Introduction
If we review existing literature on the issues of students’ behavior toward paying university fees, settling into university life with different patterns of living and dwelling, and moving about their studies, we find a bulk of literature that talks about critical areas like issues in students debts habits, governmental policies regarding procedures that deal with students fee, debts, and other financial matters. To estimate the weight of the topic of this paper whether government should encourage students with university fee or not, it is important to research through some of the important documents. As such I have reviewed four articles from four different countries: the US, Australia, the UK, and New Zealand. This is for the purpose that our issue becomes broadly investigated and the point we reach at the end of the paper is worth it.
Students Debts Impede Higher Education
In the United States of America, students’ fees, the behavior toward acquiring debt for fees and other facilities of life and their link with the governmental policies have given rise to a number of critical issues. Debates both on the side of the US government and scholars have started in connection with this issue because a growing proportion of students presently are acquiring larger debts in the pursuit to earn their bachelor’s degrees. The increase rate in the amounts of the debts that US university students are acquiring has been reported to be three times as much as the rate of inflation which is a point needing serious consideration. There have been done surveys and reports so as to figure out the situation of students fees and educational life. College Debt and the American Family; Life After Debt: Results of the National Student Loan; Student Loan Debt: Problems and Prospects, and so forth report that there are a number of constraints in loading policies and plans that hinder the ways of the students for moving either toward master’s degree programs or doctoral programs. With the increase in the students’ debt rate, this seems to be quite an odd thing. According to Millett (2003), 70 percent of students being surveyed to examine their higher education behavior did not enroll in any programs, that is, either in professional school programs, master’s degree programs, or doctoral programs. The survey reports pointed out to a number of problems with the policies of fees and debt by the government. Some of the important issues are that the debt and fee encouragement programs in the US impede students from purchasing automobiles, or buying a house, or having kids, as well as these programs do not encourage students to move out of their parents’ houses after they graduate (386).
Thus it is important to reconsider the policies in connection with procedure to lend loans to students who are heading for higher education. The author also points out that the students who, in the research conducted by the author, have $5000 or more debt were less likely to move toward higher education. And the students coming from a family background rather unstable or low-income are also less likely to go for higher education. Thus is it important to know, according to the author, as to who these students are then make solid policies for students’ borrowing programs so that a smooth mainstream channel can be carved out through which willing students can go ahead for higher education which will consequently contribute positively to the growth of the country. This study also contradicts some previously done studies on the grounds of the policies by the government. Thus it is important for the government to review its policies and make plans that encourage students to go for doctoral or higher education programs because in this study it was clearly known that a number of students did not apply for higher education just because they had already been indebted to $5000 from the government. (Millett, p. 386, 2003).
Increasing Costs for Higher Education
When talking about government encouraging students for fee for higher education, it must be pointed out that costs for higher education are increasing in technologically advanced countries like the UK, which gives an idea that it must be happening around the world due to sophisticated requirement of education. Whatever is the case, the students now see it more difficult to go for higher education than it was in the past. The growing costs of higher education in the UK, for instance, have shifted burden to either students’ or their families. It is mainly due to the fact that a number of facilities – such as, fee grants, free tuition fee policy, and other facilities – were abolished by the UK government and were changed into subsidized but debts with size-limits. The results of these factors have affected the way of living of students. It was found that after these procedures, more and more students showed living habits in their parents’ houses; moreover, term-time working habits also increased just because of these policies. What is positive about it is that, according to Metcalf (2005), that it improves that responsibility of students making them more sensible, to which I certainly disagree because it is also discussed in the same study that students were examined for the increased costs and debt policies. And the results showed that “Debt was the most frequently cited reason for regret” which must be taken into account especially for those students who come from low-income family groups (106).
What is very surprising to note in this study is that the author listed countless positive reasons that came into existence just because the higher education costs in the UK are increasing and students are taking more and more loans. To me it is a flaw of the study because it is naturally not possible to find all variables and other factors to be moving positively when the loan rate is increasing among the students. There are two points, only for reference, that contradict the author all positive findings. The results suggest that term-time working habits have shown change and students are less involved in university activities; moreover, they show high regret on increasing debts that they are acquiring from the government. With these two observations it is hard to believe that students’ satisfaction is, as shown in the data analysis of this study, still high with the education procedures. It seems self-contradictory. Moreover, the study conducted in the US also presents negative effects of governmental policies for students’ debts. Thus I would like to suggest that this issue in the context of the UK must be revisited with more students’ samples and from diverse backgrounds because sampling is something that caught my eye for being so limited for such a serious study.
Government and University Fee
When it comes to governmental policies and such matters as university students’ fee and debt policies, it is important to review the Australian government’s policies for higher education and its dealing with the local university. Reviewing a national case study for Australian higher education reveals that this country has a very different system for dealing with universities and higher education issue from those of the United States of America. It is the least diverse system. Australian universities have a more direct relationship with the government with regard to their policies, procedures, and modifications. The main point in all this is that the Australian government is tending to liberalize national universities labeling them as “autonomous” or “free” for what they choose to be appropriate within their specific context. In this way, it is up to the university to form policies and plans for students’ fees, debts plans, and so forth. If we look at this closely, we will find a very remarkable benefit for students here. If a university is situated in a surrounding where the majority of students come from low-income backgrounds, debt plans and fees structures may be modified to their specific needs. However, this is not possible if all the universities in a country are regulated from a centralized source. This way Australian government has encouraged more and more students to go for higher education which is something much needed in the context of the present times because higher education in one important pillar for a government’s future growth (Mahony, 1994).
Students’ Debts and Over-Optimism
With regard to New Zealand, there is similar tendency of increasing costs of higher education and students are being financed by students’ load policies. A study was done to examine whether students are able to pay, as is expected by the New Zealand government, their debts later or not. The study mainly involved qualitative research method and involved psychology students. The discussion of date collection and analysis is very long. However, the findings suggest that students were over-optimistic in acquiring loans for their higher education expenses. One reason for this over-optimism is that students think that they will be able to repay the debts after they complete their studies and move on to highly paid jobs. According to the author, this is something that needs to be viewed carefully by the New Zealand’s government because this over-optimism of students can hamper their future careers as the volume of debts is considerably high (Seaward & Kemp, 2000, p. 17).
Conclusion
From the above research, it becomes clear that in the twenty first century, the costs of higher education are increasing throughout the world (an assumption made from the analysis of four countries in this paper). In this regard, it is important that the governments of different countries should introduce policies, grants, and methods by which students find higher education as something feasible to acquire and not like a burden so they won’t even think of going for it. Moreover, it is important to keep track of the debts that the governments are offering to the students. It is possible that students undergo great difficulty in the future in repaying the debts; I make this observation due to the fact that increasing higher education costs require students to get higher debts, as has been shown in the study conducted in the context of New Zealand. Thus, what is more feasible is that fees discounts, number of grants, scholarships, and other benefits must be improved so that students are encouraged to work hard with challenge and making it possible to make it through higher education without faltering.
Works Cited
Millett, C. M. (2003). “How undergraduate loan debt affects application and enrollment in graduate or first professional school”. Journal of Higher Education 74 (4). 386.
Metcalf, H. (2005). “Paying for university: the impact of increasing costs on student employment, debt and satisfaction”. National Institute Economic Review (191). 106+.
Mahony, D. (1994). “Government and the universities: the ‘New Mutuality’ in Australian higher education – a national case study”. Journal of Higher Education. 65 (2). 123+.
Seaward, H. G. W., & Kemp, K. (2000). “Optimism bias and student debt”. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 29 (1) 17.