Public varsities charging for services not rendered

It would sound frivolous for parents of means to gripe about their share of tuition costs at public universities, one of which charges less than Sh10,000 per semester under the higher education funding model the government wants to phase out.

More concerning, though, are the add-on fees, some of which are opaque or downright fraudulent. These charges end up tripling the actual cost of education. In the fee structure of one university for the 2024-25 academic year that I examined recently for a third-year student, tuition represents a small portion of the total costs parents must bear.

The itemised bill reveals a worrying pattern of extra charges that deserve public scrutiny. Most troubling is the Sh3,000 “attachment fees” charged to students for internship services that our universities largely fail to provide.

These mandatory practical training attachments are crucial components of degree programmes in Kenya, yet students are left to deal with the placement process alone, often relying on personal connections or political networks to secure opportunities – a practice that many Kenyans would argue perpetuates inequality and undermines merit-based education.

The disconnect between fees charged and services rendered raises troubling questions about transparency in the public university system. If students are compelled to pay Sh3,000 per semester for library fees, Sh1,500 for computer charges, and over Sh5,000 for examination fees, they and their parents deserve to know exactly what these charges cover and how the money is utilised to improve educational services.

But you’re unlikely to get a straight answer if you ask. In the case of computer fees, for example, many students today carry their own laptops and don’t use university-owned computers for assignments. How do administrators justify charging that kind of money for a service many students don’t use?

The university’s fee structure appears designed to dodge the politically sensitive issue of tuition increases by splitting costs into numerous smaller charges. While administrators and lecturers have consistently argued that current tuition fees are insufficient for running these institutions effectively, the solution cannot lie in creating a maze of extra charges that lack clear justification or corresponding services.

These hidden costs disproportionately affect students from lower-income backgrounds who may have budgeted based on the tuition figures, only to find themselves struggling with unexpected additional expenses.

When you include housing and maintenance costs, the total bill makes higher education out of reach for many young people. This system could be turning public universities – which are meant to be vehicles of socio-economic mobility – into preservers of inequality.

I find the internship fees particularly troublesome. In an era when young people see practical experience as increasingly crucial for employability, universities should be strengthening their industry connections and creating robust and meaningful placement programmes.

Instead, administrators appear content to collect fees from struggling families while leaving students to fend for themselves in Kenya’s awfully competitive job market. This approach not only fails to prepare students adequately for their careers but also reinforces the primitive “Kenyan way” of securing opportunities through connections instead of merit.

Rather than imposing more charges, public universities need to review their fee structures with transparency and value for money in mind. The services they claim to provide should be measurable and directly benefit students’ education and career prospects. If universities genuinely need more funding, they should make this case openly to the government rather than hiding increases behind multiple hard-to-justify charges.

Parents and students deserve clear information about the true cost of education and assurances that their money is being used effectively to provide quality education and support services.

The practice of charging for services not rendered, particularly in the case of attachment fees, borders on misleading conduct and should be investigated.

Discussions are underway on higher education funding and student aid. As we debate these issues, we must ensure that any changes adopted serve to enhance educational quality and easier access rather than simply trying to extract more money from already financially overstretched families.

— The writer is a Sub-Editor with People Daily