Page 2 of 5

431

Chowdhury, M., & Islam, A. (2022). Increasing Cost and Decreasing Affordability of Higher Education in Bangladesh. Advances in Social Sciences

Research Journal, 9(9). 430-434.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13071

(a) (b) (c)

This cost is incurring because of the minimum price floor private universities are setting to

deliver higher education as a service; it is extracting a huge portion of consumer welfare

because of the number of merits who are deprived of purchasing such service. Ultimately it is

only the upper income group who is being served from the private higher education. As a result,

the equilibrium a society needs to achieve in terms of supply and demand of quality graduates

is far distanced from the present scenario (in figure c). One has to consider the top categories

among the private universities if this above statement is to be taken seriously. There are many

private universities in the country - which is true. But not all of them can afford to supply quality

graduates. In order to fulfill the supply of the collective labor market they can’t afford to deliver

such quality within a price range that can reach a free market equilibrium (in figure a).

Evidences from Helal (2012), Ahmed, Iqbal and Abbasi (2018) and Nakata and Sharma (2019)

clearly support the above claim. Findings from these studies either show that private

universities are charging relatively a higher tuition fees or students from rich family

backgrounds are over represent the private sector. The question one must ask – what went

wrong with the public institutions? A ‘social but indirect cost’ is incurring through gaining

higher degrees at public institutions which is implicit. This involves financial burden that is

resulted from session jams, unproductive employment to generate negative labor market value,

horizontal or vertical cost due to mismatch between expected skills or area of study and actual

job roles and job fields which are available in the market. As a result, the market is flourished

by public graduates but because of the price ceiling, the quality they (public education

producers) need to deliver is vigorously constrained and harrowingly compromised (in figure

b). Ultimately, shortage of quality graduates is leaving the entire labor market with low wage,

mismatched job traps.

SECONDARY EVIDENCES

Ashraf, Joarder, Masum and Ibrahim (n.d.) found the need to focus on cost of education in

private universities affecting the quality and this factor was statistically highly significant. It

explained 3.854% of the variance in quality of the higher education (listed as third after faculty

credentials, classroom, academic calendar and other facilities in principle component analysis).

Haque (2009) cited via Helal (2012) claim that a higher marginal cost is occurring to deliver

higher education at private universities each year due to a higher rental cost of the institutional

infrastructures which are located in more expensive areas of the city that leads to a spending

of 11 times higher than public institutes which students indirectly bear through paying their

Page 3 of 5

432

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

tuition fees. Jawad a private university student makes the following statement – tuition fees in

private universities range from 40,000 taka to 80,000 taka on an average and it may

substantially increase, depending on how many credits one must enroll for in one semester

(www.thedailystar.net). World Bank (2019) claims private education costs households 1.26

times more at the tertiary level than the higher secondary level which is relatively an expensive

investment for an average income family. Ibid (n.d.) further indicates the currently available

part-time jobs, scholarship programs and loan/grant facilities are clearly scarce in number,

hence these programs are not enough to supply education to enormous number of talents who

are academically more credible. Considering weighted average scores on relatively higher

tuition fees in private universities was agreed by a majority in the sample that was studied by

Ibid (n.d.) There is also evidence for lack of financial aid for poor students as well as expensive

study materials (Ibid, n.d.). Finally, Jamil, Abdullah and Sarker (2012) found in their studies that

cost of study (material, physical and other psychological costs such as stress, tuition fees, part- time job facilities etc.) seem to be the most significant factors for most of the students in getting

selective while they choose private higher education. According to UGC report (n.d.) cited via

Billah (2019) student expenditure on an average was 81 thousand 182 taka per semester for

those who were studying in private institutes. Further, evidences from Ibid (219) suggests cost

per student in one semester are as follows: at North South University 92 thouasand 744 taka,

at Independent University 2 lakh 13 thousand 450 taka, at Ahsanullah Science and

Technological University 83 thousand 34 taka, at East West University 87 thousand 283 taka,

at BRAC University 1 lakh 49 thousand 23 taka, at Stamford University 1 lakh 9 thousand 575

taka. All these amounts are almost forty times higher than the average that is spent by a Dhaka

University student and almost one thousand times higher than a Jahangirnagar university

student in one semester including hall fee, tuition and other expenses (www.daily-sun.com).

Thus the researcher may arrive to this conclusion that considering the number of graduates

who can avail themselves (financially) a top quality private education and the number of quality

graduates which are demanded in the labor market or amount of individual private or

aggregate social return that is expected - the cost effectiveness (cost per additional unit of

benefit) is entirely lost and a dead weight loss is occurring due to supply constraints of quality

graduates.

Mystery of rising cost of higher education in public universities can be unfolded when one

considers the cost efficiencies. Student’s contribution to total revenue structure seems only 5%

of the total structuring cost according to UGC 2006 report (UGC, 2006a cited via Mamun, 2011).

Findings from Ibid (2011) clearly suggest public university education system is not scale

efficient considering the output level it delivers. Additionally, the cost of processing human

capital, social cost in terms of tax repayment that is expected from educated labor class,

negative return in the labor market on schooling cost and increasing opportunity cost for the

time in the labor market that is sacrificed in the classroom, absence of relevant skills and other

demand-supply mismatch qualities, added session jams, political disturbances impose an

indirect, implicit but heavier financial outlays on government who directly finances the public

education. Karim (2015) found in his studies that the poor people could benefit more the

primary and secondary education but significantly less from tertiary education in public sector.

In fact, it is the rich group who received more benefits from both private and public higher

education because of access, income disparity and poor employment conditions. Evidence from

Sarker and Hossain (2016) on public university graduates indicate – these people (who are