PCP
Two structures for one access problem
The federal dossier presented a specific demand: transfer grants for universities and higher vocational education to the Confederation. Uniform criteria and a minimum living standard were to replace cantonal responsibility in this area. It did not propose an identical allowance for everyone enrolled in every kind of course.
The proposal was rejected. The Federal Council’s decree of 21 August 2015 establishes rejection by the people and all cantons. This did not remove every common policy: an indirect counterproposal focused on federal contributions and intercantonal harmonisation. The approaches addressed a similar problem through a different distribution of power.
Transferring competence sought a guarantee carried directly at federal level. The alternative retained cantonal responsibility while using federal funding to encourage common rules. Comparison should examine that real distinction. Automatically equating federal action with solidarity, or local responsibility with effective proximity, does not explain the mechanisms.
From payments to cantons to individual rights
SERI documentation identifies a subsequent development: the counterproposal’s law took effect on 1 January 2016. Individual awards remained cantonal. Federal grants depend on essential criteria in the intercantonal grants agreement, which had already entered into force on 1 March 2013. These dates separate the situation before the vote from what followed.
SERI also describes federal lump sums based on cantonal population. These finance a public responsibility; they are not each student’s grant amount. A payment to a canton does not immediately establish what an individual will receive. Eligibility rules and calculation of support must connect the two.
This distinction is necessary for democratic accountability. An authority may help fund a scheme without deciding an individual application. Applicants need to know who decides and which rule they can rely on. Divided responsibilities should not become divided uncertainty for the person applying.
A budget that makes study possible
A grant serves a different function from a loan. It meets a need without the same future repayment obligation; a loan shifts a burden into the future. They can fund the same expense today without offering the same security tomorrow. Treating them as fully interchangeable conceals the student’s risk.
Useful support also depends on the remaining shortfall. Course fees, housing and living expenses are different items. Paying only registration fees may leave maintenance during study unresolved. If a budget already requires substantial paid work, formal admission does not guarantee enough time to learn.
Family resources require similar precision. An assessed contribution and support actually available are not always identical. A scheme needs to address cases where a rule assumes resources an applicant cannot obtain. This is a design requirement, rather than a claim that all cantonal systems in 2015 shared the same rule or defect.
Proximity should deliver security
Cantonal responsibility can have practical advantages: knowing local pathways, coordinating guidance and considering individual circumstances. The benefit depends on the service’s organisation and resources. Fewer administrative levels alone do not prove speed or accessibility.
Conversely, a common national standard can make rights clearer without simplifying every application. The actual journey matters: information before choosing studies, a sufficiently predictable decision and payment when expenses arise. A late funding promise can leave an immediate obstacle, even if entitlement is eventually recognised.
Timing is particularly important at entry. People should not first have to demonstrate that they can pay before receiving confirmation that they qualify for help. Deadlines and arrangements during an application form part of access. They should be assessed alongside amounts without replacing adequate support.
The criterion the PCP proposes today
For the PCP, the guarantee should be assessed from the person’s position. Studies chosen for their content should not become inaccessible because of insufficient resources or a cantonal boundary. This gives harmonisation a substantive purpose: securing an entitlement beyond aligning forms.
In 2026, the PCP advocates coordination identifying the need covered, financial responsibility and payment deadlines. Cantonal administration must justify itself through effective service, and a common framework through more equal access. No institutional level succeeds by itself if applicants still cannot finance their pathway.
Revisiting 2015 therefore measures more than a transfer of competence. The political choice concerns how society makes higher education possible for people with different resources. Comparison should follow the continuity of that journey, from a study plan to support actually available.
Documents and sources
- Conseil fédéral, Initiative sur les bourses d’études, dossier de la votation du 14 juin 2015
- Conseil fédéral, Explications de la votation populaire du 14 juin 2015, pages 14–23
- SEFRI, Contributions fédérales aux charges des cantons pour les bourses allouées aux étudiants suisses
- Conseil fédéral, Arrêté du 21 août 2015 constatant le résultat de la votation populaire du 14 juin 2015, FF 2015 5777