A CASE AGAINST FLAT FEES A CASE AGAINST THE USE OF FLAT FEES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
THE ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM FEE STRUCTURE 3 credits for the Price of 5 Congratulations! You have been admitted to the University of Toronto, a world-class public institution, which promises to provide the best education to its students. However, did you know that at the University of Toronto you pay for education you do not receive?
THE FLAT FEE STRUCTURE On April 6, 2009 the University of Toronto resolved to implement a fixed tuition fee model the University calls the “Program Fee.” The “Program NEW Fee” is a fixed tuition fee charged to students for enrolment in aPROPOSAL minimum number of courses in a particular program or faculty, rather than charging tuition fees for each course a student takes. In other words, it is a flat fee. On September 2009, the University implemented the fee system in the Faculty of Arts & Science, charging a flat fee for the lowest minimum amount of courses in the province: students in Arts & Science are now required to pay for five courses, even if they only take three. For students who do not or cannot take a full course load, the flat fee is an enormous financial burden.
*A 66% increase in tuition fee* Note: This contravened provincial policy! According to provincial tuition fee regulation, universities were allowed a maximum five per cent increase.
THE FAULTY PROGRAM FEE REVIEW A review committee called the Program Fee Monitoring Committee (PFMC) was appointed to assess the impact of flat fee on students’ experience over two years, preceding a confirmation vote on flat fees in Governing Council in the 2010-11 academic term. The PFMC was meant to examine how flat fees affected thousands of students, but its methods and composition were flawed. It was comprised of only 10 members, of which only three were students. The PFMC’s research sample included 94 students of which only 41 participated in the review. This is less than one per cent of the 6,297 firstyear undergraduate students enrolled in 2011 at the Faculty of Arts & Science in the University of Toronto1. Lacking sufficient research on the student experience and careful consideration of student input and students’ mental and social wellbeing, the University fully implemented flat fees on September 2011. In their final report, the PFMC concluded that there was no impact on students’ lives. Members of the monitoring committee also stated that the report did not reflect the true experience of the students at the University. NEW
1. See Facts & Figures 2011 Part D: PROPOSAL http://www.utoronto.ca/__shared/assets/UofT_2011_FactsFiguresReport_D4488.pdf
HOW STUDENTS ARE TRULY AFFECTED BY FLAT FEES 1. Students and registrars identified that since the flat fee implementation many students are unable to enroll into required courses, as classes are full as soon as enrolment begins2. The Committee promised to examine this issue closely. However, the issue persists and students are forced to lose money or take courses irrelevant to their program. 2. Flat fees force students to rush through their studies, even though they may learn more effectively at a self-determined pace. 3. Flat fees are a financial disincentive for students to become actively involved in the campus community and in any extra-curricular activities. The workload associated with five or six courses is significant, and leaves little or no room for extra-curricular activities. 4. Flat fees penalize students who are economically disadvantaged and have additional responsibilities, such as part-time jobs or dependents. It further disadvantages low-income students. 5. Flat fees place further financial stresses on students who may be struggling with mental health issues. 6. Flat fees financially penalize students who wish to take fewer courses in order to maintain a higher academic average. Overall, flat fees take away a student’s right to determine the rate at which they complete their education without financial penalty for taking less than an institutionally-determined course load. In addition, the flat fee structure may have adverse affects on students’ overall mental health. A significant number of students with disabilities, students who have dependents and low-income students, take less or want to take less than the full course load. Flat fees not only result in major financial burdens for these students, but they also have a negative impact on students’ level of stress and productivity. 2. See Governing Council Item 13: http://www.governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/ Boards+and+Committees/Governing+Council/2011-2012+Academic+Year/a0517.pdf
Clandestine Decision Making – The Implementation of the Program Fee MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 2009
Setting: Faculty of Arts and Science Council (FASC)
The Dean violates meeting protocol and presents a modified version of the original proposal, without notice.
NEW PROPOSAL
On April 6, 2009, despite widespread community opposition to the flat fee tuition model, the Council voted to approve the new fee model. VED
APPRO
BUDGETARY CONCERNS Prior to the implementation of flat fees, the University administration argued that the flat fee model was a method for improving the faculty’s budget and combatting financial challenges. The University of Toronto is the only university in Ontario to implement the flat fee model at such a low threshold, which is an attempt by the University to download the effects of risky financial mismanagement worsened by the Great Recession on students. If the University truly wants to be fiscally responsible, it would prioritize addressing the issue of inadequate per-student funding with the provincial government instead of downloading the difference onto students, worsening the inaccessibility of post-secondary education. It is obvious that there are significant concerns with the implementation of flat fees. As a leading educational institution in Canada, the University of Toronto needs to make education accessible to students from all backgrounds and allow students to gain an education without financial burdens and without disadvantaging students with mental health concerns.
FLAT FEE VS. PER COURSE METHOD CHART The chart below depicts how much more you are paying in tuition fees through the flat fee system in 2013-2014. The less courses you take, the more unfair fees you are being forced to pay the Government.
INTERNATIONAL FEES STUDENTS CHART FULL COURSE EQUIVALENT
FLAT FEE METHOD
PER COURSE METHOD
DIFFERENCE IN FEES PAID
3.0
$32,075
$19,245
$12,830
3.5
$32,075
$22,452.50
$9,622.50
4.0
$32,075
$25,660
$6,415
4.5
$32,075
$28,867.50
$3,207.50
DOMESTIC FEES STUDENTS CHART FULL COURSE EQUIVALENT
FLAT FEE METHOD
PER COURSE METHOD
DIFFERENCE IN FEES PAID
3.0
$5,865
$3,519
$2,346
3.5
$5,865
$4,105.50
$1,759.50
4.0
$5,865
$4,692
$1,173
4.5
$5,865
$5,278.50
$586.50
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF TRAINING, COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES 1. Prohibit the institutional practice of charging flat fees at colleges and universities for any threshold below 100 per cent of a full course load; 2. Ensure that the transition from a flat fee structure to per-course fees does not allow institutions to raise fees beyond what is permissible under the tuition fee framework; 3. Input regulations against universities implementing fee to structures that side-step provincial tuition fee regulation by exploiting loop holes.
YOU CAN STOP THIS! TAKE ACTION! SIGN THE PETITION AT:
WWW.UTSU.CA/STOPFLATFEES
For more information, contact Vice-President University Affairs Agnes So at vpua@utsu.ca
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO STUDENTS’ UNION LOCAL 98, CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS
12 HART HOUSE CIRCLE | MON-FRI | 9AM-6PM WWW.UTSU.CA | TWITTER @UTSU98 | FACEBOOK.COM/UTSU98