Want to know what’s in store for higher education in Ontario?  Take a quick look at the platforms of Liberal leadership contenders.

Eric Hoskins’s five point “prescription” for a healthy Ontario omits education entirely.  Similarly, co-front runner Sandra Pupatello’s platform avoids any and all mention of education.  Ditto for Gerard Kennedy (at pixel time, he actually appears not to have a platform of any kind).

Kathleen Wynne and Charles Sousa each have similar platform commitments to increasing co-op, experiential learning, etc.  In general, this is a Good Thing, of course, but there are some undertones of curricular tinkering here which should make universities slightly nervous.  Wynne also wants to provide “stimulus for increased opportunities to graduate studies” (whatever that means), greater credit transfer mobility and – funds permitting – create a scholarship to promote entrepreneurship (one suspects this idea was not focus-tested with any actual entrepreneurs).  Harinder Takhar has a grab-bag of ideas, which range from expanding public sector internships, to eliminating barriers to recognition of international credentials (good luck with that!), to something not-fully-baked about extending tuition tax credits to businesses if they pay for a student’s tuition.

Nobody, you’ll notice, is promising any actual money to institutions.  They’re all sticking by the current government’s promise – matched in the last election by both opposition parties – to not spend a new cent on higher education until 2017.

This brings us to the higher education sector’s favourite son, Glen Murray, who caught almost an hour’s worth of headlines back in November when he launched his campaign with the idea of a flashy-sounding “no-money down tuition plan”.  Here’s how he describes it:

“Our plan will allow students to attend university with no money down. Instead, they can choose to borrow for each year of study up to $4,000 for college tuition and fees, $7,000 for undergrad’ tuition and fees, and not have to repay until they get a good job after graduation.  After graduation, repayment of loans and the interest rate applied would be on a sliding scale, depending on your income after you graduate.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because student loans already work in almost precisely this fashion – something one might have hoped Murray had picked up on while he was Minister.  The only difference between this plan and the existing system is that Murray’s seems to eliminate parental contributions for that portion of the loan dealing with tuition.  That’s not a terrible idea, but it’s not new (see: this IRPP proposal from 2004) and it’s of no net benefit to anyone already benefitting from student loans.

Basically, it’s all a bit grim.  Budget accordingly.