Is it time to abolish the government scheme for awarding unconditional bursaries to the best result holders of the Higher School Certificate examinations? That these awards are inequitable, out of date, poor value for money, and an anachronism from colonial days, are persuasive arguments for their abolition, in line with paragraphs 148-150 of the Government Programme.

<B>Do they provide equal access to opportunities? </B>Arguably, those who can afford private tuition do better at examinations at all stages of the educational system: this is an indictment of the present education system rather than an acclamation of private tutors. While the extent of this type of investment among laureates is unclear or unrecorded, it is plain that laureates come from the same institutions, by and large. For a country providing universal education, it is unacceptable for its government to promote awards that uphold an unseen injustice: those from the poor performing institutions are disadvantaged in access to both the quality of higher education and employment opportunities. An equitable alternative is to invest the laureates’ fund in the secondary education system in order to optimize opportunities for all school leavers.

<B>Are they an unfair reward? </B>The structure of the awards makes them inherently inequitable.

Firstly, there is a quota by both gender and classification of subject. Therefore, it is entirely possible for a student taking arts not to qualify for the award although that student’s grades are superior to those of a science award holder. Similarly, a member of one gender may qualify with lower grades than one of the opposite gender because of the gender quota.

Secondly, it relies on a single set of examination results and not on consistent performance throughout the secondary education system. An impartial system ought to choose those with consistently superior results irrespective of subject and gender and over the whole term of secondary education.

<B>Are they value for money?</B> There can be no doubt that an award holder benefits immensely from these awards dating from colonial days, and established before the creation of universities in Mauritius. It is ironic that the government sponsors a handful of students for education abroad, thereby sustaining the belief that the domestic universities and other local institutions of higher and professional education are mediocre and somehow lacking in competence in educating the brightest students that the country can produce. In the Information Age, the country relies on the dynamism of a mass-educated workforce.

Assuming that a laureate studies in the UK for three years at taxpayers’ expense, the likely cost is as follows: fees, £9,000 per annum for three years, accommodation, £100 per week for three years, subsistence, £100 per week for three years, travel and other expenses, £2,000 over the three years. This amounts to £60,200 or RS3,130,400 per award at £1:RS52. This is equivalent to 26 years gross pay for someone earning £10,000 per month. How many additional students at the local university will the total bursary fund finance?

<B>Does the scheme reward academic excellence? </B>That this scheme rewards the brightest students is debatable for several reasons. The many decades over which this scheme has existed have not witnessed the emergence of a single internationally renowned authority from amongst the beneficiaries. In fact, there is not even a noted, respected, or well-known figure, or one who has engineered radical social change domestically.

Moreover, given the skewed distribution of the award holders—most come from a handful of institutions year on year—the awards recognize the institutions’ skill in producing the laureates rather than the laureates themselves. Such institutions continue to benefit from higher patronage and investment and, consequently, the government promotes institutional inequalities. An equitable education system ought to have produced a more balanced distribution of laureates.

<B>What does the country get back? </B>A critical factor is that this award is unconditional; a laureate has no commitments to the country. As in previous years, a number of the 2005 recipients publicly stated their intention to emigrate after their higher education abroad. Therefore, the domestic taxpayer is liable to receive nothing in return.

Have past laureates put back anything into the system from which they have benefited? Does an association of past laureates, founded as a charity, exist for the promotion of education for the disadvantaged elements of society? Such a charity could deliver a free supplementary educational system on air, television or radio, scholarships to those who are ineligible for them from other sources, a national advice centre for students, a monitoring service that appraises the delivery of education across all educational establishments, etc. The list is endless.

Predictably, the announcement of the results creates a short-lived frenzy: every one including the media and politicians join the bandwagon. Thereafter, taxpayers’ funds silently pour out of the country until the same time next year. If the laureate scheme rewards intelligence, it is a bitter irony that it should do it so unintelligently.

<B>Does it improve the quality of the local workforce? </B>It is undeniable that Mauritius benefits from citizens who are educated abroad. The benefit arises not so much from the education itself but from the changes in attitudes and thinking that foreign education confers. It is no doubt untrue that every one educated abroad is predisposed to these qualities but some clearly are.

However, the gross domestic product of the country depends on a workforce whose majority is educated locally: investments in a targeted local educational system will impact directly on the wealth of the country. The diversion of the laureate funds into the local educational system means that the government does not have to raise new money or cut down the budget in other sectors of the economy.

<B>What are the alternatives?</B> This government, elected with a mandate for change, might consider a transitional period for phasing out the awards. Some of the options are:

Replace the awards by interest free loans, for studies overseas, which are repayable on completion or abandonment of studies. This will ensure that the ordinary taxpayer is not subsidising the life style and enhanced career opportunities of a privileged elite. In order for this to work, the parents/guardians receive the loan in instalments parallel with progression of the course of study.

Extend loans covering just fifty percent of the costs of studies abroad: the individuals need to find the balance from other sources. This way, the scheme sponsors two students at the same cost: twice as many students as now will benefit from the scheme.

Provide a token bursary and automatic admission to a local institution of higher education.

Develop an arrangement whereby local enterprise sponsors the laureates subject to the pre-condition that they work for them for a given period after qualification.

The laureate scheme is a lottery that unconditionally benefits a handful of students: this is detrimental to the prospects of the country and denies opportunities to the majority.

<B>Ajay ASKOOLUM</B>