Accessibility of Post Secondary Education and Student Living Expenses

Tuitions fees and other educational expenses are certainly a barrier to the accessibility of education; however, another issue not often discussed, but perhaps more obvious, is the general living expenses incurred by students. As with tuition fees, students are forced to take out loans, and hence, be saddled with debt, or forced to seek one or more part-time employment positions. The debt load obviously has tremendous financial implications after graduation and can be negatively correlated with degree completion rates. The need to seek employment and insufficient funds are also the number one reason for the interruption of studies for both university and college students (p. 24, CFS, 2007).

The General Picture

The median expenditure for the academic year, which includes both educational expenses like tuition fees and non-educational expenses like food and shelter, reported by Statistics Canada in 2003, amounted to $11,200 for university students, $9,330 for college students, and $4550 for CEGEP students (p. 12, Barr-Telford et al, 2003). A majority of these expenditures could be attributed to non-educational costs, in other words, living expenses, including rent, food, utilities, etc . The median non-educational expenditure spent during the academic year amounted to $6,200 for university students, $5,480 for college students, and $3,720 for CEGEP students (p. 12, Barr-Telford et al, 2003).

When the circumstances of whether the student lives at home or independently is factored in, the living expenses incurred become even more dramatic. The median annual non-educational expenditure for full-time students living alone was $8,000, compared to $3,800 for students living with family. Students living independently make up a large proportion of the student body with over a third of current full-time students living away from home. This may be down to a number of reasons, such as, the family home being too far away from the university campus, a desire for independence, or domestic problems. As with total median expenditures, there are also variations between university, college, and CEGEP students for living expenses factoring in one’s living circumstances. The median non-educational expenditure for university students living away from home was $8,000, versus $4,500 at home. The expenditures were lower for college and CEGEP students, at $8,100 (away) and $3,700 (home) for college students, and $6,400 (away) and $2,260 (home) for CEGEP students (p. 13, Barr-Telford et al, 2003).

Of course, these numbers are averages from across the country; if we were to focus on certain metropolitan areas, these numbers would certainly be even higher. For example, according to the International Students Centre at the University of Toronto, the total living expenses one can expect for Toronto in 2006 was approximately $14,000. The total includes $7,200 for accommodations, $3,800 for food, $650 for clothing, $1,200 for local transportation, and $1000 for books and instruments. In addition, international students would likely spend over $756 on health insurance (ISC, 2008).

Housing and the Purpose of On-Campus Student Housing (Residences)

As suspected, housing expenses make up the largest proportion of a student’s general living expenses. However, this issue has become contentious ever since students and workers touched on the issue of student housing while demanding an end to the University of Toronto administration’s rent increases – specifically, the 20% residence fee increase at New College. A number of naysayers decried the demands as irrational and self-serving, questioning the relation between residence rental fee increases and access to education. Ironically, the arguments used by these naysayers are themselves fallacious and largely ignore the social context of housing.

One argument was that residence housing is a privilege, not a right, and therefore it is unreasonable to demand that it should be affordable. Assuming this argument is correct, and it isn’t, we must ask the question about privilege for who? If residence living does add to the educational experience, why should it only be open to the upper class? In essence, this assumption suggests that our education system should be two-tiered, with ‘privileges’ provided to the rich, while the poorer students are left behind.

A second argument made was that the question of residence affordability is irrelevant, as the residence experience is but a throw-back to earlier times. Times when living at a residence was seen as quintessential to the university experience, “mostly borrowed from modern-era American coming-of-age films” (Bracken, 2008). Because residences do not add to the educational experience, if not detract from it, we should not be worried about its exclusiveness. This may be true from a white upper-class perspective, but this cannot be said for those who do not share these privileges.

While the contribution of residence living to the university experience is certainly debatable, the assumption that the main reason for choosing to reside at on-campus housing is for ‘the parties’, as one can infer from these arguments, is fairly ignorant of the circumstances faced by most students. For example, students coming from rural areas or from foreign countries may require a period of adjustment. In addition to university course loads, these students are adapting to new cultures and responsibilities. With university staff familiar with the circumstances faced by these students at hand, the adjustment may be less difficult.

More importantly, we must look at the circumstances faced by students looking to obtain housing, specifically, those who are racialized, gendered, or of the working-class. A major problem is housing discrimination. Housing discrimination refers to to “any behaviour, practice, or policy <…> that directly, indirectly, or systemically causes harm through inequitable access to, or use and enjoyment of, housing” (p. 135, Novac, Darden, et al, 2004). Numerous studies have shown that housing discrimination is felt by traditionally marginalized groups like racialized minorities, women, and people with disabilities. And although no substantive study has been done on housing discrimination faced by youth, who make up the largest proportion of the student population, various housing experts agree that from anecdotal evidence, discrimination does exist, given the likelihood of inconsistent revenue sources (p. 139, Novac, Darden, et al, 2004). University residences may serve as the only option; but because of exorbitant rent in many universities, it has become largely off-limits for most.

A third argument made is that there is plenty of off-campus housing options available, should students find residence fees too high. However, assuming that marginalized students are able to avoid housing discrimination, there still is a significant shortage of affordable housing in Toronto and in other cities across Canada. Consider the following:

• In 2002, 32,000 persons used Toronto’s homeless shelters, including 5,000 children (City of Toronto, 2003)
• In 2005, the National Homeless Initiative estimated that 150,000 Canadians were homeless; other organizations place the number at between 200,000 and 300,000 (Laird, 2007)
• 250,000 households spent 30% or more of their wages on accommodations and are considered to be experiencing relative homelessness, at risk of absolute homelessness (City of Toronto, 2003)
• With increasing poverty rates in Toronto, more people are competing for less affordable housing units, with a combined loss in rental housing from 1996 to 2002 at more than 5,000 units (City of Toronto, 2003)
• Though average rents decreased by 1.5% in Toronto in 2003, average rents had previously increased by 31% between 1996 and 2002, more than twice the 14% rate of inflation over the same period (City of Toronto, 2003)
• While the average low-income household could only afford to pay $450 in rent, the average cost to operate new rental housing in Toronto is about $1400 per unit (Layton, 2000)

These are the circumstances faced by students upon arriving in cities like Toronto to study at our institutions and one of the many issues making education inaccessible to low-income students. How could universities claim to be open to people of all economic classes if it refuses to make firm commitments to providing affordable housing for students? It is clear from the decisions by various university administrations, including UofT and UofA, to raise rental fees, that not only is there a lack of commitment to affordable housing, but these administrations are directly contributing to processes that are resulting in growing homelessness. Housing is both a right and an integral requirement for accessing education.

The Way Forward

Even if tuition fees were eliminated, general living expenses still exist as a major barrier to accessibility; therefore, in addition to the elimination of tuition fees, properly funded need-based student grants and study allowances should be provided by the government to ensure that students of all economic standing can afford to pursue post-secondary education. In order for this to happen, a paradigm shift must occur. The idea of students either as consumers or as commodities produced by ‘knowledge factories’, or both, needs to be replaced by acknowledgment that students contribute critical analysis and discourse for the public good, in other words, students are ‘intellectual workers’. These policies are hardly outworldly or ‘impractical’, and can be seen in place in various countries, including, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, and Norway.

In addition, considering how housing makes up a major proportion of a student’s spending and that Canada is facing a massive shortage in affordable housing, universities need to reaffirm the right to housing not only by refusing to increase rent, but by working towards a reduction of rental fees.

References

Barr-Telford, L., Cartwright, F., Prasil, S., and Shimmons, K., Access, persistence and financing: First results from the Postsecondary Education Participation Survey. (Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada, 2003)

Bracken, K. (2008). Fee Hike Protesters Hit With Criminal Charges. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://torontoist.com/2008/05/fee_hike_protes.php.

CFS, Strategy for Change: Money does matter. (Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Federation of Student, 2007)

City of Toronto. (2003). The Toronto Report Card on Housing & Homelessness 2003. City of Toronto. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://www.toronto.ca/homelessness/index.htm.

G. Laird, Shelter – Homelessness in a Growth Economy: Canada’s 21st Century Paradox. (Calgary, Alberta: Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, 2007)

International Student Centre. (2008). Cost of Living Expenses. International Student Centre. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://www.isc.utoronto.ca/preparingforuoft/costofliving.htm.

Layton, J. (2000). Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis. Toronto: Penguin Group (Canada).

Novac, S., Darden, J., Hulchanski J. D., & Seguin A. (2004). Housing Discrimination in Canada: Stakeholder Views and Research Gaps. In Finding Room: Policy Options for a Canadian Rental Housing Strategy (pp. 135 – 146). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.