Whether or not paying tuition fee per course?

Recently two members of the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer), Pieter Duisberg (VVD) and Mohammed Mohandis (PvdA) proposed that students pay their tuition fee on the basis of individual course rather than on the basis of academic year. They argue that more and more students want to organize their study in their own way. They cite the examples of students who want to combine a board year with several courses or students who have their own business and want to organize their education around it or those who want to start working earlier with the aim of completing their studies alongside their job.  The stated objective of their plan is to create flexibility so as to encourage more students to look further and to get the best out of their abilities.  However, their plan encountered strong resistance from other parties in the House of Representatives. In this article, I would like to shortly address the arguments in favour and against this plan to provide an objective view to the reader.

Let us begin with the basic argument suggested for implementing this plan.  The proponents of this plan claim that more and more students want to organize their studies according to their own preferences.  However, this claim is not well substantiated. There is only a generic reference made to the changes in the society.  The examples cited include the possibility for the students to study online courses from inspiring professors from other reputed universities such as Harvard.  However, in my opinion, none of this has any direct relation to the manner in which the tuition fee is paid.  It is also not clear to what extent students are limited in their choices because of the yearly payments of the tuition fee.  If a student pursues board year and wishes to study for some extra courses alongside, then that may lead to a maximum of one year of additional tuition fees.  In the end, this is just a small proportion of the total costs of study as the costs of living per year are at least four times as high as the tuition fee.  Additionally, there are scholarships available for students doing a board year.   Finally, it is uncertain that the plan encourages the students to get the best out of themselves. Behavioural economics teaches us that people do not always make wise decisions and that external stimuli may be needed to encourage them in making the right decision so that, ultimately, they are better off.

One of the most convincing arguments against the plan is that it will increase the administrative burden for the universities as the students will be allowed to register and pay on the basis of courses.  However, if the universities can implement this system competently, it can help them in efficient planning of the course lectures.  Under the current system, the real number of participants in a course is often only apparent in the first lecture.  Sometimes, the reserved capacity turns out to be less than required, but often the allocated room is too big and the number of participants too small.  Thus, in effect, the pay by course system will be advantageous for the universities as they can plan their resources efficiently on the basis of the number of students who have confirmed their attendance by paying for a given course.  However, it will be disadvantageous for the students as the students will be required to decide well in advance which courses s/he wants to pursue.  Currently, the students have the flexibility to choose the elective courses after the first week of the start of the semester.

Also, following an extra elective will be more expensive for the students.  When implementing the tuition fee per course, thought must be put into the number of examination resits included in the price. It seems reasonable to limit this to one resit in the same academic year. This would mean that if the student is unable to pass even in the resit examination, s/he will have to pay the tuition fee for that course again. However, this could prove to be a great incentive for the students to pass the course in the same academic year.

Sometimes the proposal for the implementation of tuition fee per course is associated with the idea that students can fully create their own curriculum. Such a “cafeteria-model” would, however, be a really bad idea. An education is more than a random combination of courses, and a diploma should stand for a well-defined combination of knowledge and skills.

Therefore, let us limit the discussion about the effects of implementation of the tuition fee for each course while sticking to the existing curricula. This will mean that the financial effects for the educational institutions, taking into account the extra administrative costs for implementing the new system, will be limited. However, the new system will make the costs and revenues for each course clearly visible. Some fear that this will reinforce the “return-thinking” of the university education and therefore, will lead to a discussion about the continuity of courses that are favoured only by a small number of students. I am not really afraid about that. I believe that this discussion will be held anyway – with or without the introduction of tuition fee on the basis of course. A good university director is already aware of the costs of a course with a relatively low number of participants. However, a good university director does not base the decision on the continuation of a course on financial considerations only, but also looks at the function of the course within a curriculum and its effect on the attractiveness of an academic programme.

Thus, we can conclude that the arguments in favour of implementing a system of charging tuition fee on the basis of course are not that strong and that it is not clear that the advantages compensate the disadvantages. Therefore, it seems unwise to implement this directly. It, would, however, be good if this proposal encourages universities to think about how to respond to the social trend that demands more flexibility and customization. If we associate this trend with the fast developments in the field of information and communication technology, which have enabled MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and several other new forms of delivering education, and leads to a very different set of requirements to university graduates, this implies a huge challenge for universities. Let us therefore hope that this proposal will act as a stimulant for educational innovations in the Netherlands.