Poor Chinese Students and Poor American Students: Different Destinies
It’s that time of year when colleges are recruiting. The number of students who remain anxious about their future even after they receive letters of admission is unknown; from where are they going to get money to pay for tuition? Although there are many ways to get financial aid, not every student has access to them.
The situation is quite different for America's Princeton University, which includes the following in its recruitment brochure: Princeton’s “non-loan economic aid project” will provide generous “in need grant” for all eligible applicants. Take Princeton’s 2008 undergraduate class for example: not only should poor students have “no worries for study and accommodation,” but even families that have an income of 200,000 dollars or more can apply to reduce the tuition by 47 percent. Since 2001, zero debt for all graduates from Princeton has become possible.
Compared to that, Chinese college students, especially poor students, are not that fortunate and some students have to carry a heavy burden of debt before they graduate.
This is a huge contrast. Why does the U.S. let poor students go to college without paying tuition? The reason it gives is that colleges - especially the best colleges - should not be seen only as clubs for rich people; no doubt this would make the country lose face. This kind of reasoning is not a surprise for us. But unfortunately in China, tuition has been increasing. China has shown no affection for its poor students. We have statistics as evidence from research sponsored by world banks and the Chinese Education Ministry. One example is a ratio showing a gradual decline in the number of students from farming families when the popularity of a college increases.
The pursuit of fairness in education opportunities is one of the unshakable principles of modern countries. This is essentially why poor students can afford college: so the U.S. government and colleges avoid any implied shortcomings. As for China, the average increase in tuition stayed at around 25 percent from 1996 to 2000. From 1998 to 1999 the tuition increase reached 44 percent. In the meantime, the increase in the rate of residents’ income levels was far below the tuition percentage increase. This caused the tuition, calculated according to a comparable price, to account for a substantial proportion of average resident income. Until 2002, the percent tuition made up of rural residents’ average income had increased from 68.6 percent to 177.6 percent. This percentage is far beyond the level of burden resulting from higher education costs in developed countries like the U.S. and Japan.
When can Chinese colleges preserve their dignity and let their poor students enjoy tuition-free treatment?
The situation is quite different for America's Princeton University, which includes the following in its recruitment brochure: Princeton’s “non-loan economic aid project” will provide generous “in need grant” for all eligible applicants. Take Princeton’s 2008 undergraduate class for example: not only should poor students have “no worries for study and accommodation,” but even families that have an income of 200,000 dollars or more can apply to reduce the tuition by 47 percent. Since 2001, zero debt for all graduates from Princeton has become possible.
Compared to that, Chinese college students, especially poor students, are not that fortunate and some students have to carry a heavy burden of debt before they graduate.
This is a huge contrast. Why does the U.S. let poor students go to college without paying tuition? The reason it gives is that colleges - especially the best colleges - should not be seen only as clubs for rich people; no doubt this would make the country lose face. This kind of reasoning is not a surprise for us. But unfortunately in China, tuition has been increasing. China has shown no affection for its poor students. We have statistics as evidence from research sponsored by world banks and the Chinese Education Ministry. One example is a ratio showing a gradual decline in the number of students from farming families when the popularity of a college increases.
The pursuit of fairness in education opportunities is one of the unshakable principles of modern countries. This is essentially why poor students can afford college: so the U.S. government and colleges avoid any implied shortcomings. As for China, the average increase in tuition stayed at around 25 percent from 1996 to 2000. From 1998 to 1999 the tuition increase reached 44 percent. In the meantime, the increase in the rate of residents’ income levels was far below the tuition percentage increase. This caused the tuition, calculated according to a comparable price, to account for a substantial proportion of average resident income. Until 2002, the percent tuition made up of rural residents’ average income had increased from 68.6 percent to 177.6 percent. This percentage is far beyond the level of burden resulting from higher education costs in developed countries like the U.S. and Japan.
When can Chinese colleges preserve their dignity and let their poor students enjoy tuition-free treatment?