THE TIME HAS come for a national tracer study to determine what happens to tertiary graduates in the year after the completion of their first degrees.

Such a study is important in the context of planning how to apportion scarce resources in our education sector.

It would also reduce the temptation of having policymakers grope in the dark while seeking explanations as to why many university graduates, for example, have not been compliant in repaying student loans.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding said in Parliament last week that many persons who borrow from the Students' Loan Bureau (SLB) do not honour their obligations because they are unable to find jobs.

Denying discrimination

The prime minister also said that this was putting a strain on the resources of the bureau. He stopped short of saying that persons who study disciplines for which there is job glut could face discriminatory government policies.

"We are going to have to influence the direction of student loan funds," Golding said.

The prime minister may move to deny that discrimination would be his intention, but in an environment where resources are increasingly scare, one has to conclude that the prime minister's intention to "offer preferential terms for those areas of study that we feel are in national demand" will lead to a bias against other areas.

An education stimulus in any economy must always be regarded as a positive step. However, it may become counterproductive if, as a nation, we do not diagnose the problems of the job market correctly.

The prime minister's assertion that joblessness is fuelling loan-repayment default is unproven.

Inadequate preparation

The absence of a current national tracer study that points to what happens to new tertiary graduates means that no one really knows how long it takes them to secure jobs and how much they earn in various professions.

But even in the absence of such a study, it is clear that it cannot be business as usual in the way our family of universities operates.

The University of the West Indies (UWI), for example, has failed to train persons adequately to create jobs for themselves. In many ways, it operates like a conveyor belt which takes in students on one end and spits them out at the other after they have been stamped with the prize of a degree.

Universities' inability to sufficiently inspire entrepreneurship has led to many graduates walking from the hallowed corridors to the doors of potential employers waving their degrees, expecting to be absorbed immediately into the job market. This should not be the case.

Persons who have benefited from university education must be empowered to set up businesses in niche markets. Not only will these small businesses create employment, which would further stimulate the economy, but may drive up salaries in mainstream industries.

The obvious spin-offs from tweaking the tertiary education system after an informed study would be tremendous. The Students' Loan Bureau, for example, would definitely benefit from it.

However, there is no guarantee that, if universities tweak their curricula, it would empower more persons to create jobs, and, concomitantly, improve student-loan repayment trends.

Radical shake-up

Some would argue that there are some persons who refuse to repay their students loan because it ranks low on their priority list. And, indeed, it is an open secret that there is a proportion of borrowers who delay student-loan repayment for the immediate gratification of presenting an image of success.

There are others, however, whose borderline socio-economic and job standing simply cannot sustain debt repayment.

It means, therefore, that there needs to be a radical shake-up in the way the curricula of our universities are structured, as well as the approval procedure for student loans.

Perhaps the time is right to think seriously about making student-loan repayment less burdensome for the young professional.

Merging student-loan repayment with mortgage servicing by the young professional would not be a bad idea.

Indeed, it is the role of Government to shape policies that direct the spending of critical tax dollars. If Prime Minister Golding is convinced that areas of study such as pharmacology and agronomy are undersubscribed, his administration may want to consider a programme whereby the SLB and the National Housing Trust (NHT) enter into a joint-venture agreement that would be attractive to persons who study these disciplines. It could be the guinea pig for a more direct and far-reaching policy.

Suggested restructuring

Government may wish to consider a loan package where graduates would not just repay student loans, which in some cases would run in excess of $15,000 per month, for five years, but pay a young-professional loan no higher than a mandatory $30,000 per month.

This young-professional loan would last for about 20 years and would cover mortgage payments for a house which the young professional acquires through the NHT after his or her first year of work.

The advantage of such a regime would be that these talents, trained by taxpayer dollars, contribute to national development through an avenue other than remittances.

Similarly, the stress and exploitation involved in paying rent for housing accommodation would be overcome by having such a policy, which, in effect, would mean a more settled workforce.

Student-loan repayment should also be revenue-based, tied to monthly bills and disposable income.

This suggested restructure, however, would be premature should Government fail to commission an urgent study and then determine the way forward. To do otherwise would be just shooting in the dark.

Feedback may be sent to daraine.luton@gleanerjm.com.