Critical Analysis of the 2024 PTNBH Campus UKT/IPI Increase Policy in Indonesia

The policy of increasing the UKT/IPI (Single Tuition Fee/Institutional Development Fee) for PTNBH (Legal Entity State University) campuses in 2024 proposed by the Indonesian Minister of Education Nadiem Makarim has sparked a frenzy in society. In fact, the idea of increasing tuition fees is quite good, namely in order to increase income and the quality of higher education in Indonesia, but this proposal is a controversial proposal and has the potential to hamper access to education for underprivileged people. However, this policy is only a trial and does not take into account other negative issues and consequences. Does the IPI increase need to be increased, or is it just a failed policy that was finally canceled as it was supposed to be?

In early 2024, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology (Kemendikbudristek) announced plans to increase the Single Tuition Fee (UKT) and Institutional Development Fee (IPI) at all state universities with legal entities (PTNBH) in Indonesia for the 2024/2025 academic year. This policy sparked massive protests from students at various universities. Which caused students from various universities to carry out large-scale demonstrations throughout Indonesia. This issue then escalated and went viral on social media, where it also attracted the attention of the public and media crew.

Prof. Tjitjik Sri Tjahjandarie PhD as Acting Secretary of the Directorate General of Education and Technology in the Media Briefing on UKT Tariffs in State Universities stated that higher education is tertiary education, that is, it is optional, not a compulsory study program. However, Nadiem Makarim, Minister of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia as Prof. Tjitjik's "superior" was summoned by the Deputy and Commission 10 of the DPR to explain the policy after receiving concerns from several DPR members and community leaders regarding its impact on the accessibility of higher education. .

After hearing various responses and protests from various communities, the Ministry of Education and Culture issued a press release on May 27 2024 and a letter from the Director General of Higher Education to cancel the increase in UKT and IPI for the 2024/2025 academic year. The University of Indonesia (UI) then resubmitted the UKT and IPI rates for the 2024/2025 academic year to the Director General of Diktiristek no later than June 5 2024, guaranteeing that no new students would pay higher UKT due to the revision of the Chancellor's Decree.

This UKT increase policy is like a trial and error strategy where it is just a trial, where if it is successful it will be very profitable and if it is not successful then they have nothing to lose. Big policies like this should emphasize the importance of peer assessment and public testing before making policies that concern many people. This case also shows the importance of using big data to understand policy impacts and listen to input from various stakeholders.

If studied further, of course this policy sparked protests because of the possible consequences of the increase in the IPI that was carried out. Consequences such as social inequality due to the lack of opportunities for poor people to study, resulted in poor people not being able to achieve more decent jobs because they were hampered by lack of skills and education. Then continued poverty and lack of education can limit their employment options, resulting in them being trapped in a cycle of poverty. Then other bad consequences such as increasing crime rates, decreasing competitiveness of human resources, shifting interest to private universities, increasing college dropout rates also need to be considered before implementing this policy as a whole. Fortunately, the decision to cancel the UKT increase shows policy dynamics that are responsive to protests and input from the community.

Although the idea of improving the quality of higher education is worthy of appreciation, the proposed UKT/IPI increase policy is unwise and has the potential to cause bigger social problems.

First, increasing tuition fees can make higher education increasingly unaffordable for disadvantaged communities as previously mentioned, thereby widening social disparities and access to education. This is contrary to the principle of educational equality which is highly upheld in Indonesia and has the potential to cause many SNBP (Non-Paid Subsidies) students to withdraw because they are not accepted back on campus. As stated by Fadli Zon from the Gerindra Party, even though higher education is an option, the government should still ensure its accessibility for all groups to avoid greater educational disparities.

Second, massive resistance from students and the public shows that this policy does not involve public participation in the process. Anies Baswedan, former Minister of Education, suggested that the government prioritize budget redistribution for higher education rather than imposing additional costs on students. He also warned that increasing education costs could increase the college dropout rate and have a negative impact on efforts to improve the quality of human resources in Indonesia.

Third, the cancellation of the policy by Nadiem Makarim after massive protests shows that the government did not carry out in-depth studies beforehand. BEM University of Indonesia also criticized the use of socio-economic data which is often inaccurate in determining UKT/IPI, and demanded transparency and accountability in the use of these funds.

Siti Noor Laila, an education activist, emphasized that higher education should be a tool for reducing social and economic disparities, not the other way around. Improving the quality of education does not always have to come from increasing costs, but can be achieved through other means such as curriculum reform and optimizing existing funds.

Overall, the 2024 PTNBH campus UKT/IPI increase policy in Indonesia is unreasonable and has the potential to give rise to new problems related to access and equity of higher education. Even though the aim is to improve the quality of education, the method used is not wise at all and ignores the aspirations of the wider community. Nadiem Makarim's cancellation of the policy was the right step to avoid greater social upheaval. However, the government must learn from this experience so that in the future policies in the education sector will be more mature, participatory, and in favor of the interests of the wider community by involving peer assessment and public testing b

efore being implemented.