Tuition survey reflects unrealistic demands
February 18, 2026 3:04 PM
Last month, the Post-Secondary Education Coalition released the results of a poll that they had conducted in December 2010.
The poll, which surveyed 800 Nova Scotians, indicates that a majority of the province - 83 per cent - believes that tuition costs for post-secondary students should be reduced.
This statistic, along with others from the survey were quickly picked up by various unions and student organizations and newspapers across the province.
For instance, 32 per cent of respondents said that they or their family members chose not to attend university because of the prospective debt load, and 66 per cent of respondents supported a tax increase in order to pay for a reduction in tuition),
The data was used to support and sometimes explain rallies against tuition increases, and in numerous editorials supporting these efforts.
Unfortunately, the data gathered by the survey has to be seen as at least a little problematic, and the opinions reflected need to be closely examined.
For example, 83 per cent of Nova Scotians, according to the survey, believe that tuition rates should be reduced.
But one question before that tells us that only 68 per cent believe tuition rates are too high, while 29 per cent think they’re “about right.”
Well, I suppose that makes some sort of sense. I can look at a box of Frosted Flakes in the grocery store, think they’re priced “about right” and still grab the coupon, or wait until they go on sale.
We’d all like things to be cheaper, even when we don’t really believe they ought to be.
The next issue I have with the survey results is with questions regarding provincial funding for universities.
One question begins by seeding information: in 1978, the provincial government contributed 80 per cent of university revenue, and in 2008 government contributions made up only 46 per cent of university revenue.
Then, the survey asks whether the government’s contribution should be higher, lower, or stay about the same.
Putting what I would deem irrelevant and actively biased data into the question itself does not ‘contextualize’ the question in any objective sense; rather, it deliberately suggests, without real context or depth, that the government ought to do better - after all, it has in the past.
Factors other than “benevolence vs. evil spitefulness of government” dictate how much can be allotted to any given sector, especially education, where objective costs of providing up-to-date education have skyrocketed.
“Doing better,” if that in fact involves government funding, isn’t just a matter of trying harder, or pouring more money in.
Which brings me to taxation. According to the survey, 59 per cent of Nova Scotians would be willing to pay more in taxes to fund post-secondary education.
Provided, as per the hedge words of the survey, that it was a “small increase,” and that they “knew that it would go to improving the affordability of the university or college in your area.”
That seems to be a lot of hedging. This question plays on people altruism, but also their self-preservation - the increase would be a small one - and regional self interest: no Antigonish tax dollars going to (gasp!) Dalhousie. Unacceptable!
Further, the percentage of Nova Scotians willing to pay even this small, hedged amount in taxes towards post-secondary funding is, at 59 per cent, less than the number who support peripheral causes.
For instance, 68 per cent think that tuition rates are too high, and 83 per cent think they should be lowered.
Doing the math, this means that roughly a quarter of Nova Scotians believe that tuition rates should be lowered but don’t want to pay for it with their money.
In the face of repeated calls for lowered tuition, exaggerated (I hope) outrage over the renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding between institutions and the government, we need to refocus the debate.
As I’ve argued before, the cheapest tuition does not make the best education, and should really be what we want.
Nova Scotia, despite its 11 universities and 13 community colleges, whatever the tagline is, is more than an education province, and it has priorities other than us.
Like, for example, staying solvent. Paying down provincial debt. Bettering health care, fixing highways, creating jobs, figuring out where the hell we’re going to put the next jail. Or landfill.
We shouldn’t be crying out for education to be cheap. It needs to be, like so many other things, sustainable.
Education should have enough funding to get us through, not debt-free, but, say, educated, so that there will be skilled and talented people in the province, and money in the bank, for years to come. Anything else would be selfish, don’t you think?