"A total of over 56,000 students who receive a maintenance grant to attend higher and further education will see this grant increase by 10%, or twice the rate of inflation, from September next... the annual income thresholds to qualify for student grants will also be increased with effect from the coming September. The annual income thresholds for the ordinary rate of maintenance grant are being increased by 3.5%".
See here.
These are positive developments but one can't help wonder if the increases are arbitrary. It can be argued that the increase in the grant (by 10%) is twice the rate of inflation and that this is very positive. However, the actual level of the grant is only €3,420, and this to me seems to be set quite arbitrarily.
There is research that estimates what students’ monthly expenditure actually amounts to; it averages at €698 per month according to Darmody et al (Eurostudent 2005). This approximates to €8,000 euro every year, or €32,000 over the course of a four-year degree. Expenditure is highest on accommodation, so considerable savings could be made if the higher education participant stays in the family household. However, the biggest indirect cost of participating in higher education is incurred by every student; this is the “opportunity cost” of earnings that must be sacrificed from engaging in full-time employment.
With all this in mind, annual maintenance support of €3,420 seems very low, and falls very far below half of the amount (€8,000) that students are estimated to need for their annual expenditure. If policy in this arena was to be informed by research and to avoid accusations of arbitrariness, surely the annual maintenance level should be set at €8,000? Admittedly, this is the average level of annual expenditure, but it might prove too unwieldy to discriminate between students who have expenditure on accomodation and those who don't.
In relation to the annual income thresholds for grant eligibility, the same survey research by Darmody et al (Eurostudent 2005) estimates that 35 per cent of higher education students receive a grant from the Irish state; and they say this is in line with national figures from the Department of Education and Science for the year they examined. They also estimate that over 40 per cent of students do not receive any direct (or indirect) financial support from their families (Darmody et al, 2005). This suggests that five per cent of higher education students receive no financial support from their families, and that the same students also fail to qualify for financial support maintenance.
From the findings in the paragraph above, there is no clear implication for criticism on the increase in the annual income thresholds by 3.5%. Though one implication for what might be done (given the findings in the paragraph above) would be to estimate the average family income from Eurostudent 2005 for the "60 percent" of students who do receive financial support from their families. And use this as a sensible income threshold when determining grant eligibility?
See here.
These are positive developments but one can't help wonder if the increases are arbitrary. It can be argued that the increase in the grant (by 10%) is twice the rate of inflation and that this is very positive. However, the actual level of the grant is only €3,420, and this to me seems to be set quite arbitrarily.
There is research that estimates what students’ monthly expenditure actually amounts to; it averages at €698 per month according to Darmody et al (Eurostudent 2005). This approximates to €8,000 euro every year, or €32,000 over the course of a four-year degree. Expenditure is highest on accommodation, so considerable savings could be made if the higher education participant stays in the family household. However, the biggest indirect cost of participating in higher education is incurred by every student; this is the “opportunity cost” of earnings that must be sacrificed from engaging in full-time employment.
With all this in mind, annual maintenance support of €3,420 seems very low, and falls very far below half of the amount (€8,000) that students are estimated to need for their annual expenditure. If policy in this arena was to be informed by research and to avoid accusations of arbitrariness, surely the annual maintenance level should be set at €8,000? Admittedly, this is the average level of annual expenditure, but it might prove too unwieldy to discriminate between students who have expenditure on accomodation and those who don't.
In relation to the annual income thresholds for grant eligibility, the same survey research by Darmody et al (Eurostudent 2005) estimates that 35 per cent of higher education students receive a grant from the Irish state; and they say this is in line with national figures from the Department of Education and Science for the year they examined. They also estimate that over 40 per cent of students do not receive any direct (or indirect) financial support from their families (Darmody et al, 2005). This suggests that five per cent of higher education students receive no financial support from their families, and that the same students also fail to qualify for financial support maintenance.
From the findings in the paragraph above, there is no clear implication for criticism on the increase in the annual income thresholds by 3.5%. Though one implication for what might be done (given the findings in the paragraph above) would be to estimate the average family income from Eurostudent 2005 for the "60 percent" of students who do receive financial support from their families. And use this as a sensible income threshold when determining grant eligibility?
No comments:
Post a Comment