Debate

Dear Editor:
I’m writing in response to the article entitled “Zero Tuition Would Offer Little Aid to Students” written by Jonathan Denis, a law student at the University of Saskatchewan. Jonathan points out that a basic understanding of economics suggests that eliminating tuition fees for post-secondary education would increase demand for the services provided at post-secondary institutions. I agree, and, unlike Jonathan, I don’t see a problem with this.

I believe that a free and democratic nation depends upon educating citizens so they are capable of critically examining the society they live within for the purposes of effecting positive and progressive change. The more people offered the opportunity to participate in post-secondary education, the better off society will be. Jonathan expresses concern at finding funding sources to support the increased demand for post-secondary education. This is easily rectified by insisting upon the taxation of corporations (which have historically been excused from paying their share of the tax burden) and allocating funds into such essential services as post-secondary education. To accomplish this we need to elect government officials who recognize the importance of an educated populace, and who assign a high priority for allocating money into educational facilities.

Second, Jonathan suggests that the only reason people participate in post-secondary education is for the purpose of developing marketable skills useful for finding employment. Is he suggesting, then, that the quality of jobs a person can expect is determined by their ability to participate in post-secondary education, and that this is dictated by the socio-economic status of the family they happen to have been born into? Post-secondary education is helpful for providing job training, certainly, but more importantly it offers people a place to explore various disciplines and to gain knowledge which will enable them to be comprehensive of the world and their place in it. I may choose to study Latin, for example, not with the intention of getting a job, but for the purposes of understanding more fully the historical implications of language. Is Jonathan suggesting that we restrict post-secondary opportunities to those people who can afford the luxury of higher education, and that we then limit the post-secondary experience to mere job training?

I reject the idea of living in a corporate world where the chosen elite are offered more opportunity than those less fortunate, and I especially disagree with the suggestion that our only purpose on this planet is to train ourselves how to work for them and encourage their greed at our expense.

— Janine Bandcroft, BA English, University of Victoria

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.