The summer before I began my first year, I attended an academic orientation session. Near the end, the academic advisor offered a surprising suggestion for academic success: don’t take five courses during your first year.
In retrospect, the advice came at an interesting time. The Faculty of Arts & Science had just implemented the flat fee structure.
The Faculty of Arts & Science touted flat fees as beneficial for students, arguing that we would be encouraged to graduate sooner, saving us money. At the same time, the Faculty projected millions of dollars in additional revenue.
The first cohort of students paying flat fees in the Faculty of Arts & Science paid a significant increase in tuition fees for courses they did not take. Forty-three per cent of first-year students enrolled full-time in less than five courses at the beginning of 2009. By the end of the year, this proportion had shifted to 59 per cent of full-time first-year students in the Faculty.
The vast majority of this cohort of students did not save money, with the exception of approximately two percent of students that were enrolled in more than five courses at the end of 2009 — about the same proportion of students that dropped out by the end of the year.
It was disconcerting to read Jeffrey Schulman’s recent piece in The Varsity (“In defense of flat fees,” January 6, 2014), in which the significant proportion of students taking less than five courses were referred to as ‘slackers’. He also suggested that students could graduate sooner and save money through flat fees.
Students should recognize that the flat fee structure was not created to help students graduate faster or to save us money. It is no coincidence that flat fees were announced immediately following the University’s significant loss of endowment funds during the Great Recession. Students should not be exploited financially for the government and the University’s financial mismanagement.
Tuition is expensive, and continues to increase far beyond the rate of inflation. The suggestion that students need more of a financial incentive to leave is patronizing. Our financial burden is palpable.
There are a number of factors that could make it difficult or impossible for some of us to take or pay for five courses.
Some students work part-time or even full-time jobs while studying full-time.
Some are responsible for the care of children, parents, or other family members.
Some have disabilities that prevent them from taking a full course load, which they may or may not disclose to the University.
Some are involved in their community, either on or off campus.
Some simply find that they perform better with a reduced course load.
The flat fee structure disenfranchises marginalized students the most. Many cannot afford to focus as much on their studies or be active community members. We all deserve the opportunity to enjoy the university academic and non-academic experience, regardless of the amount of money in our bank accounts.
I have spoken to thousands of students about flat fees during my time at the students’ union. Almost every student I spoke to opposed flat fees and understood that students need flexibility to design an education that suits their realities. This year, we managed to collect over 6000 petitions from supportive students in just two weeks.
In fact, there has been widespread opposition to the flat fee structure since it was first announced. The UTSU, the Arts and Science Students’ Union (ASSU), the University of Toronto Faculty Association and many other community groups vocally condemned it.
The Flat Fees campaign was hardly ‘radical’ or ‘in conflict with the rest of the University.’ It is our duty to oppose to problematic policies affecting our members. We will continue to work with the university administration to call for more government funding, and continue to fight unfair policies that hurt students.
Yolen Bollo-Kamara is Vice President, Equity of the University of Toronto Students’ Union
