7
FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1987
"BUT THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED MEANS FOR DETERMINING A FEE LEVEL WHICH CAN BE REGARDED BY ALL CONCERNED AS REFLECTING A REASONABLE SHARE OF THE COSTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THE SPOKESMAN SAID.
H
HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE FEES HAVE BEEN DECIDED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING MAIN FACTORS:
(1)
(II)
PREVIOUS FEE LEVELS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND STUDENTS, AND BY IMPLICATION, THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND WHICH THE DIRECTOR OF AUDIT AND THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAVE CRITICISED US FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN;
FEE LEVELS OF COMPARABLE INSTITUTIONS OVERSEAS; AND
(III) AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE UNDER THE STUDENT FINANCE
SCHEME,
...
"THE FIVE INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSULTED AND THEIR VIEWS WERE CONSIDERED BY GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE DECISION ON FEES WAS TAKEN, HE ADDED.
THE SPOKESMAN SAID THAT COMPARED WITH THE EXISTING LEVELS, NEW FEES MIGHT SEEM TO REPRESENT STEEP INCREASES.
THE
"BUT THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE PREVIOUS FEES WERE FAR TOO
11 LOW, HE
ADDED.
THE SPOKESMAN STRESSED THAT WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS THAT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE TO NEEDY STUDENTS.
"OUR POLICY REMAINS THAT NO STUDENT WHO IS OFFERED A PLACE SHOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCEPT IT THROUGH LACK OF MEANS AND THE GRANT ELEMENT OF THE STUDENT FINANCE SCHEME WILL TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FEE INCREASES AND WILL BE ADJUSTED EACH YEAR ACCORDINGLY, HE EXPLAINED.
11
/8