Funding

Originally published in the Scotsman.

The quest for funding is an inescapable fact of life in academia. This year, I’m paying with student loans, but my search for grants seems never-ending. As an overseas student in the social sciences, the prospects are depressing.

The vast majority of scholarships available from American sources can only be used for study at American universities. Nearly all funding available in the UK is for British or European citizens only. Everyone jokes that I should marry a European – but with strict residency requirements, I’d still have to wait three years before I could apply to the major funding bodies.

Not surprisingly, the few grants and scholarships that can cross the Atlantic are subject to fierce competition, and financial need is almost never taken into account. I’m sure this is intended to foster strict meritocracy – giving scholarships to the very best students, and leaving the second-best to fend for themselves. But the playing field is not level, and it’s difficult to judge potential. Numerous studies have shown that regardless of academic ability, students with financial worries do not achieve the same standard as their well-off peers. Between stress and the distraction of employment, the highest level of achievement is close to impossible. It would follow, then, that students without financial worries have a better chance at winning merit-based scholarships, even though they don’t necessarily need the money.

Of course, America and Britain each have mechanisms to encourage equal educational opportunities. It’s only when students start crossing borders that those mechanisms fall apart. But it makes sense – a nation has primary responsibility to its own people, after all.

What doesn’t make sense is the lack of a safeguard against funds being wasted on wealthy students. I know that education is a major export industry in the UK, and fees from international students help keep the universities afloat. But it seems foolish to subsidise high-achievers without ever asking whether they could pay their own way. The prestige of a British education is enough to attract affluent young people, whether they are given scholarships or not. Less well-off students, on the other hand, must take on significant debts to finance their international studies.

Here in Scotland, with the call for ‘fresh talent,’ funding takes on another dimension. Scottish education is not entirely meant for export – the Executive hopes that internationals will stay after completing their studies, and contribute their skills and earnings to the Scottish economy. To this end, they have set up a ‘relocation advisory service,’ along with a fund to put on social events for international students. While these are useful endeavours, I doubt that ceilidhs or advice about flats will really win someone over if they’re not already convinced that ‘Scotland is the place.’

Meanwhile, those who have taken on debts to emigrate will need to divert a portion of their future earnings to overseas banks, for repayment with interest. It seems sensible for the Executive to invest in a scholarship fund for students who are committed to settling in Scotland. This would allow them to study here without going into more debt, and would ensure their future earnings stay in Scotland. Helping those who can’t afford an overseas education would not exclude their more affluent peers, but it would go a long way in cultivating the desire and ability to stay. Strict meritocracy is a fine ideal, but the Executive should try to widen the pool of ‘fresh talent,’ rather than narrow it.

Education in Scotland is often idealised as a tool for egalitarianism. As someone with plans to settle here, I hope the ideal moves a little closer to reality.