How sustainable is the current situation?

There is no doubt that in an ideal world all education would be free and the choice of education and career would depend only on the individual whim and inclination of the individual and not determined by extraneous factors, be they economic, social or related to family background.

The facts of the matter are that our university is at the moment passing through a period of financial crisis which is making it almost impossible to continue functioning as a teaching institution let alone one aiming at levels of excellence in research and scholarship. This has led to an unacceptable level of disillusion and discontent among staff culminating in some cases to resignations. There has been, year after year, draconian reductions in the departmental budgets making it almost impossible to plan adequately for the next year or meet current responsibilities.

In a scenario such as this one, it would be foolish indeed to expect that the student bonanza in the form of generous stipends that has been the practice in the past, blessed by governments of both major colours, should continue unchanged. We would be living in cuckoo land if we were to ignore the real educational needs and concentrate instead on political expediencies. One would be extremely unrealistic, moreover, to believe that we live in an isolated world where students can not only be given a free education but also have their worldly needs met through generous subsidies, a practice unknown in the western world.

A recent study by the University Students' Council (KSU) indicates that student numbers would drastically fall if fees are introduced. This is an understandable fear but how realistic it is? Whether there is a significant impact on student numbers or not depends to a large extent on whether the individual's perception of the financial investment is worth the product obtained. Other more economically viable countries like the UK and Australia have ensured that payment of fees is delayed until such time after graduation when the graduate can command a decent wage from which a certain percentage is deducted. In other words, students (and their families) should not be asked to pay upfront but only after graduation and only in amounts which they can afford.

One may add that it might be considered immoral to provide an elite minority of the population with the wherewithal of earning not inconsiderable sums of money throughout their professional career at the expense of the taxpayer.

This is not to deny the fact that there are real needs in society that have to be met specifically. There is no objection to providing scholarships and grants for the small number of exceptional students, nor would there be an objection to providing special funds for those who are in real economic need. But to provide a blanket bonanza to students, particularly at a time of dire institutional financial stress, is little short of economic madness.