After a few months of relative calm, the University campus is buzzing with activity as over 11,000 students returned to the lectures rooms to pursue their studies. As is customary at the beginning of the academic year, the University rector’s speech reflected his aspirations and concerns for the coming year.

Like most organisations, the University needs a sound financial model to guarantee the smooth running of its courses and also to encourage proper research and development. It seems that the present model is not quite what the rector wants.

In fact, he has called for more “sustainable funding for the institution” from the government. He also appealed “for greater autonomy” for the University.

Because of the free tertiary educational system, the great bulk of funding for the University comes from annual government subventions. Some foreign students do pay a fee but this is insufficient to finance even a small number of the various priorities the University leaders have.

The rector rightly insisted that “if the University is to move into the modern third generation we need to address its financing”. Put simply, the University management cannot enter into long-term commitments to finance worthwhile projects if its financing is going to be determined on a yearly basis.

In his address, the rector referred to projects that formed part of the University’s structural development plan.

This “rolling plan” aims to update campus buildings and also features shelved plans to build a multi-storey car park.

In recent years, we have often heard that one of the main concerns of University students is the absence of an adequate parking facility on the campus.

The parking issue is obviously still troubling the students and it must be featuring quite high in their list of priorities, so much so that it was highlighted in TVM’s main news bulletin a few days ago.

It seems that Mepa dislikes the idea of a multi-storey car park or, rather, its “ridiculous” regulations are holding the project back, to quote the dean of the Faculty of Architecture.

The University also has a plan to develop a plot of land that it has acquired to build the “first on-campus accommodation complex”.

Such ambitious projects need long-term funding that has to be committed from the early stages of development.

This, of course, depends on the state of public finances that remain challenging. Even if few would argue against the need for long-term financial planning, ultimately such planning can only be effective if the source of financing is identified. The dilemma facing the Minister of Finance is where to find the source of such funds for the University. Bloating the public debt by borrowing more money is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

As long as tertiary education remains free, as the two main political parties in this country have promised, it will be impossible for the University to finance its own activities.

Unlike what happens in some richer countries, the private sector here is not very keen in supporting the University through sponsorships and other investment in education. Therefore, more soul searching is needed to determine to what extent society is prepared to make investment in education a top priority.

The economic future of any country is greatly dependant on the quality of the educational system. In the case of tertiary education, it must, therefore, be ascertained that the investment priorities being discussed first guarantee a solid strategic plan and, then, adequate funding sources are tapped and secured.