Officially it is called the University of Malta but our politicians speak of it as the University of Camelot. In their rhetoric, all the ingredients are there: the UoM as the potential and promise of the future, a rare shining place where students are paid to study, thanks to Arthurian political leadership and Merlin’s financial magic.

... keeping the current system of charging no (University) tuition is a recipe for importing other countries’ debts- Ranier Fsadni

Then there’s Excalibur. The sword that rises, brightly and briefly, from an undisturbed lake, warning of a critical financial battle for the survival of the ideal, only to sink again quickly, with barely a ripple.

In case you didn’t notice, last week Excalibur popped out, once again all too briefly. Once more, the politicians ignored it. As for the people who did pay attention, most discussed Excalibur’s scabbard rather than the blade.

How else to describe the follow-up on The Sunday Times’ interview with the Rector, Juanito Camilleri? Completely avoided was the major immediate threat to equitable access to a University education for Maltese students. Instead, the discussion focused on a secondary threat lying in the medium-term future. (Disclosure: I work at the University of Malta.)

The discussion settled on student stipends, with questions raised about their sustainability by the year 2020. If student trends remain the same, the figure will then likely exceed €30 million, in comparison with the €23 million to be spent this year.

In short, the discussion assumed stable trends. It identified stipends as the key national cost and assumed that we only need to factor in Maltese students.

But we are not living in a world of stable trends. Tuition not stipends is the major cost. And, once Malta is an EU member state, obliged not to discriminate against any EU students, any realistic discussion of future scenarios needs to take into account the potential behaviour of other European students.

Now, consider the facts and figures brought into play by this wider framework.

The right to a stipend is restricted by certain conditions of citizenship and residency. But access to higher education depends rather more on free tuition: a much higher national investment and, crucially, one that must also be offered to any EU student once it’s offered to Maltese students.

Ask yourself: In a Europe where University budgets are being cut in various countries and students are being made to take out loans how likely is it that some students will begin to shop around for better deals?

In six months, tuition fees are set to treble in the UK, where there are just under two million undergraduate students. If only one in 10,000 decides to apply to the UoM, that amount would be some 10 per cent of estimated UoM student growth numbers up till 2015. If one in 1,000 applies, that would come to 2,000 applicants. Nor should one underestimate the extent to which the UoM might attract Italian students, to go by current applications for graduate study and other posts.

In short, keeping the current system of charging no tuition is a recipe for importing other countries’ debts. Malta risks having to pay for the expensive education of professionals of European countries that have decided they cannot afford it.

If the UoM remains tied to growing at the projected rates, Maltese students would find it harder to get in. If infrastructural investments (more lecture rooms, etc.) are increased to cater for higher-than-projected student numbers, it would mean a deflection of serious funds that could be spent on developing quality education. Strategic planning would be more vulnerable to sudden changes in demand.

Let me repeat: In the UK, the conditions that could provoke such a scenario will come into place next September, not in 2020. It is astounding that such a scenario is not being discussed.

A solution has already been publicly suggested. It was made most recently in late 2010 by Prof. Camilleri himself.

The solution involves a change in the formal conditions of how Maltese students’ tertiary education is financed. Essentially, the University would charge fees to all students. However, all students who fulfil residential requirements could bank on receiving a scholarship (from the local council or some other authorised body) that covers their tuition fees.

In practice, it would mean no change, in financial terms, for Maltese students resident in Malta. However, it would signify enormous change for the prospects of their continued access to tertiary education. Not to say for their quality of education: for the UoM would now be freed to market its courses aggressively in Europe, unafraid that attracting students would mean a greater financial burden rather than extra funds.

Despite all this, when Prof. Camilleri reiterated this proposal some 15 months ago, politicians studiously ignored it. Meanwhile, student representatives spoke up against it, saying it would jeopardise the principle of free tuition and, possibly, provide the thin edge of the wedge that would undermine political commitment to equitable student access.

You may find such commitment to principle shows admirable steadfastness and political savvy. I find it fatally flawed by two confusions.

First, it is confused about the actual game being played, its stakes and participants. Second, it confuses commitment to values with commitment to the means through which those same values are guaranteed. The values are still worthy and practical but the means have become a false guarantee. They are dysfunctional in today’s European educational environment.

ranierfsadni@europe.com