Towards a more equitable stipends system

A number of politicians and analysts keep missing the point when they discuss the validity of keeping the stipends system as it stands. Those who argue for a change are not against the system as such but against the way the stipends are given. In other words, they are against giving the stipends to all irrespective of the financial means of the students’ parents, arguing that, in doing this, the state is depriving itself of funds which it could well use for improving the quality of education and, equally important, for helping in an even more tangible manner those students whose parents cannot really afford to pay for their children’s higher education.

This point appears to be lost in the argument for or against the stipends. Yet, if well considered, it could help clear up the resistance to the need to overhaul the stipends system. The resistance primarily comes from the political parties which, for purely political reasons, have absolutely no intention of handling what to them is a hot potato.

A regular contributor to this newspaper recently rolled out the typical reasons brought up in the argument. He said: “What the country needs is not a grudging acceptance of the stipends system but a belief that the stipends system was a contributing factor to improving the skills and qualifications of the Maltese workforce that has in turn contributed to the strong economic performance of the last 20 years. The stipends system has produced not only more university graduates but also persons with IT, technical and business qualifications, persons who have gone through sixth form education, persons who needed to be given a second chance. Would we have achieved this without a stipends system? Certainly not.”

The question is misplaced, and the argument gives the impression that there is a campaign for the total elimination of stipends, which is not the case. A strong advocate for change is the university rector, Juanito Camilleri. Although his main proposal – the creation of a trust fund – may not draw general support, his thinking is clear and to the point. The rector is in favour of stipends or other financial assistance “but only for those who deserve it and would otherwise not be able to afford higher education”.

This newspaper has often suggested means testing, but the rector is against it, arguing it is not a practical option. The rector has explained that he would place the onus on students to choose to take the stipends upfront or, if they do not really need it, to donate it to the University Trust Fund to be invested directly in their education. Those who are in a position to donate their stipend should have the right to get the value of their stipend as tax rebates once they find a job. It is doubtful if this would work, but it certainly merits consideration. It is definitely far better than choosing to ignore the issue altogether, as the two main political parties are doing to avoid losing votes.

Another point often remarked upon by students is that the value of the stipend is nowhere near what they actually require. Were the stipend to be given to those who really need it, the state would perhaps be in a position to raise the amount and, also, to plough back more money for the improvement of tertiary education.

Tweaking the system in this way could perhaps also lead to attracting more students to tertiary education.