CHED launches free tuition law IRR

Starting SY 2018-2019, the government will shoulder the tuition and fees of students enrolled in 112
SUCs, 78 LUCs, and duly registered technical-vocation education and training programs

MANILA, Philippines – The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) formally launched the implementing
rules and regulations (IRR) of the free tuition law on Monday, March 26.

Starting school year 2018 to 2019, the government will shoulder the tuition and fees of students
enrolled in 112 state universities and colleges, 78 local universities and colleges, and technical-vocation
(tech-voc) education and training programs registered under the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA).

The IRR of Republic Act No. 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act also includes
provisions detailing how students can avail of loans and other subsidies to help fund their tertiary
education. (READ: 8 things you need to know about the free tuition law)

The same document also states financially-able students may either opt out of the free higher education
provision altogether. Likewise, students may avail of the free tuition law’s benefits but also contribute a
specific amount to their higher education institution of choice.

CHED officer-in-charge Prospero de Vera III said P40,000,919,000 has been allotted for the first year of
implementation of the free tuition law.

Of this number, P16 billion is set aside for free higher education, P 7 billion for free tech-voc education,
P15.851 billion for tertiary education subsidy, P1 billion for student loan program, P11 million for the
Tertiary Education Tracking and Reporting System, and P11 million for the administrative cost of the
Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST) 2018.

De Vera led the signing of the IRR along with other officials representing the following government
agencies, which comprise the UniFAST Governing Board:

• CHED
• TESDA
• Department of Science and Technology
• Department of Education
• Department of Labor and Employment
• National Youth Commission (NYC)
• National Economic Development Authority
• Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges
• Coordinating Council of Private Educational Association
• Association of Local Colleges and Universities
• Government Service Insurance System
• Social Security System

The free tuition law’s signing was also attended by Senators Ralph Recto, Juan Edgardo Angara, Paolo
Benigno Aquino IV, Davao City 1st District Representative Karlo Nograles, Sorsogon 1st District
Representative Evelina Escudero, and NYC Chairperson Ice Seguerra, whose resignation will take effect
on April 5.
The risks of free public tertiary education and some ideas to fix it

IT is hard not to rejoice at RA 10931, otherwise known as the “Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
Education Act,” that provides full tuition subsidy to all students enrolled in state universities and colleges
(SUCs), local universities and colleges, and state-run technical-vocational schools. In addition, the law
also subsidizes library fees, computer fees, laboratory fees, school ID fees, development fees, guidance
fees, handbook fees, entrance fees, registration fees, medical and dental fees, cultural fees and
practically all other similar or related fees.

It is indeed comprehensive. But will it really promote universal access to quality tertiary education?

The economic managers of President Duterte raised serious reservations about the law, but the
President appears to have ignored their objections. After all, this is a populist move, and based on the
reactions, there is overwhelming support for it.

I support the President. But on this one, I will have to respectfully raise my own reservations.

And while the issue of budget remains a compelling concern, I will not dwell on it, and focus on two
other concerns.

Without any major reforms in the admissions requirements for entry into public universities and
colleges, and with matching support to upgrade the quality of basic education, I am afraid that this law
will never provide universal access to quality tertiary education.

In the first place, the very presence of competitive entrance exams is already evidence that access is not
universal.

Furthermore, in rendering public tertiary education virtually free, the state has turned it into a highly
desired public commodity. The competition to enter the system will become even more intense, with
those who can afford to pay tuition in private schools making a run for it

And if the system would operate like a free market, then those who have higher levels of
competitiveness, like students who graduate from quality high schools, or those from families who can
afford review classes, would have the upper hand. There is a big probability that this will crowd out
those who are in fact in need of state support, the poor and who are graduates of less competitive
schools.

The law hopes that students with financial capacity may choose not to avail of the state subsidies.
However, in the absence of incentives if they don’t avail, or disincentives if they avail, this is not only
wishful thinking, but goes against the rational behavior of human beings as economic actors.

In the end, there is no universal access to free tertiary education. It will only be free for those who pass
the entrance test. And in the absence of affirmative action policies, such as quota systems or even
waiving of the entrance requirements for the poor but deserving, it may not even promote social justice.

The law’s intention to improve the quality of tertiary education needs a serious examination as well.

Any organizational manager will tell you that autonomy is an important ingredient for ensuring quality,
as it enables creativity and boldness to bring in innovations. The reason why private universities like
DLSU and Ateneo can be more innovative at a faster pace is that they have more fiscal and budgetary
autonomy from the State, and they only have to abide by their own procurement and financial auditing
rules.

This may not be the case for state and local colleges and universities that are subjected to the stringent,
sometimes irrational and inappropriate, procurement and auditing rules of the Commission on Audit.
This is already true for now, when they still retain portions of their revenues from tuition and fees for
their own expenses.

RA10931 will have the effect of further constraining, if not totally obliterating, whatever latitude
administrators of State and local colleges and universities have. With full subsidies not only on tuition
but even on specific expenses such as ID and dental and medical fees, and even computer and lab fees,
all of the budget needed for operations, and not only personnel services, will be downloaded from the
DBM. Some Presidents of SUCs I have talked to have expressed their misgivings about the serious
consequences of this system, for it will surely tie their hands even more.

Thus, in order for quality education to be assured, a more enabling and innovative system for
procurement, disbursing of funds and auditing of expenditures should be designed.

This is because by design, the law further constrains budget autonomy that may have the effect of
stunting creativity and innovation, and hence compromise quality.

I would have wished that Congress had instead adopted a more socialized tuition fee scheme, which
would have been an improvement of the STS system of UP, for it would have truly embodied a
mechanism that is consistent with the promotion of social justice and equity. And this can be
complemented by more support given for the implementation of RA 10687, the new Unified Student
Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST).

It would have also been more efficient and could push higher education institutions (HEIs) to enhance
their quality had financial assistance been given directly to students, as this will spur HEIs to be more
competitive for them to attract students on full scholarships.

But for now, it would be prudent to impose a moratorium on the establishment of SUCs and their local
counterparts, and to devise innovative mechanisms to ensure that the quality education which is
promised by the law is delivered. It is also imperative to come up with an IRR that will mitigate the law’s
adverse effects.
8 things you need to know about the free tuition law

(2nd UPDATE) The law will cover the tuition and fees of students enrolled in 112 SUCs, 78 LUCs, and all
duly registered technical-vocation education and training programs starting this school year

MANILA, Philippines (2nd UPDATE) – Filipino students will begin benefitting from the free tuition law
starting school year 2018 to 2019.

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) officer-in-charge Prospero de Vera III said P40 billion has been
allotted for the first year of implementation of Republic Act No. 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality
Tertiary Education Act.

The law covers the tuition and fees of students enrolled in 112 state universities and colleges (SUCs), 78
local universities and colleges (LUCs), and all technical-vocation education and training (TVET) programs
registered under the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

The IRR was formally launched on Monday, March 26.

What are the salient points of the IRR? Who can benefit from the free tuition law and who are
disqualified from it?

Read the list below:

1. Free tuition for all required classes during the semester. These classes must be part of the curriculum
and are essential in obtaining a degree. Approved petitioned classes are covered, too, but review or
enhancement classes are not covered.

The free tuition law also covers the fees of Filipino learners enrolled in any TESDA-registered TVET
program.

2. Free miscellaneous and other school fees. The law covers payment for fees for the use of libraries,
computers and laboratories, school identification card, athletics, admissions, development, guidance
services, handbook, entrance, registration, medical and dental services, and cultural activities.

Should you wish to have another copy of your school identification card, library identification card, and
student handbook, you will have to pay extra.

3. Affirmative action programs for minorities. The law requires SUCs, LUCs, and TVET program providers
to craft programs to make it easier for disadvantaged students to avail of the free tuition law. They may
include students who are Lumad, Muslims, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and students
from public high schools and depressed areas.

4. Opt-out mechanism. Students with the financial capacity can volunteer to opt out of the free higher
education provision. SUCs, LUCs, and TVET providers are therefore required to create a system that
would enable students to do so.

Students must decide to opt out of the subsidy during the enrollment period of each semester. They will
be required to submit a waiver duly notarized by the institution.

The decision is considered final and irrevocable for that particular semester. Students are allowed to
change their decision in the next semesters.
5. Student voluntary contribution mechanism. The law also allows financially-able students to avail of the
free higher education provision but also contribute a specific amount to the higher education institution
(HEI). SUCs, LUCs, and TVET providers are required to create a proper system so students can make
voluntary contributions for their education.

6. Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES). Students and learners may apply to get subsidies to help pay for
tuition and fees in private institutions.

Under TES, they may also apply for subsidies to get allowances for books, supplies, transportation, room
and board costs, and other expenses. A student with disability will also be given a separate set of
allowance. Students whose programs require a professional license or certification will also be given
money to fund their application for the first time.

Students and learners, however, must first qualify under the existing admission and retention
requirements or other screening and assessment procedures required by the program.

7. Student Loan Program for Tertiary Education. The free tuition law IRR also allows enrolled students to
avail of an education loan. The UniFAST Board shall implement the loan program through partner banks
or similar institutions.

8. Are there students disqualified from the free tuition law’s benefits?

Yes. You cannot avail of the free tuition and fees in SUCs and LUCs if:

• You already have a bachelor’s degree or a comparable undergraduate degree from any
public or private HEI.
• You failed to comply with the admission or retention policies of the SUC or LUC, leading to
your disqualification to enroll.
• You failed to complete your degree within a year after the period prescribed for your
program.
• You voluntarily opted out of the free higher education provision.

You also cannot avail of the free higher education provision in TVET programs if:

• You already have a bachelor’s degree.

Students and learners who are not eligible to avail of the benefits of the free tuition law shall pay for the
necessary fees as determined by the SUCs, LUCs, and TVET program providers.
CHED, DBM Release Guidelines on Free Tuition in SUCs

MANILA, Philippines – The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) have jointly issued the implementing guidelines for the use of the P8-billion Higher
Education Support Fund (HESF) under the government’s free tuition program for 2017.

The HESF is included in the 2017 General Appropriations Act and is intended for use by the country’s
state universities and colleges (SUCs) for the academic year 2017-2018. President Duterte has ordered
the conditional implementation of the free tuition program “to give priority to financially disadvantaged
but academically able students.”

According to the joint memorandum, the free tuition program will cover “all Filipino students enrolling in
undergraduate course programs in SUCs for the academic year 2017-2018, subject to the prioritization
directive of the President and the availability of funds in the HESF.”

SUCs will not collect tuition from students and will instead charge this against the HESF through billing
statements for CHED. However, miscellaneous and other fees are not covered by the program, and thus
may still be collected from the students.

Student beneficiaries

Beneficiaries of government student financial assistance programs (StuFAPs) will be given priority by
their respective SUCs. The tuition fees of those receiving more than P15,000 in benefits will still be
charged against their StuFAP allocations, while the tuition fees of student beneficiaries who are getting
P15,000 or less will be charged from the SUCs’ free tuition allocation.

After all government StuFAP beneficiaries have been given slots, continuing students in their respective
SUCs are next in line for available slots. They will be further prioritized according to the following order,
subject to the availability of funding:

Graduating students with one semester remaining, regardless of household per capita income;

Graduating students with one academic year remaining, regardless of household per capita income;

Non-graduating students who belong to a household that is or was a beneficiary of 4Ps (Pantawid
Pamilyang

Non-graduating students who were never part of a household that is or was a beneficiary of 4Ps but is
still included in the Listahanan 2.0, ranked according to their estimated per capita household income;
and

Non-graduating students ranked according to their per capita household income based on submitted
documentation(s) for proof of income.

If there are still funds available, incoming freshmen and returning students who are not receiving more
than P15,000 in benefits from any StuFAP will also be eligible for the government’s free tuition program
in a similar order.
SUC budget and preparations

The budget allocation for each SUC is based on the estimated tuition income they submitted for the
2017 Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing.

The SUCs are required to conduct an assessment on the eligibility of students based on the 4Ps,
Listahanan 2.0, and StuFAP beneficiaries. Before the enrolment period, the SUCs should have ranked all
assessed students according to the order of priority as stated above.

CHED Chairperson Patricia B. Licuanan gave her assurance that the proper implementation of the
program will be carried out. “As we implement Free Tuition 2017, we are being guided by the original
intention of the legislators and the president’s directive to prioritize financially disadvantaged but
academically able students—we will do our best to ensure that the fund goes to as many as possible and
to those who need it most.”
CHED issues implementing rules and regulations on free tuition law

MANILA, Philippines — The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) released yesterday the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for Republic Act 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality
Education Act that would take effect this coming school year.

Students in state universities and colleges (SUCs) and local universities and colleges (LUCs) can start
availing themselves of free tuition, although this hinges on the requirements of their respective
institutions.

Prospero de Vera III, CHED officer-in-charge, stressed that students who wish to continuously benefit
from the law must meet all the admission and retention requirements.

“This is not a license to accept everyone to universities and colleges. This is for students who are in good
standing, meaning they passed the admission and retention requirements of the universities – finish
their degree on time and are enrolled in the required number of units per year,” De Vera was quoted as
saying by GMA News TV.

“If you are kicked out, then you stop receiving government subsidy because you did not comply with the
retention requirements of the university,” he added.

The issuance of the IRR came seven months after President Duterte signed RA 10931 into law.

At least P40 billion have been allocated for its implementation. Of the amount, P16 billion is for free
higher education, P7 billion for free technical vocational education, P15.9 billion for tertiary education
subsidy, P1 billion for the student loan program and P11 million for the tertiary education tracking and
reporting system.

Lawmakers who championed and supported the enactment of the law – including Sens. Ralph Recto,
Bam Aquino, Sonny Angara and Reps. Karlo Nograles and Evelina Escudero – attended yesterday’s IRR
launching.

“What we basically achieve with this law is to really have a situation where... you won’t even pay a single
peso to the public school system,” Aquino said in his speech.

The IRR provides that all Filipino students enrolled in SUCs, LUCs and technical-vocational schools will be
exempted from paying tuition and other school fees, such as miscellaneous fees that also cover
payments for admission, library, laboratory and computers, among others.

For those enrolled in technical-vocational schools, the cost of utilities, facilities, equipment and tools
maintenance, miscellaneous fees, as well as the honoraria of trainers are also waived.

Students enrolled in private higher education institutions may also avail of tertiary education subsidy
covering tuition and other school fees, while a student loan program will also be established for Filipino
students to further support the cost of tertiary education.

The IRR also provides that all students with financial capacity may opt out of the benefits they will
receive under the law.
Economic experts 'disappointed' after Duterte OKs free tuition in SUCs

MANILA, Philippines – The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF) on Friday, August 4, expressed
disappointment over President Rodrigo Duterte's signing of the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
Education Act – a law opposed by his economic managers.

"The approval is disappointing given the powerful arguments advanced by his economic managers about
the anti-poor aspects of the law," FEF president Calixto Chikiamco said

He added: "However, he's in the best position to balance the economic and political demands of his
office, especially so in the light of a much-needed tax reform bill still pending in the Senate."

Members of FEF – a public advocacy organization – include former and present Cabinet secretaries and
undersecretaries, leading figures in the academe, respected media personalities and opinion makers,
and prominent members in the business and finance community.

FEF had earlier called the proposal to increase funding for free tuition in SUCs as "anti-poor" and a move
that will hurt private higher education institutions.

In a February 6 statement, the group said funding free tuition in SUCs is anti-poor for two reasons:

it considers only tuition in the cost of higher education

it will benefit higher income students who are more academically prepared than students from poor
families.

Duterte signed the bill into law on Thursday, August 3, following a meeting between lawmakers and
economic managers in Malacañang.

According to Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Menardo Guevarra, Duterte was convinced that the
law's benefits outweigh the cost of its implementation. (READ: Economic managers: Tuition-free policy in
SUCs to benefit 'non-poor' students)

Earlier this week, no less than Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno said government cannot shoulder the
estimated budget requirements of providing free tuition in state universities and colleges.
Economic think tank says free tuition is 'anti-poor'

MANILA - Economic think tank Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF) on Monday criticized the
proposed bill to allot P8.3 billion to the Commission on Higher Education to provide for free tuition in
state universities and colleges (SUCs).

According to FEF, while the measure was well-intended, the proposal to increase funding for free tuition
in SUCs is anti-poor.

FEF also said that the measure will hurt private higher educational institutions which are more efficient
in providing higher education.

According to the think tank, providing billions for free tuition in SUCs is anti-poor because it only
considers tuition in the cost of higher education.

"Tuition covers only one-third of the cost of attending college. The balance consists of cost of living
allowances, which the poor are in no position to pay. Higher income students who have the ability to pay
for these living allowances will end up using the free tuition subsidy," FEF said in a statement.

Moreover, FEF said enrollment in SUCs already favors higher income students.

"Based on the 1999 and 2014 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey, the bulk of students in public higher
educational institutions are mostly from higher income groups while students coming from the bottom
20% consist of only 11% in 1000 and 12% in 2014," FEF fellows Dr. Aniceo Orbeta and Dr. Vicente
Paqueon.

FEF took into consideration that students from poor families are only a small portion of SUCs' student
population.

"They can hardly pay for the full cost of attending college which not only consists of tuition, but board
and lodging expenses as well. They are also less prepared academically to pass the entrance exams and
pass the academic requirements of four-year college courses," FEF said.

The group is pushing for the implementation of the Unified Student Assistance System for Tertiary
Education (UniFAST), which was enacted into law through Republic Act No. 10687.

"The UniFAST Law unifies and rationalizes all modalities for student financial assistance, including
scholarships, grants-in-aid, and student loans. It also doesn’t favor SUCs over private higher educational
institutions as the assistance is given to the student and not the school," FEF said.
Free tuition: Will it really benefit poor students?

Days after President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act or the
free tuition law, the UP System announced that it wouldn’t be collecting tuition from students next
school year.

While some institutions remain wary of this “free-tuition-for-all” law, many UP students rejoiced because
a huge chunk of their tuition will now be fully covered by the government. (Before this, UP had a
Socialized Tuition System or STS, which provides tuition discount based on the assessment of the paying
capacity of the household to which a student belongs.)

Victory

“This is a victory for the students who have been exhausting all means to assert their right to free
education,” says UP Journalism student Menchani Tilendo, who is also a member of the League of
Filipino Students (LFS).

“I was overjoyed,” says Francis Natividad, a UP Communication Research major. “Now I can say that the
Philippine government truly listens to its people.”

Jeffrey Beldia, a UP Institute of Biology alumnus, believes it’s a milestone: “I’m very pleased and thankful
to the President… Although there is some disagreement in the legislative branch, there is still enough
support from individual members of the government.”

Beldia adds that the next step of the government is to find sufficient funds to fully implement the law.

Disadvantages

Recently, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) illustrated the disadvantages of free
tuition through infographics. It was based on a policy paper, “Who benefits and loses from an untargeted
tuition subsidy for students in SUCs (state universities and colleges)?”

The infographics showed that giving financial assistance is antipoor because tuition comprises only one
third of college education costs.

Citing “up-to-date” data (1999-2014) from the Philippine Statistics Authority, the infographics explained
that most students from SUCs were not poor; in fact, rich households are the ones most likely to benefit
from a free tuition law.

It likewise indicated that students from poorer households had a lower chance of getting into SUCs
because of competition and limited slots.

Both the infographics and policy paper drew criticism and flak on social media.

Jazz, a third year UP Sports Science student, thinks the infographics is an excuse to cover up the poorly
managed government budget and corruption allegations. “Free tuition will benefit the rich, but freeing
educational expenses, such as tuition, gives monumental relief to the poor,” he says.
As for the infographics’ view that most students in SUC’s were not poor, Jazz posts a question: “Why not
distribute the subsidy of free education to other educational institutions? Assuming they are well-
managed, the poor will be more qualified for SUCs.”

The PIDS infographics belies a data-driven article published in UP’s campus paper Philippine Collegian,
written by editor in chief Karen Ann Macalalad: “In year three of STS, 1 of 4 student borrowers apply for
100-percent loan.”

The article was based on data from the Office of Scholarships and Student Services.

Richard German Martin, a dentistry student from UP Manila, believes that the free tuition law will help a
lot of students, especially those in the medical sciences. He points out that dental materials—which are
separate from tuition and miscellaneous fees—can cost up to P50,000 per semester.

“This is why some of my classmates took summer jobs,” says Martin.

All campuses under the UP System comprise a small part of SUCs in the country. It’s worthwhile to note
that even before President Duterte signed the free tuition bill into law, other SUCs have been
implementing the policy for quite some time.

A few of these SUCs include the University of Caloocan City and Polytechnic University of the Philippines.

Whether or not free tuition becomes a long-term investment for SUCs, much needs to be done about
the government’s budget, as well as the implementation of educational policies.
Why oppose free tuition?

Why have President Duterte’s own top economic officials reportedly written him to recommend that he
veto a measure recently passed by Congress granting universal free college tuition? Why has the
Foundation for Economic Freedom, with topnotch economists and former Cabinet economic managers
among its prominent members, similarly issued a position paper supporting such a veto? Why does the
country’s top think tank, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), see the measure as
counterproductive?

In a similar vein, why have economists been against granting free irrigation water for our farmers, even
as proponents believe it to be propoor? Are economists such an insensitive lot who care more about
saving taxpayer money than helping the poor?

Surely they can’t be. They must see something objectionable from society’s point of view about granting
“free this” and “free that.” I find it hard to believe that such sentiments could be motivated by personal
gain. I cannot be as confident about politicians, who are too often mostly motivated by the desire to win
votes to stay in power. This need not be a bad thing if it means promoting the greatest good for the
greatest number, the true yardstick for good policy. The problem is, what is popular is not always what is
right. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere pays for anything that appears to be
“free.” Often, the intended beneficiaries themselves end up carrying a burden greater than the expected
direct benefit from what will supposedly be free.

Subsidies can make sense under certain situations. As the PIDS study explains, college education benefits
both the individual and society at large; everyone benefits from having a more highly educated
population. Society loses if gifted and talented students who could help advance knowledge and nation-
building cannot enroll in college because they can’t afford it. But what economists argue is that universal
free tuition is not the right tool to get us there, as it is neither efficient nor effective.

There are at least four arguments for this. One, giving free tuition to all, rather than target deserving
students, benefits rich and poor alike, and with current patterns of enrollment in our state universities
and colleges, those who can actually afford to pay will actually benefit more. It would thus be a waste of
government funds otherwise usable for other forms of assistance to those truly in need. Two, all
taxpayers will ultimately pay for the tuition subsidy, whether or not they have family members who are
attending college or plan to do so. This defies the sound “user pays” principle that promotes efficiency
inasmuch as user fees push people to make best use of limited resources and avoid waste. Students who
pay will take their studies more seriously and diligently than those getting a “free ride,” and free tuition
could attract students without the motivation and ability for college education.

Three, sound economics prescribes that education subsidies be handed not to the schools, but rather, to
target students, who can then “shop” for the best school in which to study. In turn, competition for
students will push colleges to strive for quality and efficiency. Giving the subsidy to state schools does
nothing to improve the quality of our tertiary education, and could only perpetuate mediocrity. Four,
tuition is only part of the total cost of obtaining college education. As PIDS notes, living expenses and
study materials make up the greater part of college costs, and where the poor cannot afford these,
providing just free tuition will only help the better-off students, but still keep poor ones out of college. It
could, in short, inadvertently be antipoor.
The right solution is in fact already in place, in the new Unified Student Financial Assistance System for
Tertiary Education or UniFAST (Republic Act No. 10687), giving targeted and fully financed college and
tech-voc scholarships and loans to those who truly need it. The government just needs to fund and
implement it fully to make this superior instrument work. It may not “buy” its sponsors as many votes,
but it is the superior solution to a very complex problem.
7 problems with free tuition law implementation, according to Salceda

MANILA, Philippines – Albay 2nd District Representative Joey Salceda slammed the “stupid” and “bad”
implementation of the free tuition law, in a report submitted to Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Salceda is part of the House of Representatives’ 3-man contingent to the joint oversight committee that
had assessed the implementation of Republic Act 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
Education Act.

The congressman is among the principal authors of the law.

“It’s implementation, stupid. No matter how good the law, it fails due to bad implementation,” said
Salceda in his report to Arroyo dated Wednesday, November 21.

“As principal author, sponsor, and advocate of universal access to quality tertiary education, [I think] this
dismal turn of events deprives ordinary Filipinos of a major step to achieving their aspirations and does
not bode well for the contribution of this law to nation-building and national development, particularly if
the flaws in implementation are not remedied decisively and expeditiously,” he added.

Duterte signed RA 10931 in August 2017, while its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) were
launched in March 2018

The law covers the tuition and fees of students enrolled in 112 state universities and colleges (SUCs), 87
accredited local universities and colleges (LUCs), and all technical-vocation education and training (TVET)
programs registered under the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda).

Salceda discussed 7 primary concerns about the implementation of the free tuition law

Only 9 schools are given funding: Salceda said that as of November 9, only 9 out of 199 public higher
education institutions (HEIs) –112 SUCs and 87 LUCs – have been given funds to implement the free
tuition law during the first semester, while none has been paid for the second semester.

“This seriously undermines the financial capacity of public tertiary institutions in pursuing and
implementing their programs and projects in infrastructure, innovations…. Moreso, such fiscal instability
presents clear and present danger for these institutions to collecting and configuring student fees in gray
areas, thus defeating the overarching intent of the law for free tuition and other school fees,” said
Salceda.

UniFAST retains control of free higher education budget: Salceda also said it is “difficult to understand”
why the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST) still has control
over the free higher education budget. He said the free tuition law states that after the first year of
implementation, the said budget should already go directly to SUCs.

Salceda argued continuing this billing system in 2019 is “undesirable” as it “removes the certainty of a
holistic budget envelop” that SUCs can use, delays payments due to the back and forth of billing
documents, and requires “significant” investments just to manage the billing process.

No policy issued yet on the Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES): Salceda said this has led to scenario where
only 400,000 out of around 1 million applicants will be given the subsidies.
“This is an unforced error, largely self-inflicted recipe for dissatisfaction, automatically creating a pool of
600,000 thwarted ambitions,” said Salceda.

Problematic disbursement for P7-billion fund for TVET programs: Salceda said that the entire P7 billion
allocated for TVET programs was disbursed to Tesda. But there are “rampant” reports that TVET
institutions have been “compelled” to collect fees that were later found to be eligible for
reimbursement.

Salceda said this is “posing restraint on the ability of students to avail of tech-voc education." He added
that Tesda also “misunderstood” the purpose of the P7-billion fund “by just conveniently adding
allowance to expedite utilization.”

National Student Loan Program (NSLP) not implemented at all: Salceda said the non-implementation of
the loan program has led to students to stop their schooling or makes it difficult for them to manage
their educational fees with their daily expenses.

Salceda also said that the regular source of funding for the NSLP – money that should be earmarked
under the funds of the Development Bank of the Philippines – has been removed

He said only a “significantly smaller” part of the P1 billion supposedly allocated for the NSLP has been
set aside for the loan program. But Salceda did not disclose the exact figure.

Loss of benefits under the Student Financial Assistance Programs (StuFAPs): According to Salceda, the
UniFAST failed to properly consult with stakeholders, leading to a loss of benefits among StuFAPs
beneficaries.

“This neglect is a direct result of the wrong prioritization on the billing system and numerous
insignificant conferences, summits, and workshops,” said Salceda.

Opposition to the Return Service System: Salceda said House members had long opposed the provision
in the free tuition law’s IRR requiring schools to come up with "return service" programs for students
who benefit from free tuition and other fees as a way of "giving back" to the country for funding their
education.

Salceda said many students have already opted out of availing of the free tuition law's benefits because
of the return service clause.
Countries you can study abroad in for free (or near enough) in 2018

If you’re set on studying abroad, you probably know it tends to come hand in hand with a huge cost…
But it doesn’t have to be that way. There are some countries where international students don’t have
their fees hiked thousands of dollars simply because they are from outside the country; in fact, there are
some countries where they study for free.

Sounds too good to be true, right? Well, while you won’t be getting a totally free ride (you’ll most likely
still have to pay for your flights, visa, health insurance and living costs while you’re there), you could get
your tuition costs for free… and you don’t even have to do anything!

No fancy scholarship, no nasty catches, just you, free (or pretty darn cheap) tuition, and a new adventure
furthering your education abroad.

So, where are these mystical lands where the universities come cheap and the good times come easy?
Turns out, most of them are in Europe. So pack your bags and head to one of these European
destinations for your studies…

Germany

Aw, good ol’ Germany, offering free tuition to both domestic and international students on Bachelor’s
and consecutive Master’s degree programs since 2014.

Some federal states in Germany charge a small semester ‘contribution’ or administrative fee of around
€50 (US$62) per term but other than that you’re free to spend your cash how you wish.

The state of Baden-Württemberg in south-west Germany is the only state that charges fees but these are
minimal, at a maximum cost of €1,500 (US$1,850) per semester – a pittance compared with the US, UK
and other popular study abroad destinations. Baden-Württemberg reintroduced tuition fees for students
outside the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) at the beginning of this academic
year in autumn 2017.

Master’s studies tend to come with tuition costs but these are also minimal compared with other
countries – and PhD students are only charged tuition after their first 6 months of studying. However,
they are required to make a small payment of around €150-€200 per semester, although the majority of
PhD students are working on paid research projects or are on a scholarship anyway.

There are plenty of courses offered in English so if you’re not too familiar with Deutsch, don’t assume
studying in Germany is off limits to you.

Norway

No Norwegian state university charges tuition to any student from near or far, at all levels of study – for
almost all programmes. However, there is often a small semester fee of NOK300 (US$38) to NOK600
(US$77).
Some state universities may charge tuition for a select few specialised programmes, usually at the
Master’s level. Bear in mind private institutions tend to have tuition fees for all courses but they are
often significantly lower than most other countries.

The downside? You’re likely to need to learn Norwegian for undergraduate programs but rejoice as it is
much more common for Master’s and PhD programs to be taught in English.

Also bear in mind Norway can be a little pricy to live in, but with all the money you’ll be saving on tuition
costs, that’s less likely to sting quite so bad.

France

Free, free, free for all. France may not be as renowned as Germany for its higher education but it is
equally as impressive. With a large number of programmes at all levels of study offered in English, France
is becoming an increasingly popular study destination.

Other than a small registration fee, the majority of public universities in the country will charge you
nothing.

Austria

While tuition isn’t totally free for students outside the EU and EEA, public universities only charge
around €360 (US$445) to €725 (US$895) per semester. And if you are a citizen of a less developed
country, you might not have to pay anything at all. You’re also in luck if you are coming to Austria from
inside the EU or EEA as you are treated the same as domestic students (free tuition!)

You will have to pay around €20 (US$25) for your student union membership but that’s not so bad when
your tuition is coming at such a reasonable price.

Sweden

While international students do have to pay tuition fees in Sweden for Bachelor’s and Master’s
programmes if they are from outside the EU, EEA or Nordic countries or Switzerland, there are an
abundance of full and partial-paid scholarships available specifically for this group.

When it comes to PhD level, international students are typically paid for the work they do, either by the
university itself or through external funding bodies. So good news for PhD students – no fees and you’ll
actually be making money.

You could also consider Greece, Hungary or Poland, which do charge tuition fees but at a low cost of
around €1,500 (US$1,850) per year in Greece and Hungary, and €2,000 (US$2,470) in Poland.

Argentina
Europe not for you? Head to South America instead. Argentinians scoop up free tuition but international
students have to pay a small fee to enroll themselves in Argentina’s public universities.

However, private institutions can charge US$5,000 or more a year in tuition fees so, as with the majority
of countries, if you want to minimise costs, stick to public universities.

You could also consider Taiwan, a small island just off the coast of China, if you aren’t too keen on South
America’s Argentina. Taiwan does charge tuition fees but offers some of the most affordable higher
education programmes in the world.

Free online study

Not sure you fancy any of the destinations above but still determined to get an international qualification
(and get it for as cheap as possible)? You could consider online study.

Numerous universities now offer a number of degrees and courses online for absolutely nothing.

You could look at University of the People which is a non-profit organisation which works to increase
global accessibility to higher education and offers accredited Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees in
Business Administration, Health Science and Computer Science, and an MBA programme.

Universities all over the world, including three of the United States’ most prestigious universities –
Harvard, MIT, and UC Berkeley – also offer free courses through edX, an online learning platform working
with institutions all over the globe.
Tuition-Free Universities in Finland, Norway and Germany in 2019

Nordic countries in Europe are at the top of many foreign students’ study abroad wish lists, due to their
free-tuition policies, their proven stellar education and the importance universities place on research
and practical training. Top study abroad locations, like Finland, Germany, and Norway welcome
thousands of international students each year.

With the mindset of educational transparency and providing each student free access to higher
education, these three countries from Northern Europe are home to some of the best universities
worldwide, that manage to always be present in the most reputed rankings.

That's why it's so important to distinguish the best tuition-free universities in Finland, Germany and
Norway, and help you decide if they are the right choice for your international study adventure. Don't
forget to also check out living costs in Germany, Norway and Finland, to get an overall feel on how you
need to prepare financially.

Find Masters in Germany, Norway, and Finland

1. Tuition fees in Finland

Who doesn't pay tuition fees in Finland?

Public universities in Finland are divided into universities and universities of Applied Sciences, and they
are all tuition-free for students coming from EU/EEA countries. However, non-EU/EEA students enrolling
in English-taught degrees will need to pay tuition fees.

The minimum tuition set by the Finnish government is around 1,500 EUR/year for Bachelor and Master
programmes, but most programmes charge a tuition above this amount.

Tuition fees in public Finnish universities range from 10,000 to 25,000 EUR/year, with the University of
Helsinki as the most expensive university. Private universities usually charge higher fees.

All international students who plan to pursue a degree taught in Finnish or Swedish are still not charged
any tuition. Make sure you also take into account the costs of studying in Finland. The average costs are
at least 800 - 1300 EUR/month. Of course, prices can be higher in Helsinki

Tuition-free universities in Finland for EU/EEA students:

• University of Vaasa
• University of Helsinki
• Tampere University
• University of Jyvaskyla
• Lappeenranta University of Technology

Examples of subjects to study in Finland

Some of the most popular disciplines you can study in Finland are:

• Finance;
• Business Administration;
• STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).
To enroll in a Master’s degree in Finland, you will need to have completed your Bachelor studies in the
same field or closely related to the one you plan to apply to. Entry requirements for a Master’s
programme in a university of Applied Sciences also require at least three years of work experience.

2. Tuition fees in Germany

Who doesn't pay tuition fees in Germany?

For both undergraduate and graduate degrees, you can study for free in public German universities. This
is generally true for international students worldwide, inside or outside the EU/EEA zone.

The only fees required are called “administrative fees”, that cost around 100 - 200 EUR/year, and they
are dedicated to student services, covering costs for bus tickets to the university, student cafeterias, and
more.

However, according to new education policies, starting from Autumn 2017, non-EU/EEA students who
want to study in a university in the Baden-Würrtemberg region will have to pay tuition fees.

Private universities in Germany charge tuition fees and these are between 2,000 and 20,000 EUR/year.

Living costs in Germany are around 750 - 1100 EUR/month but can be higher in larger cities like Frankfurt
or Munchen.

Universities that offer some tuition-free Masters in Germany for EU/EEA students:

• Friedrich Schiller University Jena;

Examples of subjects to study in Germany

Within around 450 public universities in Germany, you can apply to numerous study fields available in
English and German, as well. Popular disciplines in Germany include:

• Mechanical Engineering;
• Computer Science;
• Economics;
• Medicine.

Similarly to Finnish universities, prospective Master students are eligible for admission only if their prior
studies are in the same field as the one for the Master course they plan to enrol in.

Apply now to a university in Germany

You can now apply with Studyportals to our partner universities in Germany. You can apply whenever
you want, and it won't cost you anything.
Check the available Masters and see which of the degrees match your background and interests. Start
the application process by filling in your student profile. You will soon get contacted by one of our
application counsellors who will assist you further. We’ll then apply on your behalf. Find out more about
applying to a Master's degree with Studyportals.

3. Tuition fees in Norway

Who doesn't pay tuition fees in Norway?

Norway has 40 public higher education institutions that include universities, colleges and other
institutions specialised in a certain field. Just like Germany, Norwegian universities are tuition-free for all
international students, whether they come from the EU/EEA countries or not.

Students will just have to pay a semester fee for the student union, that’s between 32 and 65 EUR. The
student union fee covers health and counselling services, sports and cultural activities, all held on
campus.

In private universities, both national and international students will have to pay tuition fees. Compared
to other European countries, private universities in Norway are cheaper, as they have fees between
7,000 and 10,000 EUR/year.

Monthly living costs in Norway add up to 1000 - 1,800 EUR/month, but in Oslo it can go as high as 2,000
EUR/month.

Tuition-free universities in Norway for EU/EEA students

• University of Bergen;
• NHH Norwegian School of Business;
• Nord University;
• UIT The Arctic University of Norway;
• Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences.

Examples of subjects to study in Norway

Many international students that decide to study abroad in Norway pursue degrees in:

• Business Administration;
• Finance;
• Social Sciences;
• Design.
Pros and Cons Of Free College Tuition

One of the center-stage issues of the 2016 presidential political season concerned the affordability of
college education. Former President Obama tried to move forward on making community colleges free
to eligible students, although we haven’t seen too much traction from that as of yet. Bernie Sanders’
platform upped that to making all public colleges tuition-free, and Hilary Clinton proposed making it
affordable to those that need the help. As with any political or financial issue, there are pros and cons to
it.

PRO: More Lower-Income Students Might Reach Graduation if There’s Tuition-Free College

Some students drop out because they do not have the ability to pay for tuition all four years. Making
college tuition free would eliminate this reason for not graduating. This would also serve to improve
college’s graduation rates, as fewer students would feel the need to drop to part-time status or take a
break from education for financial reasons.

CON: The Money Has to Come From Somewhere

If America were to move to a tuition free college policy, where would the money come from? The short
and simple answer is taxes. Who gets taxed seems to vary based on who is talking, but it seems certain
that the upper echelons of American society will see increased taxes if this passes. There is a likelihood
that it will increase the upper middle-class as well. Or maybe it will all come from Wall Street speculation
taxes. The point is, all we know is that someone will pay these dues through taxes, and the uncertainty of
who will carry the burden is not making many Americans comfortable.

PRO: Student Debt Will No Longer Crush the Younger Generations

If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are
considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free
college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight
of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They
might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the
economy.

CON: Younger Generations Won’t Know How to Handle Finances

College is full of learning experiences, one of which is learning how creating a budget to save money.
College loans are often the first major financial dealing that people work with. Paying them off in a
timely manner proves you know how to budget your money, skills people use again and again when
buying cars or houses. Without having to pay for school, that experience won’t exist, which might be
trouble down the road for buying that house or car.

PRO: Students Might Have More Freedom to Choose a Major They Enjoy

Whether it is the influence of parents or knowing you need to pay loans back as quickly as possible,
current students are often guided toward “practical” majors that have a more lucrative post-graduation
income. If shelling out thousands upon thousands of dollars is no longer a factor, parents and students
might feel more relaxed about studying for majors that don’t necessarily have a large paycheck
associated with them. Interest and enjoyment from a field of study goes a long way in helping students
stick with it and avoid burning out.

CON: College Might Not Seem As Important

If higher education at public schools becomes free, it might appear to devalue a college degree. It might
also lead to students cutting more classes or not trying because they don’t have to “get their money’s
worth” when they aren’t paying for anything. The current price of college drives students to complete
their schooling as quickly as possible so as to reduce debt. Without that financial drive, we might see
more laziness and lackadaisical behavior from our students.

PRO: More People Would Go to College

By negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able
to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better
critical thinking skills. This could lead to more innovation in all areas of society.

CON: More People Would Go to College

As enrollment at public schools increases, so do the fees. Either more money would have to be given to
the schools, or they would have to create waitlists. This means that the taxes for education-related
purposes might go up, or funding for something else (such as military expenditures) might be diverted to
pay the influx of fees. In addition to this, the large amount of graduates might oversaturate some areas
of the workforce, leaving even more people with degrees working jobs that they are overqualified for.

One Last Thought: What About Private Institutions?

If all public colleges and universities are made tuition free, we could see the decline of private vs. public
schools. Since these schools rely on tuition, endowments, and alumni donations for a good portion of
their funding, competing with free public schools could force many private schools to close. This would
reduce the amounts of job opportunities for professors and could result in the death of many fantastic
programs.

As of right now, tuition is still very much a reality many college-seekers have to face. Luckily College
Raptor can help you discover personalized net price estimates as well as potential financial aid packages
from colleges around the country!
Making college more affordable

For instance, states now rely more heavily on tuition to finance their public colleges and universities than
on government funding.

Private colleges and universities are also struggling to make ends meet, steering a record amount of
tuition revenue toward grant aid for economically needy students.

Meanwhile, the number of student borrowers who defaulted on their student loans edged up last year
as did the price of higher education itself.

So we asked our panel of presidents – from Xavier University of Louisiana, Colorado College and Penn
State: Given this reality, what are the top two or three things that you believe need to happen to make
college more affordable – particularly for low-income students, students of color and the working class?

More than one funder has to step up

Jill Tiefenthaler, President of Colorado College

A college education has many funders. Federal and state governments provide support, as do the
institutions of higher education themselves. And then, of course, there is the money paid by the
students’ families. Improving access will require additional support from one or more of these sources.

To start at the local level, an increase in state funding would make college more affordable. After all over
70 percent of all undergraduates attend public institutions, and historically, states have been the primary
source of funding for both two- and four-year public institutions.

However, states have reduced their support in recent years and, as a result, the burden has fallen on
students and their families. The “free college” plans in New York and a few other states are examples of
commitments to improve access. However, given the pressure on budgets resulting from underfunded
pensions, Medicaid and K-12, I am not optimistic that students can count on increased support from
states. In addition, recent tax changes that limit federal deductions for state taxes will increase pressure
to keep state income and property tax rates down, further hindering state funding.

Additional support from the federal government, by increasing the Pell Grant program, could make a big
difference. The maximum Pell Grant for the 2018-19 academic year is $6,095. This is sufficient to cover
the annual tuition at most community colleges. For example, the average tuition at the community
college in my city is $4,651. However, only students with family incomes of less than $60,000 qualify and
the amount of the grant declines significantly as family income increases. Increasing the income cut-off
and providing the full $6,095 to all who qualify would make college much more accessible for low- and
middle-income students.

Private nonprofit colleges and universities educate about 20 percent of all undergraduates. The “sticker
price” at these institutions gives the impression that they are not accessible to low- and middle-income
students. However, privates provide significant institutional aid.

The major source of this support is philanthropy, made up of earnings on endowments and annual gifts.
Private institutions with smaller endowments also provide aid from tuition revenue by using the revenue
from some students to provide financial aid to other students. However, increasing institutional aid by
using tuition revenue is not sustainable. Therefore, the key to making private institutions more
affordable is increasing endowments through philanthropy. Although it is true that the new “endowment
tax” on large endowments and any changes to the tax deduction for charitable giving reduce the funds
available for financial aid. In addition, private institutions could reduce “merit aid” – aid that is awarded
on the basis of academic, athletic or artistic merit – and reallocate those funds to need-based financial
aid.

Of course, some may argue that rather than finding new sources of revenue, colleges could simply cut
their costs and reduce tuition. This would make college more affordable but it would also reduce the
quality of the education provided.

Higher education is a very competitive market, and students and their families demand quality – as they
should. We must do our best to educate students in a global environment, keeping pace with
technological innovations, teaching critical thinking, fostering comfort with ambiguity, and graduating
nimble leaders who will thrive in a rapidly changing era.

What needs discussing is the total cost of a degree

Eric Barron, President of Pennsylvania State University

The high level of tuition in U.S. universities can be blamed on many factors. On top of shrinking state
appropriations there are more technology-intensive degrees in every field; an aging campus
infrastructure; a sharp increase in compliance and regulations reporting; and soaring health care costs.

University administrators should be deeply concerned that our price is limiting access to an education
that enables upward mobility. Interestingly, the conversation on access and affordability seems to be
fixated on controlling, first and foremost, the increase in tuition. We need to broaden the framing of this
discussion considerably.

The first step is to change the conversation to one of the total cost of a degree. The simple fact is that
timely completion of a degree is a critical mechanism to control total cost. A tuition increase pales in
comparison to going to school for another year.

The second step is to recognize that the only thing worse than going five and six years in order to
graduate, is to accumulate debt and drop out before graduation.

Universities like Penn State are justifiably proud of their high graduation rates. However, when you dig
deeper, you discover that first-generation, need-based students have a dramatically lower graduation
rate than most of their peers. At Penn State, they graduate 22 percentage points below the average. We
can point to many factors that cause [this graduation gap], but it’s clearly not due to lack of ambition.

Sixty-two percent of these students work an average of 22 hours a week, usually at minimum wage jobs,
so they can’t take a full credit load. It is impossible to graduate in four years. They drop classes more
frequently than other students and tend to have lower grades because of their work load. Sadly, they
also don’t have time to participate in advantageous activities, such as research or internships. They get
discouraged. They either give up or end up attending a fifth or sixth year at a significant cost. If they
graduate, they have paid more and gotten less from the experience than other students.

Our universities need a laser-like focus on mitigating all factors that slow the time to the completion of a
degree. Every student should have access to financial literacy advisers and tools that help students take
the most cost-efficient way to achieve a degree. We need “completion” programs to be a priority and not
allow students to slip away because of finances or other hardships.

We can serve our mission of upward mobility and save students millions in costs and debt if we help
every student, regardless of financial capability, to graduate, and graduate on time.

The importance of pre-collegiate preparation

Reynold Verret, President of Xavier University of Louisiana

By 2020, nearly two-thirds of jobs will require postsecondary education. Yet, fewer than 45 percent of
adult Americans currently have earned an associate degree or higher, as reported in national data.

The cost of higher education and its impact on access and opportunity is a major barrier to more
students earning degrees. Talent and ability are not relegated to those of higher means. Our present
challenge is to assure education and opportunity for students from all backgrounds. Sadly, we as a nation
have been comfortable with very good schools for the haves and less than good ones for the have-nots.

On the federal level, Pell awards should be increased and eligibility expanded for students with the
greatest need. Pell awards should also be allowed to continue to apply during the summer terms so that
students persist and graduate on time.

On average, an American student takes 5.1 years to earn the bachelor’s degree. Time to degree
completion has increased over the past decades due to a number of factors, such as the need to work
and inadequate pre-collegiate schooling. Each extra year increases the cost of the bachelor’s degree by
25 percent. The time it takes to earn a bachelor’s degree could be reduced if students didn’t have to take
courses to acquire math and language skills that are normally mastered in high school.

Bold steps are needed. This includes building an equitable K-12 educational pipeline that provides better
college readiness for all of America’s students. Quality K-12 requires great teachers who remain in the
profession and teach in schools with the greatest need. The teaching profession must be elevated and
the nation’s best students should be encouraged to become teachers. For their service, school loans
should be forgiven or repaid. Colleges and universities should also create postsecondary certificates and
credentials meeting the needs of students entering careers that do not require college degrees.

The HBCU where I serve as president, Xavier University of Louisiana, has been leading the nation in
educating African-Americans who go on to achieve medical degrees. The school also excels in preparing
students who achieve Ph.D.s in the STEM fields. A 2017 study has ranked the university 6th in the nation
for social mobility, whereby students from the lower 40 percent of the U.S. income distribution enter the
upper 40 percent. Our success and the success of other HBCUs should dispel any notion that talent is
associated with socioeconomic status.

The education of our citizens is not only an individual but a collective benefit: America thrives if it
develops all of its talent.
Free college explained in a global context

New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo recently pledged to make undergraduate education at the the
City University of New York (CUNY) and the State University of New York (SUNY) system free for families
making less than US$120,000 annually.

If this happens, it wouldn’t be the first time that undergraduate education has been free in New York.
For most of its history, up until the 1970s when New York City was in dire financial straits and the state
had to step in to bail out the City University of New York, CUNY was free to many of the city’s residents.

And this is not just the case in New York. College has been tuition-free in other states as well. In 2014,
Tennessee governor Bill Haslam promised to provide free community college to all residents in his state.
He has delivered on the promise, making Tennessee a model state in this area.

In a country where student debt and the rising cost of the college degree grab national headlines on a
weekly basis, efforts to make college “free” can also get attention. In truth, however, a large part of
tuition costs are already subsidized in the U.S. through a combination of grants, tax breaks and loans.
What causes waves is the ever-increasing sticker price, rather than what students actually pay.

My interest, as a scholar of global education policy, is understanding how college costs in the U.S.
compare to those of the rest of the world. The fact is that nowhere is college truly free. The critical
difference is whether the bulk of the costs are born by the student or by the government.

So, what are some of the changes taking place globally as countries try to manage college costs?

Who pays?

Some countries follow a model similar to the U.S. by charging high tuition rates but then defraying the
costs for certain students with grants, loans or tax incentives.

As to which country charges students the most, that depends on how one does the calculations.

Let’s look at the “2015 Education at a Glance” report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). The report shows that public colleges in England charged the highest fees,
when factoring in public aid, to domestic students (approximately ($9,000), followed by the U.S.
($8,200), Japan ($5,100), South Korea ($4,700) and Canada ($4,700).

But the numbers alone do not tell the full story.

A simple comparison between the total cost of tuition fees and the median self-reported income of the
country reveals a very different picture: Hungary becomes the most expensive country, with 92 percent
of median income going toward the cost of education, followed closely by Romania and Estonia. The U.S.
ranks sixth on this listing. (This calculation does not factor in loans and grants.)

Low or no tuition models

Some countries take a very different approach, charging no or low tuition fees. According to the
International Higher Education Finance, a project sponsored by the Rockefeller Institute of Government,
more than 40 countries offer free or nearly free post-secondary education to domestic students. These
include Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Kenya, Morocco, Egypt, Uruguay, Scotland and Turkey.

A variety of approaches are used to fund higher education in these countries, such as imposing high
taxes or making use of their significant natural resources (e.g., oil and natural gas reserves) to provide
the financial resources for extensive social investment.

In other places, such as Germany, an egalitarian philosophy and deeply held beliefs about the value of a
public education preclude the government from shifting costs to the students. In Germany, for example,
there was a short-lived effort from 2005-2014 to charge minimal tuition, which was rolled back after a
major public outcry. Germans strongly believe that higher education is a public good to be totally
subsidized the government.

The point being in these countries students pay very little for post-secondary education – a policy shift
going on in the U.S.

The UK: A divided approach

There have been attempts in other countries to shift some of the cost of higher education to students.

Following the great recession in 2012, England, for example, tripled tuition in one year to approximately
$11,000 (9000 pounds). The intent was to offset steep declines in government funding. Despite a
significant outcry by students and other critics, these high tuition costs have stayed.

In fact, England recently surpassed the U.S. in terms of having the highest tuition fees of the 34 countries
in the industrialized world. While the sticker price for many U.S. institutions is higher, financial aid helps
bring down the total cost.

However, England’s “sister country” Scotland continues to provide more substantial subsidies for higher
education, providing domestic students with free access to college while at the same time charging
significant fees to students from elsewhere in the U.K.

What about international students?

The free tuition debate typically is domestically focused, but it can spill over into affecting international
students. There are now more than one million international students in the US – comprising about 5.2
percent of the total number of college students.

The question now facing policymakers globally is whether to extend the concept of free college to
international students or to let them be a source of additional revenues to offset costs of domestic
students.

The no-tuition and low-cost tuition models have emerged as competitive advantages for attracting
international students in many countries.

For example, a growing number of U.S. students are pursuing their degree outside of the U.S. in
countries such as Germany and Scotland as they look for ways to escape the rising cost of college at
home. Even though some U.S. students can receive subsidies to offset their education, those in the
middle- and upper-income levels tend to receive minimal support and are also most likely to see
studying abroad as a possibility.

New Zealand saw the number of international students quadruple from 2005 to 2014, soon after it made
the decision to subsidize international doctoral students at the same level as domestic students.

In contrast, nations that have significantly increased their tuition costs for international students have
found mixed results.

Denmark, for example, saw attendance from outside the EU drop by 20 percent in one year, after it
introduced tuition fees for international students in 2006. Sweden too saw a massive drop in
international students after it introduced fees in 2011-12 – the number of international students
plummeted by 80 percent. (Some modest recovery has happened in recent years.)

Implications for U.S.policy

The issue in the U.S. is that it already has the largest share of the international student market –
approximately 15 percent – and a steady stream of international students looking to study in the U.S.

In fact, state universities often seek to make up resource declines by increasing the number of full-fee
paying international students. A recent report from the National Bureau of Economic Research found
that a 10 percent reduction in state funding resulted in an 12 percent increase in the number of
international undergraduate students at public research universities.

A number of questions therefore arise when considering the implications for the “free college” policies
in the U.S.: Could free college policies reverse the trend of more U.S. students studying outside of the
U.S. to escape high fees? Could improve state funding in support of making college more financially
accessible to domestic students stop colleges from actively seeking international students? Or, could it
push these students into the private sector which will likely have more room as students take advantage
of free public education?

There are far too many variables still in play to answer any of these questions. But while the push for
“free college” in the U.S. may be a sexy political move, we need to think through intended and
unintended consequences.
REFERENCES:

ABS-CBN. (2017.) Economic Think Tank Says Free Tuition is Anti-poor. Retrieved from:
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/02/06/17/economic-think-tank-says-free-tuition-is-anti-poor
Andersen, E. (2019.) Pros and Cons Of Free College Tuition. Retrieved from:
https://www.collegeraptor.com/find-colleges/articles/affordability-college-cost/pros-cons-tuition-
free-college/?
fbclid=IwAR191zdLjWcBONhLqnlTvxuZGlf6LRydsl3uZApB5HTMwCbdvklQV_zXlyg
Cepeda, M. (2018.) 7 problems with free tuition law implementation, according to Salceda.
Retrieved from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/217335-free-tuition-law-implementation-
problems-says-salceda
Cepeda, M. (2018.) 8 Things to Know about the Free Tuition Law IRR. Retrieved from:
https://www.rappler.com/nation/198314-things-to-know-free-tuition-law-irr
Cepeda, M. (2018.) CHED launches free tuition law IRR. Retrieved from:
https://www.rappler.com/nation/198971-ched-free-tuition-law-irr-launch
Commission on Higher Education. CHED DBM release guidelines free tuition SUCs. Retrieved
from: https://ched.gov.ph/ched-dbm-release-guidelines-free-tuition-sucs/
Contreras, A. (2017.) The risks of free public tertiary education and some ideas to fix it.
Retrieved from: https://www.manilatimes.net/risks-free-public-tertiary-education-ideas-
fix/343091/
Geronimo, J. (2017.) Economic experts 'disappointed' after Duterte OKs free tuition in SUCs.
Retrieved from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/177681-economic-experts-disappointed-duterte-
free-tuition-law
Habito, C. (2017.) Why oppose free tuition? Retrieved from:
https://opinion.inquirer.net/106080/oppose-free-tuition?
utm_expid=.XqNwTug2W6nwDVUSgFJXed.1
Masters Portal. (2018.) Tuition-Free Universities in Finland, Norway and Germany in 2019.
Retrieved from: https://www.mastersportal.com/articles/1042/tuition-free-universities-in-finland-
norway-and-germany-in-2019.html?
fbclid=IwAR3GUWuHpbLwhaH86gMpa344GWxKUBUtMFL0VSbUbwbwDlD2vBK1BeoEt
W8
PhilStar. (2018.) CHED issues implementing rules and regulations on free tuition law. Retrieved
from: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/03/27/1800690/ched-issues-implementing-rules-
and-regulations-free-tuition-law
Republic Act No 10931. Retrieved from:
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10931_2017.html
Study International. (2018.) Countries you can study abroad in for free (or near enough) in
2018. Retrieved from: https://www.studyinternational.com/news/amp/countries-study-abroad-
free-near-enough-2018/?
fbclid=IwAR2Sw3RuhiRXOgDfCkWe1eebd6UJMy_HvKbBaVaXDqAVjKx34mJgVJ3IFm0
The Conversation. (2017.) Free College Explained in a Global Context. Retrieved from:
https://theconversation.com/free-college-explained-in-a-global-context-70900?
fbclid=IwAR0oq8-k4mOQKqeZb7RzAiHQz4pXzoiHgsVA-KanghxjMyuN0fVPDENRoq0
The Conversation.(2018.) Making college more affordable. Retrieved from:
https://theconversation.com/making-college-more-affordable-98284?
fbclid=IwAR38oMqho3y6Qmjqwc_PSE6PTGb9BhZsEBOV9MZ2QsKW3Z0fCEa00ra-9yo
Yang, A. (2017.) Free tuition: Will it really benefit poor students? Retrieved from:
https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/270587/free-tuition-will-really-benefit-poor-students/