Just before the summer break, METKA issued statements on two draft bills that had been circulated for public comment. One dealt with the possibility of completing an entire degree through open higher education, and the other with a comprehensive reform of student financial aid.
Degrees Offered Through Open Higher Education
The Ministry of Education and Culture proposes that it should be possible to complete an entire degree from a university of applied sciences or a university through open higher education.
METKA opposes the proposal, as education must be viewed as a fundamental right, not a product for sale. Even if tuition-free degree programs were to remain available alongside them, this would be a clear step toward a system where higher education is increasingly fee-based. The proposal would normalize the idea that a degree can be obtained with money. In practice, the proposal would create a situation where the wealthy would have the opportunity to buy their way into higher education, while others compete for study spots based on their previous academic performance or success on entrance exams. This would undermine the fairness of the student selection system and equality within the higher education community.
The aim of the proposal is to increase the number of people with higher education degrees and to offer flexible opportunities, particularly for working adults and those who have already earned a degree. However, the proposal would not actually increase the number of new college graduates nor alleviate the backlog of first-time applicants.
There are already effective pathways in place for updating the skills of those in the workforce, such as Master’s-level education, continuing education, and customized training programs. The proposal would compete with these options, and it would not contribute to raising the education level from the current approximately 39 percent to 50 percent (or to 60 percent, as outlined in the Education and Research Vision 2040), since the educational opportunity is specifically targeted at individuals already in the workforce who are pursuing a second degree.
In and of itself, there is no problem with a high-income working adult being able to pay for their own education, as this is already possible at private educational institutions; however, the fact that this model is creeping into public higher education institutions is problematic.
Students pursuing a degree through open higher education would not be eligible for student financial aid, which is, in itself, a commendable measure to ensure that this educational opportunity is targeted specifically at high-income individuals. However, the proposal leaves it unclear what forms of financial aid open university students are entitled to in situations where, for example, they lose their job or illness slows down their progress in their studies. Can open university students apply for unemployment benefits, sick pay, or income support?
The proposal would also exclude students pursuing a degree through the open university system from the FSHS’s health care services. This cannot be considered appropriate. The FSHS’s funding is largely based on student fees, and the service needs of open university students would, in practice, be shifted to the welfare sector.
This would create a situation where two groups of full-time degree students would be studying side by side on campuses, but only one of them would be entitled to student health care. In addition, student health care is responsible for, for example, vaccinations related to internships in the social and health care sectors and for identifying students with special support needs. The proposal does not address how these services would be organized for students pursuing a degree through open education.
Currently, many reforms related to higher education are in the works (the study voucher pilot, a comprehensive reform of student financial aid, etc.), or changes have just been implemented (the elimination of general housing assistance for students, the elimination of adult education assistance, etc.). Their impacts must first be monitored and evaluated over a sufficiently long period before such a massive reform can even be considered and promoted.
Read METKA’s full statement on the Statement Service (in Finnish).
Comprehensive Reform of Student Financial Aid
The Ministry of Education and Culture is proposing several changes to student financial aid. The proposal calls for the enactment of a new Student Financial Aid Act and amendments to, among other things, the Compulsory Education Act. The current Student Financial Aid Act would be repealed. The new Student Financial Aid Act would set forth the conditions for receiving the student grant, housing supplement, and state guarantee for student loans granted during studies, as well as the interest subsidy and student loan credit granted to student loan recipients.
Objectives of the bill: full-time study, securing a livelihood during studies, strengthening the incentive elements of student financial aid, completing studies within the target timeframe, strengthening the position of the most vulnerable students, reducing debt among minors, safeguarding the position of students with families, correcting flaws in the system, and implementing the reform in a cost-neutral manner—are, in and of themselves, highly commendable.
However, METKA believes that the proposal does not in fact advance these goals and that a comprehensive reform will not be realized, since factors that have a particularly strong impact on students’ livelihoods—such as transferring students from general housing assistance to the housing supplement under student financial aid and the abolition of adult education assistance—have been prepared separately from this reform. Consequently, this comprehensive reform of student financial aid will amount to little more than minor changes.
The student financial aid and housing supplement for college students are already completely inadequate, and the draft proposal offers no remedy for this, as it does not propose any increases to the base amounts. For example, the KOTT and Eurostudent 9 surveys show that a significant proportion (more than half) of students feel that their income is meager and that they are experiencing financial difficulties.
We are particularly concerned about the trend of students being forced into debt. The average student loan for graduates of universities of applied sciences has risen from approximately 7,000 euros in 2013 to approximately 20,300 euros. A student loan should never be a mandatory source of income for a student, and the deliberate push to get students to take out loans is a highly negative phenomenon that shifts the financial risks of education onto the individual, undermines the return on investment, and creates long-term obstacles to quality of life after graduation, career choices, and starting a family. The proposal does not take a position on or resolve these challenges.
The student loan repayment relief program is being reformed so that students who graduate within the target timeframe would receive 45% relief and those who graduate within the standard timeframe would receive 30% relief; however, the deductible on the loan will increase to 8,000 euros, and a cap of 7,000 euros will be set. According to our calculations, the so-called “winners” under this change are those who take out the largest possible student loan. This, in turn, does not solve the problem of student debt.
Long-term impact assessments remain incomplete also because, if the student loan repayment model proposed in the bill were to be implemented for students beginning their studies in 2027, the actual effects would not materialize until after 2030.
Read METKA’s full statement on the Statement Service (in Finnish).
This post is also available in .