Privatization of PTN that Limits Access
Privatization of basic PTNs has increasingly limited access to PTNs for the poor because tuition fees have become increasingly expensive.
This article has been translated using AI. See Original .
About AI Translated Article
Please note that this article was automatically translated using Microsoft Azure AI, Open AI, and Google Translation AI. We cannot ensure that the entire content is translated accurately. If you spot any errors or inconsistencies, contact us at hotline@kompas.id, and we'll make every effort to address them. Thank you for your understanding.
The daily Kompas medio January-March 2024 published a lot of coverage and opinions regarding access to higher education, which is still a problem today so that our higher education participation rate is still below 40 percent.
One of the main causes is the overall cost of higher education which is considered expensive, both at state universities (PTN), Legal Entity State Universities (PTNBH), and private universities (PTS). The existence of financial constraints has given rise to the discourse of providing educational loans for students (Kompas, 30/3/2024).
The tuition fees are divided into two. First, the costs paid to universities (PT), both investment and operational costs or known as tuition fees. Second, personal costs, namely costs incurred by students every day, such as food, boarding fees, transportation, purchasing laptops, internet packages and books.
Also read: Single Tuition Fee: Conflict over Higher Education Funding
The amount of tuition fees at regular state and private universities is actually still affordable because per semester it is much lower than the fees at private high schools. However, it is the personal expenses that are high.
Currently, in order to be able to study with some peace of mind in the Yogyakarta region, the minimum personal cost requirement is Rp 1.5 million per month. This amount is felt to be large for the lower-middle class. Ownership of a laptop and internet package has now become a primary need for a student, so it must be striven for. This is different from students in the 1990s and before.
Efforts to support underprivileged students to pursue higher education during the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) administration were addressed through the provision of the Bidikmisi scholarship program. This scholarship is intended for high-performing students in high schools or vocational schools who may have limited financial abilities.
The government not only covers tuition fees, but also personal costs. The problem at that time was that the scholarship amount for personal costs was limited and sometimes it was late, making it difficult for students. President Jokowi continued this scheme by changing the name to Kartu Indonesia Pintar Kuliah (KIP Kuliah), but the principle is the same.
Unfortunately, the fuel and Free Tuition Program schemes only touch one segment, which is the Quadrant C group (smart but poor) with a proportion of around 20 percent in society. As for the Quadrant D segment (poor and less smart) with a proportion of around 40 percent, they have not been touched at all by any scholarship scheme.
Meanwhile, if we believe that higher education is the expressway to a fast escalator of social and economic mobility, the Quadrant D group should be the one receiving special attention. The Quadrant B group (less intelligent but wealthy) and the Quadrant A group (wealthy and intelligent) do not need scholarship assistance as they will be able to access higher education wherever they want.
Access barriers to enter Public/State Universities for the D quadrant is not only about costs, but also the selection system that tends to be unfavorable to them. Especially for those who pass through the invitation and independent paths. The invitation path pays close attention to the school track record (SMA/MA/SMK). If the school has a track record of many of its students being accepted in Public/State Universities, then the probability of being accepted is higher.
Segment Quad D (poor and less intelligent) with a proportion of around 40 percent has not been touched at all by any scholarship scheme.
Meanwhile, the members of Quadrant D, due to poverty and lack of intelligence, attend private high schools on the outskirts with a poor track record. After the new student admission policy based on zoning, they were able to attend the nearest high school, but lost in the invitation selection process to groups Quadrant A and C.
The issue of air pollution is not new. The condition of the community threatened by air pollution has been persisting for a long time. Research evidence indicating the impacts of air pollution is numerous, yet it has not been able to drive significant efforts in controlling air pollution. As a result, residents suffer even more, living in the midst of air pollution. Quadran B group will enter state universities/colleges through a self-funded pathway that has a higher cost. Meanwhile, Quadran D group will not be able to enter state universities/colleges through self-funded pathway. They only have one opportunity, which is the joint exam pathway. Does this mean that Quadran D group is not entitled to a government-funded education? This is a question that always haunts the writer.
The scholarship award system that is always based solely on academic merit does perpetuate structural injustice/inequality because groups in Quadrants A and B will continue to surge ahead through universities, followed by the group in Quadrant C, but the group in Quadrant D will remain left behind forever. However, the presence of universities should contribute to reducing this inequality.
Learn from KMI
One of the proposed solutions currently being initiated by the government to increase access to higher education for the poor is the provision of student loans. Among the student movement, student loans have long been a topic of discussion. At least the author once spoke in front of the Padjadjaran University Student Senate with the theme "Higher Education and Student Loan Policy Discourse" (28/11/2018).
The terms of reference (terms of reference) of the seminar refer to the news Kompas (1/8/2018) which stated that the gross enrollment rate in high education (APK PT) in Indonesia in 2017 is still low, namely 31.75 percent, and one of the biggest obstacles is the expensive cost of higher education. The issues and solutions are still the same.
Learning from the experience of countries that implement student loans, it can be seen that student loans are not the right solution to overcome low higher education participation rates or help Quadrant C and D groups get out of poverty. the cycle of poverty through higher education. Why? Because after graduating, loan recipients will be burdened with educational debt so they won't have time to plan a better future.
The government also has experience managing Indonesian Student Credit (KMI) which emerged in 1982 when Daoed Joesoef was Minister of Education and Culture. KMI's goal at that time was to help students at PTN who were unable to quickly complete their thesis so that they could shorten the study period to 4-5 years from the previous 7-9 years.
Also read: KMI Education Loan Ended Due to Traffic Jam?
Also read: Special KUR, Alternative Source of Student College Financing
Therefore, KMI is only intended for undergraduate students who will complete their final assignment. At the time, the amount of KMI was Rp 750,000 for S-1 students, Rp 1.5 million for S-2 students, and Rp 2.5 million for S-3 students with 6% interest. The implementation of KMI at that time was carried out by Bank BNI 1946. However, the program was stopped in the late 1990s because many borrowers did not repay their loans.
This failure in managing KMI complements the failure in student loan management in many countries. Based on a study by Chapman and Lounkaew (2016), the student loan default rate in the United States is 14.7 percent, Canada 13 percent, Thailand 53 percent, and Malaysia 49 percent. In developing countries, student credit default rates are higher than in developed countries.
Student loans in Indonesia have the potential to fail because there is no guarantee that a graduate graduate will get a job, the salary of a new graduate (even an old one) is only enough for living expenses alone so they cannot afford bank installments, population data is not yet complete clear so that it cannot be used as a basis for easily tracing borrower addresses, and our banking system cannot make direct deductions for credit arrears without prior approval with the customer.
Stop privatizing PTN
Based on observations over the past two decades, after the privatization of State Universities into State-Owned Legal Entities (PTNBH) - formerly known as PT BHMN (State-Owned Higher Education Institutions) - starting with UGM, UI, IPB, and ITB in 2000; it is evident that there is a tendency for the privatization of State Universities to limit the access of the poor to higher education. This is because tuition fees are getting more expensive as a consequence of decreasing subsidies from the government.
It is proven that in the field, large universities such as UI, after being privatized, receive 60 percent of their funding from students, 20 percent from government subsidies, and only 20 percent from the private sector. The revenue from the private sector for smaller institutions like PTNBH would certainly be even less. Due to the decrease in revenue from the private sector and government subsidies, the heavy burden is shifted to the students. That is the logical consequence of privatizing state universities.
Until the early 2000s, the medical faculty (FK) was still affordable for elementary school teachers' children, but now it is no longer affordable because the tuition fees are too high. A friend who is a member of the parents association of medical faculty students at a PTNBH said that 75 percent of FK students come from doctor families because only they can afford the high tuition fees. It's understandable if they are reluctant to be placed in remote areas after graduating.
Privatization is also what drives PTNBH to hold independent entrance exams based on the ability to pay. This pattern is now followed by all state universities.
Considering that the privatization of state universities is the root cause of restricted access to them, the strategic solution to increase the participation rate in higher education and enable the Quadrant C and D groups to achieve vertical mobility through higher education is to stop the privatization of state universities.
Not all state universities are privatized into corporations that are eligible for private sector funding. Only state universities that are institutionally capable of seeking funding sources from the private sector that are worthy of privatization are included. Unfortunately, it has not been proven that there are any corporations that are capable of significantly tapping into private sector funding sources. As a result, privatizing state universities is synonymous with high tuition fees.
Until the early 2000s, medical faculties were still accessible to children of primary school teachers, but now they are no longer affordable because the tuition fees are very high.
Education loans are not a strategic solution because they only solve individual financial problems by creating new problems in paying loan installments. The student loan trap, whether using a time term or income-based, will keep students who cannot afford it in a cycle of poverty. They did graduate from PT, but did not escape the cycle of poverty. In fact, the mission of increasing PT participation rates is to lead citizens to achieve a better level of life.
Except for stopping the process of privatizing state universities, the entrance selection mechanism to state universities and state religious universities must also be returned to how it was before, which is 80 percent through a joint test pathway so that every high school graduate has an equal opportunity to be accepted to state universities and state religious universities without looking at their school records. People like President Jokowi, if he graduated from high school now, might not be able to enter UGM because he comes from a newly established school.
Another alternative is to open access for Quadrant D groups by developing Community Academies as mandated in the Higher Education Law (UU Dikti) Article 59 Paragraph (7), which are higher education institutions that provide vocational education at the diploma level one and/or two in one or several specific branches of science and/or technology that are based on local excellence or to meet specific needs.
The spirit of the Higher Education Act is that Community Academies are established in every district/city to provide opportunities for vocational high school/high school graduates to improve their technical competencies needed by the job market.
Another mechanism that the government needs to pursue is to encourage state universities/private universities/polytechnics to provide laptop loans to financially challenged students so they can attend classes and complete their assignments smoothly. In addition, the government should provide sufficient internet access in the campus environment to reduce the personal burden of students.
The mechanism for borrowing laptops requires separate management, the same as the management of borrowing library books, only in a different form and for a longer time. These alternatives may be more solutions than applying a student loan.
Ki Darmaningtyas, Education Observer; Author of the book Against the Liberalization of Education