The students' support net

We have spent the last few months in consultations on student support - discussing the topic with sufficient detail to write at least a thesis, possibly even a book on the topic. Following this experience, I would like to comment upon the process and to succinctly outline the KSU's views with respect to the points raised in our consultations.

 First and foremost, let us call a spade a spade. Despite the fact that no government official has stated any plans to reduce student support, plans to make student support sustainable indicate a preconception that it is in fact not so and, therefore, that the situation must be corrected. If, as has been indicated, this is the view, then the only logical solution would be to reduce support. I am, therefore, basing my comments upon this assumption.

 Let us tackle the view that student support at current levels is unsustainable. There is no doubt whatsoever that student support is a significant burden upon the government's finances. Free university education costs the taxpayer Lm10 million per year and stipends for university students cost another Lm5 million. The number of university graduates needs to double, hence a spend of around another Lm15 million per year. Put this in a global context and asking, government to keep up current levels of funding and keep university population growth targets means asking it to spend Lm15 million more per year at a time when it needs to shave the odd Lm100 million off its recurrent expenditure.

Put like this, the numbers speak for themselves - if these were the only facts to be considered, I'd be the first person campaigning for the full removal of support and the introduction of private contributions - as in fact some of Malta's political entities have chosen to propose. Yet, this is a dangerous and simplistic view of the current situation, even from the most vicious economic perspective.

 The question of "why does the government fund higher education in the first place" begs answering. Cultural and social benefits aside, from an economic perspective, university graduates fuel economic growth. Hence, the emphasis by the EU on the knowledge base for the achievement of the Lisbon criteria to make Europe the world's most competitive economy.

 A man who is in debt has two choices: to live on bread and water, so he can make ends meet or to develop his skills and capacities, get a better job and improve his standard of living without ill consequence. The same choice lies today before this country.

Allow me to give a few more figures and possibly dispel a myth or two in the process. It is true - a university graduate earns more than someone who only completed post-secondary education. Yet let us take the point of view of government finances - a university graduate will pay Lm40,000 more taxes over a working life than a non-graduate. True, the university graduate costs the government more to educate and to support during his/her university life - Lm9,000 more to be exact. Subtracting this from the university student's extra contribution, the government will still make a net profit of Lm21,000 over the course of the student's working life. Thus, the government's return on investment is in the region of 300 per cent - quite a bit better than the rate available at your local bank.

Armed with this knowledge, the next obvious question is: Do stipends actually have any relation to increased student numbers? This question was unequivocally answered by the government's own experts, commissioned to write the Chalmers report, when, referring to the enormous jump in participation over the last 15 years or so, they state: "The success story of policy has been that adopted by successive administrations to encourage higher participation rates. This success has been achieved as a result of... the implementation of the Student Maintenance Grant or stipend".

Let us further examine some of the consequences of the removal of student support. The obvious primary consequence would be a large income dip - to the tune of Lm750 per year for university students. Such income would need replacement - and considering the predominating savings ratios prevalent in the country today, it would be a safe bet to say that parents could not easily cough up the cash without significantly compromising their standard of living. Hence, a majority of students would suddenly find themselves in search of private employment and the government would find itself in the unenviable position of increasing the job supply on the Maltese market by about 2,000 full-time equivalents worth of part-time jobs.

Everything I've said does not mean that the student body stands inflexible on the question of support. Far from this, we've made extensive proposals as to how to better the system. We do, however, remain committed to the concept of a universal support net for students. We have long insisted as to the need for any reform to be holistic - including quality assurance, university funding, Bologna implementation and other issues. Yet, so far, talks have only started on support.

Over the past year, KSU has done everything possible to ensure a satisfactory solution for all. We sincerely hope that such a solution will be reached in the coming year. This said, it is our promise that should the student's hour of need indeed come, KSU will be standing by your side.

 This was a speech delivered by Mr Camilleri, as the KSU's outgoing education commissioner, at the KSU's recent Higher Education Conference held at the Attard Primary School.