Two farmers in Shanxi Province committed suicide recently, both because they could not afford their children's college fees, according to Chinese media reports on Monday.

In recent years, reports of similar tragedies have appeared every year around the time universities and colleges enrol new students. Many farmers say that one of the things they "fear most" now is their children's success in the national college entrance exam, as that means they will have to spend almost their entire annual income on tuition fees. Ironically, Chinese farmers place their biggest hope for a change in their circumstances on their children receiving a college education.

China's universities scrapped free education in 1989. Last year, annual tuition fees rose to an average of 5,000 yuan (US$625). However, this does not include the costs of meals, books and other daily necessities. According to the latest official statistics, Chinese farmers have an average annual income of 3,256 yuan (US$407). Tuition fees are also a heavy burden on urbanites, whose average annual income is 10,493 yuan (US$1,312).

After 17 years, Chinese people have become accustomed to universities charging tuition fees. They realize that higher education is a high-end commodity like a villa or a car. However, they do question how the tuition fees are set and whether they are justified.

A vice-minister of education explained last year that the calculation of the cost of each university student's education is based on the "normal costs of daily operation" of the university, while noting that the "actual cost" is much higher. The calculated cost was 10,000-14,000 yuan (US$1,250-1,750). Then, the official said, a median is adopted and divided by four to arrive at the official tuition standard of 3,500 yuan (US$437.5). Last year, the ministry issued a notice stating that no university should be allowed to charge tuition fees higher than 6,000 yuan (US$750).

I have two questions about this theory. First, is higher education purely a market commodity? Second, is the aforementioned method of calculation fair to farmers?

Higher education is not completely comparable to villas and sedan cars. It is actually a quasi-public resource, because it constitutes part of the nation's strength and concerns the overall quality of Chinese society. A country can survive without villas and sedan cars but cannot do without higher education. Therefore, the government should not hand over the responsibility of providing higher education completely to the market.

Though the Chinese Government bears the major part of the costs of running universities, it is an indisputable fact that these institutions have gone too far in turning themselves into profit generators by charging more than the State-stipulated standard tuition fee, as well as extra fees under various guises.

My second question concerns the method of calculating the "normal costs" of higher education, which, according to the education authorities, comprises the salaries of the teaching staff, social security, pensions, management and the daily operation of the institution. As all universities and colleges are in cities, these costs are calculated according to urban standards. This method of calculation therefore discriminates against farmers.

It is commonly acknowledged that the urban-rural income gap mainly stems from the inequitable trade between industrial and agricultural products. Therefore, it is unfair for farmers to pay tuition fees at the same rate as their urban cousins.

This urban-rural income gap also existed in the pre-reform years. However, this inequity did not affect higher education as it was free to everybody at that time. Now that we have to pay for higher education, most farmers are effectively denied access to our universities and colleges. This is unfair.

Such an imbalance may have to exist for some time, but it should not be an excuse to prevent farmers from enjoying equal access to higher education.

The government should subsidize college students from rural families.

Email: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 07/19/2006 page4)