Report on the Comparative Affordability of Higher Education: India and the United States

Introduction: Aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education)

A recent social media analysis by American expatriate Kristen Fischer has initiated a significant discussion on the comparative affordability of higher education in India versus the United States. This report examines the data presented, framing the comparison within the context of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The analysis highlights how national education funding models directly impact accessibility and equity, key targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Quantitative Analysis of Educational Affordability

The analysis provides a direct comparison of public college tuition costs relative to median annual salaries in both nations. This data underscores the financial burden placed on students and directly relates to SDG Target 4.3, which calls for equal access to affordable tertiary education.

• India

  • Median Annual Salary: ₹3.3 lakh
  • Annual Public College Tuition: ₹10,000 to ₹50,000
  • Tuition as a Percentage of Median Salary: 3% to 15%

• United States

  • Median Annual Salary: ₹41 lakh (converted for comparison)
  • Annual Public College Tuition: ₹10 lakh to ₹26 lakh
  • Tuition as a Percentage of Median Salary: 23% to 63%

The findings illustrate that while salaries are higher in the US, the proportional cost of education is substantially greater, creating significant barriers to access, a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 4.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

The divergence in educational affordability between India and the United States has profound implications for several SDGs beyond just education.

• SDG 4 (Quality Education): India’s model of lower-cost higher education makes it more accessible to a larger portion of the population, aligning with the goal of providing equitable and inclusive educational opportunities. The high-cost structure in the US, conversely, often necessitates substantial student loans, undermining the principle of equal access.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The prohibitive cost of American higher education can entrench and exacerbate socio-economic inequalities. Access to university is often determined by financial capacity rather than merit, contradicting the aim of Target 10.2 to promote social and economic inclusion. India’s approach fosters greater potential for social mobility through education.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The burden of student debt in the US can be a significant driver of long-term financial hardship, hindering progress towards eradicating poverty (SDG 1). By making education more affordable, India enables a larger segment of its youth to acquire skills for decent work, thereby contributing to sustainable economic growth (SDG 8) without the impediment of crippling debt.

Public Response and Global Perspective

The analysis has been widely viewed and received positive feedback online, with many commentators validating the findings from their own experiences. The public response indicates a broader recognition of the challenges posed by high education costs and an appreciation for alternative models that prioritize accessibility. This global dialogue is essential for sharing best practices and developing policies that advance the SDGs on a global scale.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis initiated by Kristen Fischer provides a clear illustration of two different national approaches to financing higher education and their respective impacts on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The Indian model, characterized by significantly lower tuition costs relative to income, demonstrates a stronger alignment with the principles of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). It serves as a case study on how making education affordable can act as a powerful tool for reducing poverty, fostering economic growth, and ensuring that development is both inclusive and sustainable.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to the following Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The core theme of the article is the affordability and accessibility of education, specifically comparing public college tuition in India and the United States. The entire discussion, from the headline to the detailed breakdown of costs, revolves around ensuring education is within reach, which is a central tenet of SDG 4.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights the economic barriers to higher education, which is a form of inequality. By comparing the cost of tuition as a percentage of median income, it demonstrates how high costs in the US can exacerbate inequality, making it difficult for individuals from lower economic backgrounds to access college education without incurring significant debt. The article notes, “That’s why most people can’t afford to pay for college on their own and have to take out loans,” pointing directly to an inequality of opportunity based on economic status.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s focus, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   This target is the most relevant as the article directly discusses the affordability and accessibility of “public college tuition.” Kristen Fischer’s conclusion that “India makes education more affordable and therefore, more accessible” aligns perfectly with the goal of providing affordable tertiary education. The comparison is explicitly about making university education accessible to a broader population by keeping costs low.

2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.

   The article implies that the high cost of education in the US creates an inequality of opportunity. The statement, “The cost of a college education in America has gotten out of hand recently. It is nearly impossible to go through college without a loan anymore,” suggests that the system creates disadvantages for those who cannot afford the high tuition fees, thereby limiting equal opportunity for higher education and the better outcomes it can provide.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 4.3 (Affordability): Cost of tertiary education as a proportion of annual income.

  The article provides direct quantitative data for this indicator. It breaks down the numbers, stating, “Public college tuition in India ranges from 10,000 to 50,000 rupees per year, which is about 3 to 15 percent of the annual salary. But in the US, public college tuition ranges between 10 to 26 lakh per year, which accounts for 23 to 63 percent of the annual income.” This percentage is a direct measure of affordability.

• Indicator for Target 4.3 and 10.3 (Accessibility/Equal Opportunity): Dependence on loans to finance higher education.

  The article implies this indicator by highlighting the situation in the US: “It is nearly impossible to go through college without a loan anymore.” The prevalence of student loans serves as an indirect indicator of a lack of affordability and reduced accessibility for the general population, pointing to a systemic barrier to equal opportunity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hindustantimes.com