Free University Tuition: Make Sure You’re Looking in the Right Place
Jakarta – President Prabowo Subianto on September 18, 2026, expressed his desire to make education in public schools up to state universities free of charge. Five days later, the government held a limited cabinet meeting at the Merdeka Palace. Several options remain under review, including the possibility of a phased implementation tailored to fiscal capacity.
Amid these hopes, one crucial question must be asked: free college for whom? Because higher education is not merely a matter of who pays, but also who manages to enroll, persist until graduation, and receive the greatest share of benefits from state expenditure.
According to the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology (Kemdiktisaintek), the estimated requirement to fund free tuition for students in public universities reaches approximately Rp 93.74 trillion per year for 2,833,169 students across Diploma 3, Diploma 4, and Bachelor's degree levels. This figure represents calculated needs rather than a finalized budget, and it does not yet encompass all potential policy scopes. The government is still deliberating execution options and schemes.
By way of comparison, following adjustments, Kemdiktisaintek's 2027 budget ceiling stands at Rp 66.44 trillion. Consequently, the calculated requirement for free tuition is equivalent to roughly 1.4 times the ministry's budget ceiling. At the same time, an additional Rp 1.267 trillion within the 2027 budget adjustment is allocated toward strengthening the KIP Kuliah (Indonesian Smart Card for College) program.
These figures illustrate that free college is not merely a policy to abolish Single Tuition Fees (UKT). The state is discussing a major transformation in the financing architecture of higher education.
Who is Being Assisted?
The primary issue concerns targeting accuracy. If all public university students are exempted from tuition without regard to economic means, the state will end up subsidizing students who are well-off and able to pay. At the same time, children from low-income families who fail to gain admission to state universities (PTN) or opt for private higher education institutions (PTS) due to capacity constraints will continue to bear education costs.
The issue begins even before anyone pays tuition fees. Opportunities to enter university are influenced by school quality, academic readiness, access to information, geographic location, test preparation costs, and a family's ability to provide a supportive learning environment.
The experience of the Philippines offers an important lesson. Through the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act or Republic Act No. 10931 enacted in 2017, the state provided tuition and administrative fee exemptions across state universities and colleges, while simultaneously establishing the Tertiary Education Subsidy and student loan programs. The legislation also explicitly recognized the complementary role of private higher education institutions within the tertiary education system.
Interestingly, a study by Daway-Ducanes, Pernia, and Ramos (2022) published in the International Journal of Educational Development analyzed data from 664,332 applicants to the University of the Philippines between 2006 and 2015. The study identified an income advantage: applicants from higher-income groups demonstrated a significantly greater probability of admission to the university, including for their first-choice programs. The authors concluded that free tuition policies carry the potential to disproportionately benefit those who already possess advantages prior to the admission process.
The lesson is directly relevant to Indonesia. Waiving tuition after an individual successfully secures admission to a public university does not necessarily eliminate the inequalities that occurred before the campus doors ever opened. Indonesian data shows considerable room for expansion remains.
Statistics Indonesia (BPS) recorded the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) for higher education in 2025 at 32.89 percent for the 19–23 age group. BPS also noted that GER is not a literal measurement of the proportion of 19–23 year-olds enrolled in university, as the indicator includes students outside that age bracket. Therefore, the metric is best understood as a reflection of overall participation levels and higher education capacity that still require expansion.
The underlying problem is that tuition fees are not the sole barrier. For students from impoverished families accepted into universities far from their home regions, for instance, tuition is only one part of the financial equation. Expenses include housing, food, transportation, textbooks, digital devices, and other academic necessities. Thus, free college that translates strictly to zero tuition does not guarantee that a student can navigate university life without substantial financial burden.
Indonesia already possesses an instrument to address this challenge through the KIP Kuliah program. In 2026, the program's allocation reached approximately Rp 15.32 trillion, targeting 1,047,221 students. In addition to covering tuition costs, KIP Kuliah provides living allowances calibrated across regional cost tiers. Therefore, free college policies should reinforce this existing assistance ecosystem.
Waiving tuition fees should not lead to diminished attention toward living expenses. At this junction, equity in higher education must be viewed holistically: who can enter, who can persist, and who can successfully complete their studies.
Preserving Quality
The next challenge involves quality. Free tuition from the student's perspective does not mean higher education becomes cost-free to operate. Professors must still be compensated, lecture halls and laboratories provided, libraries updated, research funded, and academic services maintained.
In other words, what changes is the paying entity. A portion of expenses previously borne by students shifts to the state. This is where the Rp 93.74 trillion calculation requires deeper examination: does this funding merely replace revenue previously collected from students, or does it simultaneously strengthen the capacity and educational quality of higher education institutions?
This question is critical because an influx of students without proportional additions of faculty and facilities can lead to expanded access at the expense of educational quality. Higher education is ultimately not just about the number of students sitting in lecture halls, but about the quality of learning they experience.
The experience of Chile highlights the value of a phased design. In 2016, the gratuidad program commenced by waiving tuition and registration fees for students from the 50 percent most vulnerable households enrolled at eligible institutions.
The United Kingdom's experience offers lessons from a different direction. A study by Murphy, Scott-Clayton, and Wyness (2019) examined the UK's transition from a tuition-free system to an income-contingent loan structure. The study revealed that per-student funding and overall participation increased following the policy reform, with no evidence that the participation gap widened as critics had feared.
The key takeaway from the UK is not that charging tuition is inherently superior to free college. The lesson is that financial design and structure matter far more than the simple binary label of free or paid.
Implementation Principles
Indonesia can draw several core principles from these international experiences.
First, implementation should be phased and needs-based. The government itself continues to discuss multiple scenarios, including a phased rollout based on fiscal capacity. A gradual approach provides room to refine data, evaluate impacts, and adjust funding mechanisms before expanding coverage.
Second, living expenses must form an integral component of access policy. Exempting tuition fees offers little relief to a student forced to drop out due to an inability to afford rent and basic daily necessities.
Third, funding must keep pace with quality requirements. Student expansion must be accompanied by additions in faculty, learning spaces, laboratories, libraries, academic services, and research support. The state must avoid achieving tuition-free college at the cost of degraded educational quality.
Fourth, a portion of financial support should follow the student rather than solely the institution. Low-income students studying at private universities should not be excluded from state support simply because they were unable to secure a seat at a public university. The Philippine experience demonstrates that tertiary funding can effectively pair public institution fee waivers with broader student subsidy schemes.
Fifth, private higher education institutions (PTS) must be integrated as vital components of the national tertiary education ecosystem. If fee waivers at public universities trigger a massive migration of students away from private campuses, the cascading impacts could jeopardize the sustainability of study programs, faculty, administrative staff, and local communities that depend on these institutions.
Sixth, funding sources must be recurrent and predictable. While funds recovered from anti-corruption enforcement can bolster state revenues, higher education represents a permanent, recurring obligation. Consequently, funding requires stable, transparent sources that can be reliably projected within long-term budgetary planning.
Ultimately, the measure of success for a free college policy is not simply how many students stop paying tuition. The far more meaningful benchmark is how many students from underprivileged backgrounds—who were previously excluded from higher education—can gain admission, persevere through graduation, acquire robust competencies, and successfully enter the workforce.
Free college is a noble goal worth pursuing. For that goal to endure beyond a single budget cycle and one administration, its design must ensure accurate targeting, affordable living costs, preserved educational quality, and sustainable long-term financing.
A noble intention to open university doors for all must not end with the largest subsidies being enjoyed by those whose doors were already wide open.
(This article was originally published on detik.com on Tuesday, September 29, 2026)