Towards Non-Commercialised Governance of State Universities
The Indonesian higher education landscape has recently been shaken by a tragic dark comedy: the recent sting operation by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) involving the alleged sale of seats in the independent admission track at a university. This adds to the long history of corruption in the governance of our State Universities (PTN) related to student admissions.
This cycle continues to repeat like a chronic disease. The public is outraged, yet few truly dare to hold up a mirror to the root of the problem. The trading of university seats is not merely a result of the moral decay of certain management officials or admission committees, but rather the fruit of a systemic failure that traps universities in a vortex of capitalisation and unlimited discretion.
The Trap of Capitalisation
Tracing the issue, there are two main root causes creating the gap for the commercialisation of university seats. First and foremost is a paradigmatic shift: treating the amount of Single Tuition Fees (UKT) and Institutional Development Contributions (SPI) as indicators of ‘achievement’ or a financial benchmark for the campus. When PTNs are pushed or forced into autonomous status to hunt for funds to cover operational costs, the student admission process is transformed into an open auction market. The independent track, which was originally designed as a safety net for diverse talents, has shifted into an arena for the highest bidder: whoever is willing to pay the largest amount in cash earns the right to a university seat.
The second root lies in the implementation of fragile and collusive affirmative action policies. The initial spirit of affirmative policies—such as the Regional Leadership Coordination Forum (Forkopimda), local government allocations, political quotas, and privileges for children of lecturers and educational staff—was to create equality and social appreciation. However, in the absence of transparency, these affirmative criteria are often distorted into a legal fortress for nepotism. These policies have transformed into local political and economic commodities, where power interests and monetary transactions are ‘disguised’ under the guise of affirmative action.
Simplifying PTN Governance
To break this chain, we must dare to dissect the complex legal structures of current PTNs. The dichotomy of status between working units (satker), public service agencies (BLU), and legal entity PTNs (PTNBH) has created extreme castes and disparities in quality. PTNBH and BLU are often perceived to be exploiting their financial flexibility to ‘open the taps’ for expensive independent admission tracks to meet revenue targets, while ‘satker’ PTNs struggle with operational limitations.
The government must take extreme steps: abolishing the stratification of satker, BLU, and PTNBH statuses into a single, uniform governance standard for all PTNs. The function of universities must be fully returned to being a public good, not a commercial entity. The state must not relinquish its funding responsibility so that campuses no longer bear the financial burden of hunting for rents from the pockets of parents.
This step must be accompanied by a strict reconfiguration of admission quotas. First, by limiting the total admission capacity in ‘top-tier’ campuses to prevent them from monopolising prospective students and resource allocation. Second, by setting a maximum cap on new student quotas per study programme across all PTNs (for example, 50-100 students per intake).
Limiting quotas per programme will automatically reduce the quality disparity between PTNs. High-achieving students who are not accommodated in primary PTNs will be fairly distributed to other regional PTNs, ensuring that the quality of student input and state budget allocation is spread evenly across the archipelago, while also providing opportunities for private universities (PTS) to contribute to higher education.
Free Higher Education
The crucial question is: can the state afford free tuition without triggering an APBN (State Budget) crisis? The answer is: it is very capable, provided a clustered fiscal scheme is implemented based on the economic income of families.
Overhauling the higher education financing scheme based on family income classification is a strategic step toward achieving social justice and equal access. For Cluster 1 (deciles 1-4) with low incomes, total inclusivity must be guaranteed by the state through 100% scholarships covering all educational costs and living allowances via the KIP Kuliah programme, ensuring financial constraints no longer hinder the nation’s children from attending university.
Meanwhile, for Cluster 2 (deciles 5-8) in the middle-income group, the state should provide assistance in the form of 100% tuition subsidies (free tuition) distributed directly via standardised State University Operational Assistance (BOPTN), easing the burden on parents so they only need to cover the student’s living expenses.
On the other hand, a radical renewal should be applied to Cluster 3 (deciles 9-10) for high-income groups; instead of implementing UKT or SPI at the campus level, their tuition fees would be waived directly at the university, but justice is redistributed through state instruments in the form of progressive tax adjustments (education tax) or contributions to a national endowment fund. This scheme ensures every layer of society receives fair and quality access to higher education, while shifting the financial burden from the shoulders of students to a more equitable national taxation system. Campuses would receive no direct financial transactions from students of any class, thereby automatically eliminating the practice of seat auctions.
Standardisation of Selection and Meritocracy
This clustered free funding system must be locked with the standardisation of selection based on standardised tests (such as scholastic potential tests) and/or non-academic achievement portfolios.