Every year, a silent yet ruthless festival takes place in Bangladesh's education sector-its name is re-admission. This celebration is not for students, but for institutional accountants. Admission means money, and re-admission means even more money. It is not a continuation of education, but a renewal of business.
The question arises: when a student is continuously studying in the same institution under the same academic program, from what ethical ground does the term "re-admission" originate? Has education become a subscription service, where knowledge stops flowing if the annual fee is not renewed?
Article 15(a) of the Constitution of Bangladesh declares that it is a fundamental responsibility of the state to ensure food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care for its citizens. Article 17 further states that the state shall establish a uniform, mass-oriented, and universal education system and eliminate illiteracy. Now the question is-can an education system that requires annual monetary renewal truly be universal? Or is it merely a privilege sustained by financial capacity? When the Constitution recognizes education as a right, why do educational institutions continue to transform it into a commodity? Does the state fail to hear this question, or does it hear and choose to ignore it?
Re-admission fees have become an unwritten law in both public and private educational institutions. In some places, the amount is nominal; in others, it is so excessive that it feels less like a student is continuing education and more like a new investor is entering the institution. Ironically, there is no written assurance of what the student receives in return for this fee-no additional services, no improved learning environment, no legal contract. Only a receipt, serving as proof that you are still eligible to exist as a "student."
The Ministry of Education and the University Grants Commission (UGC) have repeatedly issued directives instructing private institutions not to collect excessive fees. The Private University Act, 2010 clearly states that fee determination must be transparent and that students must not be subjected to unreasonable financial pressure. Yet, in reality, laws remain on paper while fee notices dominate notice boards. Re-admission fees have become a form of tax-without parliamentary approval, yet collected uninterrupted.
The most absurd aspect is the justification. Authorities cite "administrative costs," "database updates," "ID renewal," and "registration." The question is-are these administrative tasks not part of the education system itself? Is it fair to impose the cost of routine institutional operations separately on students? If so, then separate fees could be charged for teachers' salaries, electricity bills, and furniture as well. Is an educational institution a center for knowledge dissemination, or merely a corporate office distributing operational costs?
According to the Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009, charging unreasonable prices for services or concealing the nature of a service is a punishable offense. If education is a service-as acknowledged by state policies-then does the re-admission fee not constitute a violation of consumer rights? Or are students not consumers here, but silent donors? Donors who are told, "If you don't want to study, you may leave," whenever they question the system.
Re-admission fees function as a silent screening mechanism for poor and middle-class students. Survival in education is determined not by merit, but by bank balance. Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law for all citizens. Does determining educational continuity based on economic capacity not violate that principle of equality? Or is the Constitution meant only for ceremonial recitation on national days, not for practical application?
Perhaps the most tragic reality is that we have gradually accepted this process as normal. There is no protest, no resistance. Guardians say, "How much more could it be?" Students think, "Let the degree be completed first." Institutions think, "Everyone pays-so you should too." Thus, education-once a right-is slowly transforming into an installment-based product.
Ultimately, the question remains: is the re-admission fee truly necessary for education, or is it a clever strategy to commercialize learning? If education is a right, why must there be a recurring entry fee? And if education is a business, then at least have the courage to admit it openly. Because conducting business under the cover of the Constitution is not only strategic-it is profoundly cruel.
The writer is a student,Department of Economics, Student, Dhaka College
