©Salvinia/Bal
This article was originally published in Indonesian on June 20, 2023.
In 2023, UGM implemented a new tuition fee system that comes with additional charges for students deemed “financially capable”. However, several issues have surfaced. The new system turned out to also affect underprivileged students.
“Nak, what if you don’t enroll at UGM? I can’t afford the tuition right now.”
“It’s okay, Mom,” replied Merah (not her real name), a new student of the 2023 cohort.
Last March, Merah passed the National Selection Based on Achievement (SNBP) and was accepted as a new student at UGM for the 2023 intake. After receiving the announcement, Merah registered in Simaster, UGM’s integrated information system. She filled out several administrative forms to determine his tuition fee. “Initially, I filled in my parents’ additional income as zero rupiah because my father and mother only work as day laborers,” explained Merah.
However, unexpectedly, her father’s additional income was suddenly listed as Rp3,000,000, and her mother’s as Rp750,000. In reality, her father only earns Rp70,000 per day, while her mother earns Rp25,000 per day. “I was shocked to see my parents’ additional income column filled out in Simaster,” she said.
Because her parents’ additional income column was filled in, Merah’s tuition fee was only subsidized 25%, amounting to Rp8,550,000. Meanwhile, her parents’ accumulated income only totals Rp2,850,000. With that income, her parents have to also cover daily living expenses, repay debts, and pay the tuition fee. “My parents cannot afford to pay,” said Merah.
Confused and scared, Merah and her mother went to UGM to find a solution for the data error in Simaster. Merah was then advised to file an appeal for the tuition fee (UKT). However, as of May 23rd, her email requesting the appeal had not received a response. Meanwhile, the UKT payment deadline was on May 24th at 10:00 PM WIB. “I was confused, the payment deadline was near, and my parents didn’t have the money to pay,” she explained.
In a panic, Merah contacted her senior for help. Fortunately, Merah was directly connected to the academic staff in her faculty. Finally, on May 24th at 4:00 PM WIB, Merah’s appeal was granted. Her UKT was reduced from a 25% subsidy to a 50% subsidy, amounting to Rp5,700,000. “Even with that amount, it is still very burdensome for my parents,” said Merah.
Besides Merah, Kuning (not his real name), another new student who entered through the SNBP pathway, faced a similar situation. “My mother and I had to pawn our jewelry to pay the UKT. That jewelry was supposed to be our savings for a house since we are still renting,” Kuning said. His father is a furniture worker and is currently away from home, while his mother is sick and unemployed. Kuning also has an older sibling who is not working right now because they’re taking care of their mother.
To meet their daily needs, Kuning’s family relies solely on his father’s income. “My father’s income is unpredictable. When business is good, he might make up to 3.5 million rupiah, but when it’s not, it’s only around 1–2 million rupiah,” he explained. Despite this income, Kuning only received a 50% subsidized tuition fee, amounting to Rp5,500,000.
“Son, why is it so expensive? Even with a 50% subsidy, it’s still over five million,” his mother asked. Kuning didn’t know how to explain the high tuition fees at UGM. He filed an appeal for a reduction, but the decision never came. As the payment deadline approached, Kuning started to panic. In the end, he had to use his family’s savings to cover the tuition fee.
New System, New Issues
In 2023, UGM implemented a new policy regarding fee categories and amounts, outlined in the Rector’s Decree Number 261/UN1.P/KPT/HUKOR/2023. Under this new policy, UGM reduced the number of tuition fee categories from eight to five, divided into subsidized and unsubsidized “UKT Pendidikan Unggul”. Additionally, students admitted through the Computer-Based Test Admission who fall under the “UKT Pendidikan Unggul” category are now required to pay an additional fee called the Sumbangan Solidaritas Pendidikan Unggul (SSPU). This fee is set at Rp20,000,000 for Social Sciences and Humanities programs and Rp30,000,000 for Sciences, Technology, and Health programs. This type of fee had previously been applied under the Sumbangan Sukarela Pengembangan Institusi (SSPI) policy.
Supriyadi, the Vice-Rector for Human Resources and Finance, stated that the additional fees introduced last year were an effort to offset operational deficits and the subsidies previously covered by UGM. “UGM and other state universities have been providing numerous subsidies, but they were not apparent,” he said. Additionally, this new tuition fee system is claimed to take into account a more comprehensive set of variables compared to the previous system.
According to Supriyadi, these variables include not only parental income in determining the tuition fee amount but also other factors like the number of dependents and electricity costs. All these variables are aggregated and calculated in the Economic Capability Index (IKE) system. “Now, it includes variables like electricity bill, dependents, and statistical data that reflect real capabilities based on previous systems,” he emphasized. However, he also noted that the system is still relatively simple because it is being implemented for the first time at UGM.
Contrary to Supriyadi, Dhivana Anarchia (Arsya), the External Coordinator of the UGM Advocacy Forum (Formad) 2023, argued that the IKE system does not take these variables into account. This conclusion is based on the IKE simulation findings, which showed that the only influencing variables are total income and the number of dependents, while other variables such as annual tax returns, electricity costs, and property taxes are not significant. “In the IKE system, there are only two variables: income and dependents,” said Arsya.
Furthermore, Arsya explained that the new tuition fee system is unfair. The reason is the high ratio of sacrifice (the percentage of parental income spent on education fees per month-ed) for the middle-income group. “By narrowing the tuition categories, it shows that the sacrifice ratio has only shifted to the middle class, with some cases seeing families spend up to 70% of their income on tuition fees alone,” Arsya explained. She further noted that a recent Formad survey, which gathered responses from 1,066 people, found that 61% of the respondents felt their tuition fees amount were unfair.
Supriyadi disputed this claim. “If we look at the financial aspect, it seems impossible to implement a fair tuition model. Therefore, we’ve adopted a fair tuition fee system where students aren’t burdened with the full cost,” said Supriyadi. According to him, even the highest tuition fees do not cover the total cost of education.
Poor IKE Results
Arsya pointed out that the IKE system is ineffective due to a lack of both proper socialization and clear standard operating procedures (SOP). For Arsya, the IKE system is neither transparent nor comprehensive, as it only factors in income and dependents. “The AI-driven IKE system is not transparent and has no clear foundation; everything is vague during the verification process,” Arsya argued.
Additionally, Arsya explained that the IKE system, which serves as a reference for the Verification Team, causes uncertainty. Some members of the team believed that the system could automatically determine which students couldn’t afford the tuition fee. In fact, according to Arsya’s findings, some faculties arbitrarily set the tuition fee amount due to the lack of clear SOPs. “The verifiers don’t know either. So, some verifiers arbitrarily increased the tuition fee amount because they suspected the new students were lying,” Arsya stated.
In line with Arsya, Abu (not his real name), a member of the Student Advocacy Team from the Science and Technology Cluster, stated that his faculty implements a quota-based funding system. For example, a student who should receive a 75% subsidy might be placed in a higher category if the quota for the 75% subsidy has already been filled. “The complaints from new students about their tuition fee not being appropriate are caused by this policy,” Abu said.
Supriyadi affirmed Abu’s statement that the Verification Team has its own authority to process the tuition fee recommendations provided by the IKE system. He emphasized that there is a guideline for setting the tuition fee, but the final decision is made by each faculty. “We do indeed give the faculty authority. The faculties are experienced; they know whether the data is valid or not because they have a good sense for it,” Supriyadi explained.
Another issue arises from the involvement of students in the Verification Team in each study program or department. Abu stated that his faculty’s dean had emphasized that student involvement is not mandatory. In fact, Abu’s dean insisted that students would only be involved if an appeal was submitted. However, according to Supriyadi, the Verification Team must involve students. “The dean said that we only need to fix the problematic system,” Abu revealed.
The new tuition fee system in UGM has caused various problems, ranging from a lack of transparency in the IKE system and the reduction of categories to the perceived unfair determination of tuition fee. Despite receiving some relief, the tuition fee that Kuning has to pay still feels like a heavy burden. “If I have to pay 5 million rupiah plus accommodation costs until graduation, my parents can’t afford it,” Kuning said. Now, Kuning is only hoping to secure a scholarship at UGM.
Authors: Michelle Gabriela dan Vigo Joshua
Editor: Albertus Arioseto
Illustrator: Salvinia Amabilis Aryufa
Translator: Seravin Afra Secunda