McGill Tribune

Brendan Steven claimed in his September 21 column that increasing Quebec tuition wouldn’t force low-income students out of university. While I’m not sure I buy that (unsupported) argument, it’s also students from middle-income families who could be shut out by tuition increases. A 2005 Statistics Canada report summary concluded that “Under a deregulated postsecondary education system, all forms of higher education will be available only for those whose families that can afford the costs themselves or for those who qualify for student financial assistance. Many of those in the middle may find themselves in a situation where they can do neither.”

While many lower income students may still attend university, they will likely take on more student debt. Another StatsCan report examining the effects of tuition increases between 1995-2005 concluded that “In 2005, Canada not only had more individuals graduating with student loans, but also an increasing proportion graduating with larger debt loads than in the past.” The proportion of students with debt upon graduation of over $25,000 rose from 17 per cent to 27 per cent. Twenty per cent of students expected to take at least 10 years to repay their loans.

Student debt is a conservatising force; in the face of tens of thousands of dollars of debt, a newly-graduated lawyer is more likely to go into corporate law than work at legal aid. While Steven may not find this objectionable, I’d like to be able to afford to work at a job I find meaningful. For our generation, student debt is additionally dangerous. For middle and low-income families, our generation is likely to feel the pinch of many competing demands on our finances: at 30 we may still be repaying student loans as well as taking on a mortgage, providing for a child or two, paying increasing taxes to keep our (very important) health care system afloat under the demands of the aging baby boomers, and possibly providing financial support to parents. As more parents help their children with the cost of attending university, their own financial reserves to live on in their retirement diminish. If these trends continue, how likely is it that we will be able to help our own children afford university while ensuring our own financial security to the end of our lives? Furthermore, how will the increase affect children of single-parent or single-earner families?

On a side note, I found it hypocritical that, despite Steven’s support for tuition increases, he is promoting opting out of QPIRG’s optional fee with a “get money back on your tuition” angle (additionally ridiculous given that QPIRG’s fee is in no way part of tuition). Please have the decency to stick to your principles regarding your objections to some of QPIRG’s activities instead of promoting students getting back $3.75 on one hand while advocating for tuition increases of thousands of dollars on the other.

Maggie Knight is a U3 Environment & Economics student.