NO! Clearly, people that have went to university report more income than people that only finished high school or dropped out of high/grade school. That fact, and that fact only is what is clear.

Could you think of other reasons why a person who was able to complete university may make more money than someone who only finished HS or less? Here’s one: Lots of successful people work in trades and don’t declare all of their income. Or the university graduates group would include only those that finished high school, and the comparison group includes those that dropped out anywhere from K-12, a big confounding variable. Or maybe they’re just smarter and it has nothing to do with their education at all.

Though I would hope, generally, a university grad will make more than a non-grad, but the figures cited are terribly unclear of that and its magnitude.

“The government is already paying $2.60 for every $1.00 paid in tuition. For the average Canadian undergraduate student, tuition for the 2006/2007 year was $4,347, and this wasn’t even half the actual cost of providing post secondary education.”

You’re really confusing the cash transfers made to universities with the cost of education. The money the government provides to universities is for far more than just education. Professors aren’t just paid to teach their 1 or 2 courses a year (I sure hope anyway).

Funny how you somewhat mentioned this difference in the prior paragraph, but didn’t bother to think about it when looking at student’s component of tuition vs. government’s component of tuition.

If you really want to make the comparison here, you need to figure out by what amount the amount spent on education exceeds the amount gained from tuition in a university. I’m sure the ratio wouldn’t be anywhere near the 2.6:1 figure you found. Possibly even less than 1:1.

I’d go so far as suggesting that there is a very large public benefit gained by the entire population from the non-education products of a university, but feel free to disagree with me here.

Shouldn’t the government be paying for this public benefit in the first place, instead of a small-set of students?

My concluding statement(s)/thought(s):
If university grads are making greater incomes, aren’t they already paying substantially more in taxes than the non-grads?
By forcing them to cough up money when they’re making the least, are we minimizing their ability to start-up risky but innovative businesses when they are at their intellectual peaks?
Are we forcing them to take the larger-paying job(s) (eg: waitering/waitressing/bartending), instead of ones that would be more beneficial to them in their long-term career goals given their new education (eg: working with a non-profit/NGO)?
Are we forcing students to work through the school-year when they’d rather be concentrating on their studies (debatable for some students, realistic for others)?
Are we limiting student’s abilities to pursue higher level education because their undergrad debt is too great (forcing smart minds into the workforce when it isn’t best)? If you’re entering into a graduate program, interest on $25k isn’t a very nice thing to have on a limited income, which 14% of students, as you say, graduate with more than (and how knows how much more than). At least interest rates are historically low right now.

My solution would be loan-accounts where you’re additionally taxed on your income until the education component of your tuition is paid off. This whole lower/raise tuition is pretty much garbage.

Moreover, while many university graduates earn more, fully 1/4 of university graduates earn less than the average high school graduates. Employment is not entirely predictable. Two students with BAs in psychology and B averages might end up in very different places. One might be working in marketing at Starbucks and one might be a Barista. Someone with a Social Work degree might end up running a non-profit and earning $75,000 a year or they might end up as a frontline worker earning $25,000 a year.

It’s hard to tell before hand and outcomes like the latter are what keep many people from taking out student loans – they fear the results.
This is why it makes more sense to fund education through the income tax system rather than the up-front fees system. People who derive economic benefits from their education will pay the price. People who do not, will not. Also, it recognizes that all of society benefits from an educated population and should fund it.

The simple fact is, getting a post-secondary degree is an investment in your future (not a right) and like any investment you need to pay for it.

While it may be true that it is still possible to get a university education without bankrupting yourself, I don’t see this as a particularly encouraging trend.