There is an issue of educational justice that we must question: when\nthe state promotes the idea of \u201cfree university education\u201d, who is\nactually being given it for free? At first glance, this may seem like an\neconomic question. On closer reflection, however, it also raises\nquestions of justice: how a nation understands human nature, the dignity\nof knowledge, the trust placed in wealth, and the mandate of state\npower.<\/p>\n
Debate about free university education tends to focus on fiscal\ncalculations: the amount of the Single Tuition Fee (BKT), how much of\nthe Single Tuition Fee (UKT) the state must cover, how much funding is\nneeded to maintain university standards, and how much fiscal space is\navailable. All of this is important, of course. But should higher\neducation be seen merely as a line of government spending to pay\ntuition, or as a strategic investment in building human\ncivilisation?<\/p>\n
From an Islamic perspective, people are never reduced to a series of\nfigures in a budget. Allah says: \u201cAllah will raise those who have\nbelieved among you and those who were given knowledge, by degrees\u201d\n(Quran, Al-Mujadilah 58:11). This verse offers an important foundation:\nknowledge is part of the development of human dignity. The Prophet\nMuhammad said: \u201cWhoever follows a path in pursuit of knowledge, Allah\nwill make easy for them a path to Paradise\u201d (Sahih Muslim).<\/p>\n
Higher education, then, must not be confined to a mechanical cycle of\npaying entrance fees, attending lectures, receiving a degree and then\nlooking for work. It carries a greater value: dignity, and a moral\nresponsibility not to stop at fulfilling individual ambitions, but to\nserve the public good and raise the standing of others. This is where\nthe question of free university education intersects directly with\ndevelopment economics.<\/p>\n
When \u201cFree\u201d Is Not Necessarily Fair<\/strong><\/p>\n Imagine two students from low-income families. The first is admitted\nto a public university (PTN) and receives a full tuition-fee waiver from\nthe state. The second attends a private university (PTS) in their region\nbecause it is the only institution within geographical reach, affordable\nfor their family and suited to their academic ability.<\/p>\n If state intervention only waives fees at public universities, the\ntwo students are not treated equally, despite having the same economic\nneeds. This creates what is known as the regressive subsidy paradox: a\npolicy that appears pro-poor on paper but may, in practice, benefit\ngroups better placed to compete, while the most vulnerable are left\noutside the very system meant to protect them.<\/p>\n The 2025 Higher Education Statistics show that Indonesia has around\n4,303 active universities, of which 3,944 are private institutions.\nPrivate universities accommodate the largest share of the country\u2019s 2.16\nmillion new students. Indonesia\u2019s higher education landscape therefore\ncannot be viewed solely through the lens of public universities. The\npolicy question should not end at, \u201cHow much would it cost to make\npublic universities free?\u201d It should also ask, \u201cHow can the state ensure\nthat every student qualified for university has access to quality,\naffordable higher education, wherever they study?\u201d<\/p>\n This means shifting from institution-based subsidies to equity based\non students\u2019 rights. The principle of distribution is consistent with\nthe Quranic warning: \u201cSo that wealth may not merely circulate among the\nrich among you\u201d (Al-Hashr 59:7). Although this verse was revealed in the\ncontext of distributing spoils of war, not education subsidies, it\noffers a relevant principle: economic benefits should not be\nconcentrated in the hands of a particular group. When discussing\neducation subsidies, we must therefore ask not only, \u201cHow much are we\nspending?\u201d but also, \u201cWho benefits from it?\u201d<\/p>\n For poor families, tuition is only the tip of the iceberg when it\ncomes to the total cost of education. There are rent, food, transport,\ninternet access, laptops, textbooks and practical equipment, as well as\nthe cost of travelling home. There is also a cost often omitted from\nfiscal calculations: opportunity cost. When a child of a smallholder\nfarmer, casual labourer, fisher or informal-sector worker goes to\nuniversity, the family is not only paying for their education; it may\nalso lose a pair of hands that previously helped earn a living.<\/p>\n Free tuition, therefore, does not automatically mean free higher\neducation for poor families. Tuition may be reduced to zero, but living\ncosts can still leave a student at risk of dropping out. The measure of\na successful policy is not simply how many poor students enter\nuniversity, but how many can stay until graduation, find work in\nproductive sectors, start businesses and improve their families\u2019\nlivelihoods.<\/p>\n Welfare for the Better-Off, Bills for the Poor<\/strong><\/p>\n Another risk to consider is the potential crowding-out effect. If\npublic universities become free while private universities continue to\nrely on student fees, everyone will compete for places at public\ninstitutions, whose capacity is limited.<\/p>\n In many districts and cities, private universities are the closest\neducational infrastructure for families, local labour markets and local\ngovernment, and are well placed to understand local development\nchallenges. A policy that waives fees exclusively at public universities\ncould create a paradox: the state intends to widen access to education\nbut indirectly narrows the ecosystem of education providers.<\/p>\n The answer is not to preserve high tuition fees, but to change how\nsubsidies are distributed by introducing education vouchers attached to\nstudents who meet economic and academic eligibility criteria. These\nvouchers could be used at either public or private universities that are\naccredited, transparent and meet national quality standards. The state\nwould no longer say, \u201cWe pay public universities\u201d; instead, it would\nsay, \u201cWe guarantee citizens\u2019 right to education.\u201d Universities would\nhave an incentive to improve academic quality, students would have room\nto choose, private institutions would not be undermined by subsidies for\npublic universities, and public spending would reach the intended\nbeneficiaries.<\/p>\n A child from a well-off family who wins a place at a public\nuniversity is certainly entitled to a quality education. But the child\nof a small-scale farmer or fisher, or a casual worker, who studies at a\nprivate university is equally entitled to the same constitutional\nopportunity. If tuition waivers depend only on the type of institution,\nrather than the student\u2019s economic vulnerability, this seemingly\ngenerous policy risks abandoning those most in need of state\nsupport.<\/p>\n We must acknowledge that competition for university places does not\ntake place on a level playing field. Some children have had access from\nan early age to good schools, adequate nutrition, the internet, a\nsupportive learning environment and expensive extra tutoring. Others\nhave to divide their time between studying and helping their parents\nearn a living. When they meet in the admissions process, academic\nability is indeed being tested, but that ability has grown out of social\nand economic circumstances that were never equal to begin with.<\/p>\n We must not oversimplify the issue by setting public and private\nuniversity students against each other in black and white. Not all\npublic university students come from wealthy families, just as not all\nprivate university students are poor. The fundamental question is not\nrivalry between students, but why an institution\u2019s legal status should\ndetermine the allocation of public subsidies more than the objective\nneeds of the people studying there.<\/p>\n If the state universally waives tuition at public universities\nwithout strict economic eligibility criteria, while students at private\nuniversities in remote areas are left to pay their own way, we are\neffectively creating reversed welfare: public assistance is allocated\naccording to where someone studies, while their economic hardship comes\nsecond.<\/p>\n This is where we need to reverse the measure of justice. It is not\nenough to congratulate ourselves on the number of students whose\nuniversity bills have been waived. We must ask who is still struggling\nwith bills, who has been forced to drop out, and whose access to\neducation was shut off by poverty from the outset. Public assistance\nthat misses its target is not merely a matter of budget efficiency; it\ncan become institutionalised injustice.<\/p>\n Putting the Right to Education at the Centre<\/strong><\/p>\n Ultimately, the debate over free university education is not simply\nabout how much funding can be allocated or how effectively the\ngovernment can calculate financing needs. More fundamentally, it is\nabout how the state understands justice amid limited resources.<\/p>\n If the aim of policy is to widen educational opportunity, support\nmust take account of students\u2019 economic circumstances, not only the\nstatus of their university. Tuition assistance that can be used at\npublic or private institutions meeting quality and accountability\nstandards deserves consideration. The amount could be adjusted to need,\nwhile living-cost support could be provided to students facing the\ngreatest hardship.<\/p>\n At the same time, the state remains responsible for funding\nlaboratory facilities, research and the strategic mandates of public\nuniversities. Justice does not require every institution to receive the\nsame budget. It requires each category of spending to have a clear\npurpose and each form of assistance to reach the group it is intended to\nhelp.<\/p>\n With this approach, we need not be trapped in a narrow\npublic-versus-private dichotomy. We can maintain the quality of\nuniversities while ensuring that children from poor families do not lose\ntheir opportunity simply because they attend a private institution in a\nremote area.<\/p>\n It is time to stop measuring the success of education policy solely\nby the number of bills cancelled. A more important measure is whether\nmore children constrained by poverty can enter university, remain until\ngraduation and use their knowledge to improve their families\u2019 quality of\nlife.<\/p>\n We may remember Lintang, the gifted coastal child in the film\nLaskar Pelangi<\/em>, who had to leave his bicycle at an old workshop\nand bury his dream while his friend went off to study in Europe.\nLintang\u2019s tragedy is a rebuke to the conscience of this Republic if\n\u201cfree university education\u201d embraces only those fortunate enough to get\ninto a public university. In effect, we would be allowing poverty to\nbecome a death sentence for thousands of bright children in remote\nvillages, whose hopes are extinguished before they can even dream.<\/p>\n There is nothing wrong with aspiring to make university education\nfree. The mistake is to assume that free automatically means fair.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/free-university-education-for-whom-1791762708",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}