Statements from the government that under their reform package higher education fees will go down as well as up have been met with ridicule in social media and even from a Canadian higher education policy research institute.
Certainly it is unlikely that fees for public university students will go down. Cuts to public subsidies for most disciplines mean that universities will need to increase their charges just to maintain current revenue per student.
But undergraduate students in private universities and colleges, and the TAFEs that now offer degrees, will become eligible for public subsidies under the Pyne reform package, as recommended by the report I wrote with David Kemp. Exactly at what level is yet to be determined. But it will be above the zero level most of their students currently receive (under various ad hoc deals with government, a few of the around 130 potentially affected institutions already have some subsidised places).
While I doubt that the full value of the subsidy will be passed on in lower fees, particularly in the more generously subsidised disciplines we should see fees dropping by thousands of dollars for students outside the public university sector. The Budget papers suggest that 80,000 students could benefit from this change.
At a conference I attended yesterday there seemed to be some confusion about the government’s plan to index HELP debt at the 10 year bond rate, capped at 6 per cent, rather than at CPI. There was a lot of concern about introducing ‘compound interest’.
In the context of HELP, compound interest is the paying of interest on previously accrued interest added to a student’s debt. This has been a feature of Australia’s income contingent loans, HECS and then HELP, from the start. What’s changing is not the fact of compounding, but the rate of interest. Based on recent history, this is likely to be 1 to 2.5 per cent higher than now.
The main alternative to these variable real interest rates is a loan fee. Undergraduates borrowing under FEE-HELP pay a 25 per cent loan fee. This provides an incentive to pay up-front, avoiding the taxpayer subsidising interest payments on loans from people who have the cash to pay for their education, and contributing to the cost of interest. Upfront payment allows the government to avoid the risk of doubtful debt. However, once the loan fee is incurred it does not provide much incentive to repay early.
The government is removing the FEE-HELP loan fee. It was certainly unfair that full-fee undergraduates had to pay it, but not full-fee postgraduates. HECS-HELP borrowers also make no contribution to the cost of their loan other than the CPI interest.* But I am not sure that the idea of a loan fee should be dismissed. It makes the total cost of higher education more predictable for borrowers, and manages the risks of periods of earning less than the threshold for repayment. At the same time, a loan fee could substantially reduce the cost of HELP to other taxpayers.
Read More »
There has been a lot of speculation about students facing $100,000 degrees if fees are deregulated. However, my view is that this is very unlikely outside small areas such as medicine, dentistry or veterinary science.
While we are still planning much more work on pricing issues, international student fees provide a a guide to the outer limits of what is likely to be possible – what universities think that the market will pay. Where there are deregulated markets for both internationals and domestics, in the private sector and at postgraduate level, our research is yet to find any cases in which domestic students are charged more, and many cases in which they are charged less.
Our methodology in collecting fees was to look at university websites and compare similar courses across universities. This was done for all the universities in 2013, although not all teach all the covered courses. We then deducted tuition subsidy amounts, as a guide to how these might bring fees down. The Guardian published the results.
The totals vary considerably, but most full courses would end up costing between $35,000 and $60,000 on a simple average of quoted fees. Students would have to decide whether or not the more expensive courses were value for money.
The higher education reforms announced on Budget night are causing some confusion. Complex reforms are being added to an already complicated system. I am planning on a series of clarifying blog posts to explain what is happening, of which this is the first.
The SMH is running a story on prospective students concerned about fee hikes at the National Institute of Dramatic Art, NIDA.
NIDA is unusual in being subsidised out of the arts budget rather than the education budget. I can’t see anything in the relevant portfolio budget papers about whether NIDA has taken a hit to its funding.
This means that even though NIDA’s students are subsidised, they are classed as full fee by the HELP scheme and borrow under FEE-HELP rather than HECS-HELP. The higher education legislation does not regulate the tuition fees NIDA charges.
For FEE-HELP undergraduates, there is currently a 25% loan fee (eg, a student who borrows $10,000 will have a $12,500 debt recorded). This will be abolished, reducing the initial cost of attending NIDA assuming no further fee changes. However, students will in future be charged an interest rate based on the 10-year bond rate rather than CPI.
NIDA has typically pitched its fee around the level of undergraduate student contributions in comparable courses. If these increase at universities then it is possible that NIDA will see market space to increase its own fees. But there is nothing in the Budget higher education reforms that will require them to lift their charges.
The SMH article quotes 23-year old Oliver Wicks, soon to complete an arts degree, as reconsidering pursuing an education at NIDA due to potential increased cost. However, any increased fees are the least of his worries. As Grattan’s recent HELP doubtful debt report found, a high proportion of performing arts graduates don’t earn enough to start repaying.