets the provincial and federal governments as well as the University off the hook.

On the surface, these new fees may seem to increase revenues for the University. However, according to the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), there is growing evidence that increased tuition fees lead to decreased government funding, decreased enrolment, larger student debt and no net increase in operating budgets for institutions. As stated in CAUT’s 1999-2000 Education Review, “total university and college revenues, when measured on a constant basis, were about 4 per cent below their level in 1992/93.” At the same time, “federal transfers to universities and colleges declined by more than 20 per cent, while provincial transfers dropped 12 per cent.” Most significant, however, is that “by contrast, revenues from tuition fees soared by 40 per cent.”

As CAUT notes in their study, there are several consequences to the funding gap. Increased tuition fees have delivered no net benefit to college and university operating budgets for two reasons: the provincial and federal governments claw back operating grants as tuition fees rise to fill the gap, and there is often an accompanying decrease in enrolment, particularly from low- and middle-income families.

Instead of trying to get around the tuition freeze, university administrations should be working with students’ unions to put pressure on the federal government for increased funding. Instead of promoting the freeze while at the same time allowing universities to increase fees, the province of Manitoba should get serious about improving access to post-secondary education and fully commit to the tuition freeze through legislation and adequately funding universities. And finally, instead of sitting on billions of dollars in surpluses, Paul Martin should restore the more than $4 billion his government has cut from federal transfers.

Regardless of your views on post-secondary education, or who should be able to access it, educate yourself on the issues and engage yourself in the process. The ancillary fees on this campus will increase next year unless students work together for change.

Amanda Aziz is president of UMSU and the Manitoba representative for the Canadian Federation of Students.