Most people like the idea of getting something for 'free' but British Columbians should pop the latest trial balloon floating out from Victoria - i.e., Premier Ujjal Dosanjh's idea of maybe one day eliminating post-secondary tuition. If BC ever did that, the results would be disastrous for not only taxpayers, but for post-secondary institutions and especially for students.

But let's 'blue sky' for a moment. Suppose taxpayers completely subsidized post-secondary students and ordered public universities to scrap tuition. On the positive side, students (or their parents) could skip paying a tuition cheque, though of course - parents would still shell out those shekels through their taxes.

On the negative side, taxpayers would be almost entirely on the hook for funding colleges and universities. Students' associations - led mainly by well-intentioned people who have never had to pay taxes or make difficult public policy decisions that politicians make every day - blithely assume governments would just cough up all the requested cash.

Dream on. Governments get their money from taxpayers, taxpayers who now demand that more of their money go to healthcare and that long overdue tax relief start happening. And if the supposed goal of 'free' tuition is to increase the number of British Columbians that get post-secondary education, how do taxpayers later fund all those new spots at BC's colleges and universities With a magic wand

'Free' tuition would financially straitjacket institutions. That in turn would lead to pressure to retire older, more experienced and better-paid professors in exchange for younger, cheaper, and less knowledgeable instructors. Class sizes would grow as the institutions attempt to fit more people in fewer classes. Research money and scholarships would be similarly squeezed. All sorts of extras would be cut. Attracting top talent would become difficult if not impossible. All of this is bad news for students, whose choice and quality of classes would decline.

Besides, the "I'm hard done by because I have to repay a student loan" line is bit much. University students already get a seventy to eighty percent break on the real cost of their education; taxpayers or university donors cover the rest. For students who need money (and this author availed himself of loans) interest-free loans are available while in school. Many students will then see that loan amount reduced when they finish university thanks to generous grant and remission terms. Interest costs after completion are tax deductible, (as was $200 per month while they were in school.)

At the end of it all, a university graduate will earn at least $500,000 more than a high school graduate during their lifetime and is far less likely to ever have to stand in an unemployment line. Seen in that light, a $30,000 student loan is not a bad personal investment.

And consider this: While higher education does benefit all of society, one could make a subsidy pitch for many other special interests, including any number of promising high-tech businesses. Why shouldn't taxpayers fund 70-80% of the first four years set-up cost (including land, salaries and the like) of a new high-tech business, pay the interest for four (or five, six, or seven) years on the loan taken out to finance the remaining cost, pay a chunk of that loan off through remission at the end of that period, and then make the remaining interest tax deductible

All of this is not to say the current system should not be restructured. It should be, but just not through 'free' tuition. More on the alternative ideas next week.