Raise tuition fees in universities according to Shohat's plan
Additional articles in the field of education and education This speech was written and presented by witness D. Goldstein in the framework Subject presentation course. Moderator: Guy Yariv |
Sign up now!Public debate: Who is to blame for the crisis in the Israeli education system? |
good evening!
Imagine a family of three people managing their lives.
Now, imagine the same family trying to continue managing their lives on the same budget, only now they have 9 children - welcome to the family of the higher education system in Israel!
The academy in Israel is in trouble and everyone knows it. What I want to do tonight is to explain the economic background to the troubles, and present a proposal for a solution based on a rough outline. Then I will explain why the proposal is morally and academically preferable.
The sources of the economic crisis in universities
Let's start with the facts: from 1991 to 2006, the number of students increased threefold. Unfortunately, due to the recession, the budgets that the state gives to higher education were frozen starting in 2001, and if that wasn't bad enough, in 1999 tuition fees were reduced, and therefore the universities' income from students decreased. And so, for 7 years, a budget crisis was created.
The result was a severe damage to the universities, for example a decrease in the number of faculty members and a significant decrease in the ratio of students to lecturers, damage to the quantity and quality of research, and finally to a series of devastating strikes.
In order to heal the system and raise resources - the Shohat Committee was established - its role was to find a solution to the crisis in the academy, and as part of this it recommended a reform of tuition fees.
This brings me to the second part - what did the committee actually propose?
Recommendations of the Shohat Committee
The recommendations of the committee on tuition fees were to adopt the Australian model: raise and at the same time also split the tuition fees. It will increase from 8,600 NIS today to 14,800 NIS, but the student will not pay the entire amount:
- The student will pay less than six thousand shekels in cash
- He will pay the rest of the payment (about NIS 9,000) only after he has finished studying and found a job.
- Only after he earns over NIS 5,000 a month will he start paying the balance, spread over 10 years. According to the committee's calculations, this amounts to NIS 285 per month. Not bad. really.
- By the way, the loan will not be returned if the student, who is now an academic, does not earn NIS 5,000 a month, and after 10 years it will become a grant!
So after we have seen what the financial problem is, and how the Shohat Committee intends to sharply raise the tuition fee but pay it out on very favorable terms, I am going to explain the need to share the burden between the state and the students and explain why the Shohat Committee's proposal balances the two interests!
The moral-social argument in favor of the plan
Let's start with the question - who should pay for academic studies?
Academic studies actually involve two parties: the state on one side and the student body on the other.
To decide who should pay, the question must first be answered - who is the beneficiary of this investment?
The student, of course, gets hired. He acquires knowledge and tools and no less important - earning capacity. According to LMS data, each year of study raises the average salary for a graduate by five hundred shekels per month. Simple math shows that, on average, a bachelor's degree holder benefits from an additional NIS 20,000 per year in each of his years of work after graduation!! Over a 40-year career, this is a profit of more than three-quarters of a million shekels.
But not only the student, the state also benefits - for example, the high-tech revolution and the accelerated growth of the last few years is based on programmers, managers, advertising people, finance and manpower who acquired their abilities at the university. Everyone earns and pays taxes, and the fruits of their labor are enjoyed by most of society.
That's why we see that both the state and the student benefit, so of course both have to pay for the studies.
But I want to add another aspect to this burden sharing:
And more than a quarter of the tax money comes from the poor half of society - this part of society has difficulty getting accepted to school - whether it's because they went to less good schools, couldn't finance the psychometric course or simply couldn't afford the tuition. As a result, they will not benefit from the salary increase that academics receive and will remain stuck in the economic and social periphery.
The new proposal lowers the tuition fees to a level that they can finance, and they will pay the extra only after they have studied, and have improved their ability to earn and finance their studies.
The academic argument in favor of the program
So after we have seen that from a moral and social point of view, the correct distribution of the burden should change according to the model proposed by the Shohat Committee, I want to show that the proposal also has academic advantages.
The new tuition will increase the institutions' budget and improve the facilities, conditions and teaching.
Today, the students pay the universities approximately 860 million out of the approximately 3.3 billion total budget of the academic institutions.
The Shohat Committee comes and says - let's increase the budget of the universities - and it will increase by half a billion shekels if the tuition fees go up - and with this money we will improve the conditions, the facilities and the quality of teaching.
Since at the same time the amount the student has to pay in cash during his studies drops to at least 6 thousand NIS, it turns out that the financial burden on the student is reduced and the service he receives from the university improves.
Of course, this has a price to pay after graduation, but as I have shown it is a fair return that does not come close to the salary increase that the student obtains from the studies.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of creating a balance between the student's investment and the state's investment in the product whose name is a graduate of the higher education system in Israel - a balance that will allow every potential candidate financial access to the system - a balance that the Shochat Committee achieved!
Do you have anything to say about it? Join the debate club
Want to learn to prepare and present speeches? Sign up for a public speaking course