THE VARSITY
Vol. CXXXII, No. 1
University of Toronto’s Student Newspaper Since 1880
11 July, 2011
Flat fees fully implemented Full-time Arts and Science students will pay a flat rate, regardless of how many courses they take. Fee structure widened without a vote. Provost says student groups misunderstand university procedure. Shonith Rajendran
VARSITY CONTRIBUTOR After a two-year test run, the University of Toronto is moving forward with plans to fully implement its controversial “flat fees” system for assessing tuition fees on students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Beginning this fall, students admitted in September 2009 or later and taking more than three credits will pay a flat program fee instead of paying separately for individual courses. Students admitted before 2009 will continue to pay per-course until the end of the 2013–14 academic year. Students taking three or more credits must now pay a flat fee. For the past two years, the threshold had been four credits. The change was part of the program framework approved in spring 2009, although student groups say the change should require its own vote. For years, the flat fee structure has been strongly opposed by organized student groups, who argue it amounts to a tuition hike and forces students to pay for courses they don’t or can’t take. While structure was implemented to help the debt-laden faculty, critics say it forces students to rush through their studies and discriminates against low-income students. No vote The most recent clash between student groups and the administration over the issue was at the Governing Council meeting held at UTM on May 19. The Stop Flat Fees Campaign, a joint initiative of UTSU and ASSU, had organized a protest around an expected vote on the new structure, having earlier collected roughly 4,000 signatures on petition cards opposing flat fees. Protestors then found out that the meeting would hold no vote on the overall policy. “I was disappointed that there wasn’t a vote,” said Katharine Ball, incoming ASSU president. “To see that there wasn’t a vote on that and it’s moving down a full credit was really disappointing,” she said. “How does a school, how does a public institution approve a tuition fee increase of 66 per cent without a vote? It’s unbelievable,” said UTSU President Danielle Sandhu. “I think it’s a strong failure. It’s a failure of the university in terms of what’s best for students here, what’s best for this as an institution, a public institution.” University officials, however, say these groups were simply mistaken about the meeting’s agenda. “I’m not sure precisely where there has been some confusion about this,” said Provost Cheryl Misak, U of T’s chief academic officer. Misak said that when Governing Council originally approved the resolution adopting the flat fee proposal in May 2009, there was never any requirement that there be a re-vote at a later date. Rather the May 2009 resolution called for revising the flat fee structure if a preliminary evaluation of the fee’s impact in 2011 showed that such a revision of flat fees was required, said Misak. The 2009 resolution states that “prior to 2011–12, an evaluation of the impact of the model” is to be completed by a committee and submitted to Governing Council, “to enable consideration of revision of the implementation plan, if such is required.” The group that completed the evaluation, known as the Program Fee Monitoring Committee, submitted its full report to Governing Council at the May meeting. The report’s general conclusion was that “most of the concerns expressed in the discussions leading up to the policy being approved have not materialized” and that “there appear to be no major shifts [in student behaviour] at this time that present cause for concern.” Misak said that the report essentially showed that the flat fee model did not need to be revised or formally put to another vote. “In some way, yes there is a vote,” she said. “The facts are looked at by the report of the Program Fee Monitoring Committee and they’re discussed and if the facts required revision then there would have been a revision; but the facts were really, really straightforward.” Committee issues The 10-member monitoring committee, which included three students, looked at the impact of the flat fees model for the one and a half years it had been in effect. The committee looked at the model’s effects on students’ academic performance, student life and extra-curricular activity, enrolment BERNARDA GOSPIC/THE VARSITY
SEE ‘FLAT FEES’ – PG 8