In order to assess whether student financing arrangements appears to be anyhow related to system performance, this section provides a tentative impression of the selected countries in terms of some indicators on system performance. That may provide us an idea if student financing is effective and serves some wider objectives. Of course we have to take into account that system performance is also heavily influenced by many other factors, like national policy frameworks, regulations, traditions, cultures, economic circumstances, etc.
A first table will try to summarise the composition and relative attractiveness of the student financing systems in the countries analysed. Indicators look at the income level of students, the proportion of public subsidies in that, the availability of basic grants and supplementary means‐tested grants and the proportion of recipients, level and take up ratios for student loans and availability and relative level of support in kind. The various country scores are derived from some comparative sources like Eurostudent and Eurostat data as well as own interpretations of the information presented in the previous chapters.
Table A.1: Student financing and cost-sharing indicators
AU CAN ENG GER NZ NO SWE USA NL
Costs
Tuition (and other) fees (€) 3.600 - 7.500 1900 – 4980 10.500 Up to 1.000 2.850 – 3.160 140 No Aver. 6.625 1771
Student income/expenditure p.m. (€) +/- 1500 650 1,037 850 p/m** Unknown 1023 832 1040 797
Support
Basic grants (to most) No No No No No 495 341 No 266
Other grants p.m. (means tested, €) Aver. 540 75 – 188 Up to 375 320 520 No No Aver. 367 Up to 245
(Other) grants (% recipients) Up to 30% Up to 30% 20% 25% 22% 80% 80% 50% 30%
Loans (€ p/a) Up to 7.500 Aver 3880 Up to 5.500 3.850+7.800 Up to 7.750 7.437 7.470 Aver. 6.700 5179
Loans (% recipients) 80% or over 40% 75% - 85% 25%+6% 74% 90% 80%-90% 70% 50%
Indirect support (to parents) No High No High Limited No No Middle No
Support in kind Limited No No Middle Limited Limited Limited Limited Middle
% income/expenditure subsidised Up to 30% Up to 60% Up to 30% Up to 60% Middle Up to 50% 40% Up to 40% Up to 65% Notes: The table indicates the support available to regular fulltime undergraduate students living away from
their parents studying at public institutions in their country. Because in many countries grants, loans and tuition can differ per group of students, some average interpretations are presented.
The table shows a diversity of student financing practices and levels. It is clear that most selected countries charge substantial tuition fees, except for Norway, Sweden and most German Länder. The Netherlands takes a middle position, though in Europe the Netherlands is at the high end, after England. The cost of living differ substantially between the countries with unexpectedly high score for Australia and low score for Canada. Living expenses in the Netherlands prove not to be that high.
There are only few countries with universal basic grants for almost all undergraduate students, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. In Germany, Canada and also the USA
International Experiences with Student Financing
189
there is substantive indirect support for the parents of students. In Canada and the USA this preliminary is in the form of tax‐credits. All countries offer grants and scholarships for students from lower income groups, serving between 20% in the UK and 50% in the USA. However, in the UK, Canada en the USA other scholarships may be available through the individual higher education institutions.
Many countries offer substantive student loans which have to be repaid and are offered to most of the interested students. In most countries students also really use and appreciate this facility. Only in Germany and Canada the loan take‐up rates are limited. German students traditionally are averse towards tuition fees and loans and the “universal loans” are being offered by the private sector. About 50% of the Dutch students take up loans, which again means a middle position
In general, the subsidies being available through grants and indirect support cover up to 60% of students’ expenses (excluding tuition fees). It has to be acknowledged that this particularly yields to lower income students, thus not to the majority. In countries with substantial tuition fees, students from lower income groups may also have part of their tuition fees waved, either through national or institutional arrangements. The rest of their income has to be filled with parental contributions, loans or income from paid work. Regardless of the differences in the student financing mechanisms, there are many similarities. States predominantly help students from weaker socio‐economic backgrounds and the rest of the students have to pay most of their costs themselves. This is less the case in Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. In the latter two countries students anyhow may also have to rely heavily on student loans.
All in all, one can state that the most generous student financing arrangements are available in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Germany. Except for the Netherlands, students in these countries do not pay tuition fees and almost all receive basic financial support. This nevertheless may lead to substantial student debt. Overall, the Netherlands still provides a generous student financing system in which most students can cover their costs with student financial support and some help of their parents. In quite some countries, student financial support is even not sufficient to cover all the costs.
In policy debates it is often assumed that favourable student financing arrangements will lead to better performance and thus higher outcomes of higher education systems. In Table A.2 a few system performance indicators are shown for the selected countries in order to see whether one could detect any performance patterns.
Table A.2: System performance indicators
AU CAN ENG GER NZ NO SWE USA NL
Attainment / student composition
First time entry rate 85,7% n.a. 55,4% 34,4% 65,9% 73,1% 64,5% 60,1%
% master level students n.a. n.a. 11,7% 4,7% n.a. 29,3% 14,1% n.a. 13,2%
% part time students 29,2% 17,9% 24,5% 5,2% 40,1% 28,7% 51,8% 33,7% 14,1%
% students in short programs n.a. n.a. 7,4% 7,5% n.a. 2,7% 23,9% n.a. 0,5%
% of student in engineering 8,7% n.a. 8,2% 15,7% 6,4% 8,0% 19,3% n.a. 8,8%
Outcomes
Total public expenditure per student (€) 9267 14014 8368 8885 8939 11198 9464 23079 11479
Completion rate 49,8% 30,6% 39,0% 21,2% 51,9% 42,6% 40,6% 35,5% 43%
% of HE graduates 25-34 yrs n.a. n.a. 43,8% 27,7% n.a. 46,1% 43,0% n.a. 39,9%
Employment rate (index) n.a. n.a. 115 111 n.a. n.a. 112 n.a. 106
Relative earnings (index, males) 136 140 183 163 120 140 135 183 n.a.
Relative earnings (index, females) 146 144 170 153 123 142 127 170 n.a.
Sources: OECD, Education at a Glance; EUROSTAT; Eurydice; National graduate surveys.
The information in Table A.2 based on international comparative statistical databases is very tentative. Though definitions used are as uniform as possible, they do not reckon with specific national situations, traditions and cultures.
This overview shows that Sweden on many indicators has a relatively high score which indicates that the Swedish higher education system addresses multiple target groups, educates relatively many engineers and has relative positive outcomes. Also Norwegian scores are rather high, except for students in short programs and in engineering. The countries with the highest individual costs of following tertiary education, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA provide relatively few data. The scores they show are generally middle to high scores compared to the other countries. The Netherlands takes on most of these indicators a middle position, except for the public expenditure per student. Particularly within Europe the Dutch government spends relatively much per student, not resulting in higher performance scores. All in all, it appears that Norway and Sweden provide a relative positive picture in terms of system performance. Whether this relates to the fact that these countries do not charge tuition fees can be questioned, because then Germany should show similar system performance scores. In addition, students anyhow accumulate substantial debt, which could hamper access.