Comparing our free tertiary education to global models

By Dr Voon Mung Ling

It is well-publicised that the Sarawak Government is working towards providing free tertiary education to all eligible Sarawakian students in state-owned universities and institutes of higher learning by the year 2026. This is welcoming news particularly to middle and lower-income households in the face of increased living costs and economic uncertainties. While policymakers fine-tune the mechanisms for implementing and sustaining the free tertiary education initiative, this article aims to acquaint readers with the prevailing models of free education from around the world and the lessons they offer.

The essence of free tertiary education refers that students can pursue their studies at zero cost i.e. without paying tuition fees and associated expenditures. In such a system, the government, rather than individual students, would bear all associated costs. In reality, there are different models and approaches to implementing free tertiary education, depending on a country’s economic, social, and political contexts. These models vary primarily in terms of the degree of cost-sharing between the government and households; as well as the mechanisms for the government to fund its share of the cost.

Scandinavian Countries (i.e., Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland)

Model: Scandinavian countries are known for their strong support and investment in education. They provide significant financial resources for education and have high levels of public spending on it. They offer tuition-free or low-cost higher education to both local and international students. Moreover, they provide financial assistance to cover living expenses, helping students during their studies. These countries also have strong social safety nets in place to support graduates as they enter the job market.

Comparison: However, the sustainability of the Scandinavian education model relies on high-income taxes, which are among the highest in the world. This has been a long-standing concern, especially for working individuals who bear the burden of these taxes. Additionally, due to the high demand for tertiary education, there is limited access and intense competition for available spots. To address the funding burden, recent policy reforms are focusing on increasing the number of fee-paying international students and shortening the duration of some courses. These changes aim to alleviate financial pressures while still maintaining the quality of education.

Australia and New Zealand

Model: Australia and New Zealand adopt a mixed higher education model where the government partially subsidizes education. Students access loans with favorable, often income-contingent terms. In Australia, the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) supports eligible students, and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) enables students to defer loan payments until a certain income threshold is reached, with debt indexed to inflation. Likewise, New Zealand’s zero-fee policy, introduced in 2018, offers one year of free study in 2018, extending to two years in 2021 and three years in 2024. Domestic students are eligible for interest-free loans to cover tuition and living expenses, repayable after reaching a specific income level.

Comparison: In Australia and New Zealand, education models balance cost-sharing between the government and students, but face challenges such as reduced government funding in the midst of economic downturn, rising student debt, and complex loan systems. The effectiveness of New Zealand’s zero-fee policy is also debated, amidst concerns about high living costs and selective admissions impacting lower socio-economic groups.

United States of America

Model: The U.S. higher education system is the most liberal in terms of tuition fee deregulation and admission policies. Notably, private institutions charge significantly higher tuition fees than public institutions. The high cost is justified on the basis that the wealthier students paying full fees help subsidize those from less affluent backgrounds, thus promoting diversity and equitable access.

Comparison: The U.S. education model places substantial financial responsibility on students, leading to high student loan debt. Access to education is largely influenced by socioeconomic status, with the U.S. having some of the highest tuition fees worldwide. This contributes to significant student debt and sparks ongoing debates about the student debt crisis, a major financial challenge for many graduates.

United Kingdom

Model: The UK’s higher education funding model features tuition fees for all students and student loans with income-based repayments. Universities can set their own fees, encouraging competitive and diverse educational offerings. The government plans to launch the Lifetime Learning Entitlement (LLE) scheme, providing £37,000 per person for lifelong education, covering up to four years of study.

Comparison: The rise in tuition fees has triggered a debate, but the income-contingent loan system overseen by the Student Loans Company aims to make higher education more affordable.

This system alleviates the financial burden on students by linking loan repayments to their post-graduation income.

Overall, these models reflect a range of approaches to funding tertiary education. Each approach seeks to balance accessibility, quality, and financial sustainability in different ways, and each faces distinct challenges related to equity, student debt, and policy effectiveness.

Ongoing debates among economists, educators, and policymakers revolve around the advantages and disadvantages of free tertiary education.

On one hand, free tertiary education can enhance human capital development, sustaining and fostering economic growth and competitiveness. The modern economy requires a skilled and knowledgeable workforce.

Improved accessibility and affordability of education benefit those experiencing the middle-income squeeze and underprivileged rural communities the most.

Such measures promote equal opportunities and inclusivity, contributing to the reduction of socioeconomic disparities.

Furthermore, it alleviates the burden of student debt, reducing financial stress and improving mental well-being. This allows students to focus on their passions without monetary worries.

On the other hand, free tertiary education entails significant government expenditure and public funding. This could potentially lead to fiscal deficits and impact other sectors such as health, infrastructure, and social welfare.

It may also result in reduced efficiency and accountability in tertiary institutions regarding educational standards and quality.

Accommodating a larger and more diverse student population with varied backgrounds, abilities, and interests could pose challenges in the absence of sufficient resources, staff, and facilities.

Such constraints can affect curriculum development, teaching methods, assessment practices, and the quality of support services for students. Consequently, this may impact the skills, knowledge, and competencies of graduates, potentially influencing their employability and adaptability in the workforce.

Free tertiary education may also lead to an oversupply and mismatch of graduates, as it allows more individuals to access and afford higher education without fully considering cost-benefit analysis, labour market demands, or their abilities and interests.

This could result in a surplus of graduates in certain fields or levels and a shortage in others.

Additionally, it might skew the preferences of graduates, leading them to choose courses or careers influenced by social norms, peer pressure, or personal passions, rather than aligning with labour market needs and opportunities.

Such a scenario could create a mismatch between the aspirations and realities of graduates, affecting their job satisfaction and performance.

● Dr Voon Mung Ling is from the Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the New Sarawak Tribune.