I completely agree with Stephen Calleja’s article entitled “Stop the pampering” (TMIS, 19 December). I think this “pampering” reflects the situation in other areas, but I would like to limit my observations to the subject in hand. Incidentally, I also have two sons who are fast approaching university age.

I object to university stipends not only on the grounds of giving the upcoming generations a proper sense of reality, but also on economic and academic grounds.

From an economic point of view, particularly in the present economic climate, it makes no sense to give a service and actually pay your clients for it. The basic principle is that one should pay for a service one receives. Of course, not everyone can afford the services to the same extent, but government financial assistance should be available only to ensure that all meritorious students are afforded access to university. This argument is linked to Mr Calleja’s article, in that in my view we are sending the wrong message – as was correctly pointed out – which is that a university course is currently not a true reflection of real life. 

From an academic point of view, but linked to a number of other considerations, paying for services would make the university more “independent”, ultimately more responsible for its management, and thus also able to improve the overall quality of its academic tuition. The quality of university tuition in general, as well as all related services, is not at all good and one of the reasons for this is because the university is very dependent on government financing, with all the consequences of this.

The article was well written and thought out. I would also consider the effects of such a measure along the points mentioned in future contributions. 

Joseph Izzo Clarke

LUXEMBOURG