The Alberta government unveiled its long-promised provincial post-secondary application website last week to great fanfare.

ApplyAlberta.ca  allows potential students to complete one application for admission to any of the province's publicly funded colleges and universities. Alberta follows British Columbia in combining applications for both colleges and universities on one website. (Ontario has one site for universities and another site for colleges.)

The one-stop application service should prove to be convenient for anyone applying to more than one Alberta institution and will attract more out-of-province applicants by streamlining the process. 

ApplyAlberta.ca does have one fundamental flaw: It followed the British Columbia model too closely. It took the good part - combining college and university applications. But it kept the bad part - allowing institutions to charge their own fees. 

What does this mean for potential students?

If they decide to apply to the three largest universities in Alberta, it will cost them the following: $115 for the University of Alberta, $115 for the University of Calgary, and $75 for the University of Lethbridge - a total of $305. A student applying to three Ontario universities will pay the grand sum of $115. A student applying to British Columbia's big three will pay $165.  (UBC - $60, SFU - $45, and UVic - $60)

Applying to university in Alberta remains more expensive than applying in any other province - not a distinction any government looking to encourage people to apply for post-secondary education should be proud of.

As a political studies student, I cannot help but think of this as another example of why the Alberta provincial Conservatives are on their way to opposition status - they've abandoned middle-class families by allowing institutions to continue lining their pockets. The new streamlined website will save universities money - they no longer have to run their own application websites - but those savings are not being passed on to Alberta families.

Considering those same families are already facing massive fee increases for such things as "common space security and sustainability" (yes, hallways) at the province's flagship university, ApplyAlberta is just another example of a government unwilling to confront an out-of-control university sector.

ApplyAlberta is a step in the right direction. Now that the government has cut excessive red tape, it needs to stomp out excessive fees and bring its universities back under true public control.

(GlobeCampus editor: You may also be interested in Eye on Higher Ed on how students in need got stiffed in the Alberta budget.)

The Queen's Journal reports that a Queen's University student wishes to create a new $70 opt-out fee to help the university overcome a budget deficit. 

The student who is proposing the fee, Morgan Campbell, told The Journal  the fee would "go towards the operating budget, such as paying of TAs, maintenance of rooms, and provision of teaching materials."

The Journal did a good job in covering a relevant  issue for its readership - the problem the university has filling its budget gap.

There is one problem with the idea, even if it is passed by a student referendum: The fee would be in direct violation of government policy.

Under the provincial regulations governing tuition and ancillary fees at Ontario universities, ancillary fees can only be used to enhance student life and non-academic services. Ancillary fees cannot be used for capital or operating expenses related to the academic mission of an institution.

In short, students technically cannot pass a fee which supplements the academic services funded by their tuition.

That said, the current Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities John Milloy has shown little interest in enforcing his own regulations. Many colleges are already charging supplementary fees for academic services such as libraries.

There is a mystery surrounding tuition fees in Ontario for 2010/11.

The only honest answer university recruiters can give to what tuition fees will be is: "We don't know."

This is because the Ontario government's present tuition framework expires at the end of the current academic year and there are no signs the province will be releasing a new one before the late winter/early spring tabling of next year's provincial budget.

This leaves parents, who are being encouraged by the government to save for their children's education, unable to create their financial plans for the next academic year.

With applications for the 2010 academic year already being submitted, and the earliest offers of admission being made, it would be nice of Ontario's Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities John Milloy to submit his new tuition framework in a timely fashion and let people know the cost of a post-secondary program in Ontario.

I was interested in two stories last week, in which students are being seen as easy revenue sources; one by a university, the other by a city. Though these striking situations are American, we are seeing some disturbing trends in Canada, too.

The University  of California system, home to some of the world's greatest public universities, is dealing with a $813-million (all figures in USD) cut from state transfer payments. In Pittsburgh, the city is facing a $15-million deficit. Both are looking to students to fill their budget gaps.

The University of California system is following the traditional method of deficit plagued universities and raising tuition, but in this case, by a stunning 32 per cent. The tuition hike will increase revenue for the UC system by approximately $505-million in the coming year, and about $175-million of this money will be directed to increased financial assistance for low income students.

The remainder of the budget deficit will be filled by cuts to staffing and budgets with many professors seeing their pay cut by 9 to 10 per cent because of mandatory furloughs. Officially, pay for senior administrators within the UC system has been cut by 10 per cent, but many senior administrative positions have actually seen pay increases this year.

The tuition increases have resulted in protests by student and labour activists. Links to coverage of the protests can be found at the Student Activism blog maintained by Angus Johnston: http://studentactivism.net/

The tuition increases in California have sparked a national debate in the United States regarding tuition policy. The New York Times "Room for Debate Blog" weighed in Monday publishing the opinions of six parties on how American public universities should "balance fiscal responsibility and equal opportunity." The opinions are well worth reading.

No surprise to my regular readers, I believe public higher education accessibility policy should focus on targeted aid instead of the present system of blanket subsidies of tuition for all socio-economic backgrounds.

The other story is much more interesting from a political standpoint. The mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl, proposed a novel new tax to plug the city's deficit: a 1 per cent sales tax on all tuition payments for students attending post-secondary institutions in the city. The tax, which the mayor expected to raise $16-million in its first year, would have seen students pay between $27 and $403 on top of their tuition.

The mayor claimed the tax is justified because post-secondary institutions are exempt from paying property taxes to the city, students use city services, and the city incurs policing costs from student parties. He called it a "fair-share" tax and announced the tax proposal less than a week after winning re-election to another term.

Thankfully, after opposition locally and pressure from the both the state government and parties interested in higher education, a state board overseeing the city's budget rejected the idea.

But the mayor's idea is unlikely to go away. He wants to introduce it anyway and let the courts decide whether the city can impose this tax.

It's a politically brilliant idea. Cost-effective and easy to collect, it would quickly result in new money for city coffers. And, most importantly for politicians, because students tend to not vote, it is unlikely to harm a politician's chance of being re-elected.

But it is poor public policy: It targets a specific group without any consideration of the ability of that group to afford the tax and fails to account for students living off-campus, who contribute to the property tax base of the city. It also creates the impression that students are not welcome in Pittsburgh; exactly the wrong message that any city wishing to still be relevant in 10 years should be conveying. 

Canada isn't immune to the targeting of students by municipal governments. The City of Oshawa imposed a $250-per-bedroom annual licensing fee against rental housing near the joint campus of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College. The fee, which will soon be implemented following the dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday, is being looked at by other municipalities in Ontario.

Students have also been hit harder than the rate of inflation, with average undergraduate tuition fee increases nationally of 3.6%  and an inflation decline of 0.8%, according to Statistics Canada. Graduate students faced an even higher tuition fee increase.

As the effects of the recession continue, it will become increasingly likely that students will be asked to pay up with increased tuition and user fees.

Students only have ourselves to blame for this: Few of us vote and we're going to keep paying the price until this fact changes.

(GlobeCampus Editor: You may also be interested in Joey Coleman's piece on the recession's effects on students)