GATE - Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses

[Redress10]

The Education Ministry said on average an Open Medical Scholarship costs the state $600,000 per year for five years.

One individual being funded to the tune of over 3 million tt in order to get a medical degree. Granted this isn't a specialty program and those same individuals have to come back and work alongside their uwi counterparts who qualify at a much less significant cost.

Ask yuhself, how many ppl without gate or scholarships would have gotten further education? Is it fair for taxpayers to continue to to shoulder the burden of educating other people's children. Why didn't their parents make some sort of college fund for them? Why can't these students also work and study part time? There are available options for someone willing to work hard enough.

Each year education receives the largest part of the national budget but do we see value for it?

[elec2020]

^ i have mixed views on this. The GATE program helped many individuals from displaced families or with bleak futures a chance to make something more of their lives. That is no secret. Now, with those cuts to it, the new crop of those individuals will not have the opportunity to do such for themselves as, and let's be fair, no family saves for university. Its a shame as these individuals now don't have the opportunity to better themselves and live an enjoyable life (which imo everyone deserves). But I can see why government has cut GATE due to the fall in fiscal revenues. Not saying that I agree with it. Just that I understand why. Its a tough decision. I rather they have kept it so disadvantaged people will still have some hope for the future. But what do I know. I'm just a stranger on a car blogging website

[VexXx Dogg]

The Education Ministry said on average an Open Medical Scholarship costs the state $600,000 per year for five years.

One individual being funded to the tune of over 3 million tt in order to get a medical degree. Granted this isn't a specialty program and those same individuals have to come back and work alongside their uwi counterparts who qualify at a much less significant cost.

Ask yuhself, how many ppl without gate or scholarships would have gotten further education? Is it fair for taxpayers to continue to to shoulder the burden of educating other people's children. Why didn't their parents make some sort of college fund for them? Why can't these students also work and study part time? There are available options for someone willing to work hard enough.

Each year education receives the largest part of the national budget but do we see value for it?

Diversity in education is important in my opinion.
If everyone goes to the same institute, and are taught the same things by the same faculty with the same biases, then you'd have a much narrower FOV in the big picture.

UWI is not a business like north american institutions - else the degree prices would have been closer to market rate - which is 6x-10x more.

Some parents simply cannot afford it, and the way car / land/ house prices are in Trinidad, long term education loans are another crippling debt mechanism - just look across the atlantic.

My view is that education should be sustainably subsidised.
If you have the grades, but don't have the means you should not be punished.

On the other hand, those who abused the system and took 8 years to do a 3 year degree; or those who start a programme, but decided to drop out to go Gate Boys full-time should be made to pay back every cent.

Programmes should be aligned to national development goals, so some field of study should get more subsidy than others.

Postgrad is icing on the cake. Once you have an undergrad, you should be able to land a job and fund your own further studies.

It's about prudent funding, not total defunding.

[Redress10]

^ i have mixed views on this. The GATE program helped many individuals from displaced families or with bleak futures a chance to make something more of their lives. That is no secret. Now, with those cuts to it, the new crop of those individuals will not have the opportunity to do such for themselves as, and let's be fair, no family saves for university. Its a shame as these individuals now don't have the opportunity to better themselves and live an enjoyable life (which imo everyone deserves). But I can see why government has cut GATE due to the fall in fiscal revenues. Not saying that I agree with it. Just that I understand why. Its a tough decision. I rather they have kept it so disadvantaged people will still have some hope for the future. But what do I know. I'm just a stranger on a car blogging website

My problem with Gate is that it doesn't seem to allign with anything strategic for the country. The country didn't seek diversification and then sought to expand those relevant departments at university or encourage students to enroll in those relevant courses. For instance, to decrease food imports, agriculture needs to be promoted so those courses could have been gate approved etc. It literally just felt like a free for all with no real plan in place except to give someone a certificate.

[Redress10]

The Education Ministry said on average an Open Medical Scholarship costs the state $600,000 per year for five years.

One individual being funded to the tune of over 3 million tt in order to get a medical degree. Granted this isn't a specialty program and those same individuals have to come back and work alongside their uwi counterparts who qualify at a much less significant cost.

Ask yuhself, how many ppl without gate or scholarships would have gotten further education? Is it fair for taxpayers to continue to to shoulder the burden of educating other people's children. Why didn't their parents make some sort of college fund for them? Why can't these students also work and study part time? There are available options for someone willing to work hard enough.

Each year education receives the largest part of the national budget but do we see value for it?

Diversity in education is important in my opinion.
If everyone goes to the same institute, and are taught the same things by the same faculty with the same biases, then you'd have a much narrower FOV in the big picture.

UWI is not a business like north american institutions - else the degree prices would have been closer to market rate - which is 6x-10x more.

Some parents simply cannot afford it, and the way car / land/ house prices are in Trinidad, long term education loans are another crippling debt mechanism - just look across the atlantic.

My view is that education should be sustainably subsidised.
If you have the grades, but don't have the means you should not be punished.

On the other hand, those who abused the system and took 8 years to do a 3 year degree; or those who start a programme, but decided to drop out to go Gate Boys full-time should be made to pay back every cent.

Programmes should be aligned to national development goals, so some field of study should get more subsidy than others.

Postgrad is icing on the cake. Once you have an undergrad, you should be able to land a job and fund your own further studies.

It's about prudent funding, not total defunding.

I don't agree that public funds should be used in foreign universities especially when those universities are charging foreign students up to 4 times more what they charge their own nationals at times. A university overseas is a private enterprise. I rather that money is kept and reinvested into our own institutions to further expand and improve their facilities.

I went to a london university and the majority of students there were in fact from foreign nations. It's international fees that keep the lights on in those universities but most of those foreign students tend to come from wealthy families who have businesses globally that could absorb the relevant costs. So it basically costs them nothing to shell out over a million tt over 4 years for degree. Remember that money was generated at some point.

When that money is coming from taxpayers then it is being taken directly from somewhere else. Could be healthcare or even nat security. These are the opportunity costs. Do we spend over a million tt on just one individual so that they can benefit from a foreign education but yet each year our primary schools can't be adequately updated or repaired.

Compare the facilties at a top UK university and those at UTT or UWI. Why do we insist on giving away our funds to institutions that already have plenty whilst ours continue to suffer? It's madness

[elec2020]

^ your problem is that you think government's listen to scholars. They don't. Otherwise the issue that we have of university just pumping out graduates ill-suited for the job market would not happen. And UWI doesn't care. They just raking in the money. So they keep on expanding to accommodate more people. But you are very correct. Imo, if governments past and present were serious about diversification they would have sat down with some of the UWI heads and plan which programs UWI should have the most spaces for students in (like in your example agriculture) and those programs which should have the least spaces (like sports ed) cause we not really focusing on that area but it still important in the grand scheme of things. As you said its just a free for all. The only thing though is that it gave people a chance to make a better life for themselves. And being someone who came from hardship and got through in life because of UWI. It is disappointing to see that others will not be given that chance. Cause sometimes thats all u really need in life. That one chance to turn things around

[elec2020]

The Education Ministry said on average an Open Medical Scholarship costs the state $600,000 per year for five years.

One individual being funded to the tune of over 3 million tt in order to get a medical degree. Granted this isn't a specialty program and those same individuals have to come back and work alongside their uwi counterparts who qualify at a much less significant cost.

Ask yuhself, how many ppl without gate or scholarships would have gotten further education? Is it fair for taxpayers to continue to to shoulder the burden of educating other people's children. Why didn't their parents make some sort of college fund for them? Why can't these students also work and study part time? There are available options for someone willing to work hard enough.

Each year education receives the largest part of the national budget but do we see value for it?

Diversity in education is important in my opinion.
If everyone goes to the same institute, and are taught the same things by the same faculty with the same biases, then you'd have a much narrower FOV in the big picture.

UWI is not a business like north american institutions - else the degree prices would have been closer to market rate - which is 6x-10x more.

Some parents simply cannot afford it, and the way car / land/ house prices are in Trinidad, long term education loans are another crippling debt mechanism - just look across the atlantic.

My view is that education should be sustainably subsidised.
If you have the grades, but don't have the means you should not be punished.

On the other hand, those who abused the system and took 8 years to do a 3 year degree; or those who start a programme, but decided to drop out to go Gate Boys full-time should be made to pay back every cent.

Programmes should be aligned to national development goals, so some field of study should get more subsidy than others.

Postgrad is icing on the cake. Once you have an undergrad, you should be able to land a job and fund your own further studies.

It's about prudent funding, not total defunding.

I don't agree that public funds should be used in foreign universities especially when those universities are charging foreign students up to 4 times more what they charge their own nationals at times. A university overseas is a private enterprise. I rather that money is kept and reinvested into our own institutions to further expand and improve their facilities.

I went to a london university and the majority of students there were in fact from foreign nations. It's international fees that keep the lights on in those universities but most of those foreign students tend to come from wealthy families who have businesses globally that could absorb the relevant costs. So it basically costs them nothing to shell out over a million tt over 4 years for degree. Remember that money was generated at some point.

When that money is coming from taxpayers then it is being taken directly from somewhere else. Could be healthcare or even nat security. These are the opportunity costs. Do we spend over a million tt on just one individual so that they can benefit from a foreign education but yet each year our primary schools can't be adequately updated or repaired.

Compare the facilties at a top UK university and those at UTT or UWI. Why do we insist on giving away our funds to institutions that already have plenty whilst ours continue to suffer? It's madness

Because of the hype of a foreign degree. Not that foreign education is of a very high standard. But we in the Caribbean have become so warped from slavery days that we believe that the only people who know what they about are those with foreign qualifications. So we place more emphasis on getting those credentials often at the detriment of what we have here locally. Thats my take on why we continue to shell out millions on scholarships for foreign programs that available right here in tnt.

[Redress10]

But a private individual should be able to afford whatever they think is best and that includes a foreign education as well. But the gov't shouldnt be giving away 100s of millio s of dollars to foreign universities like some wealthy benefactor

[elec2020]

^ i am not saying that foreign education is bad. It is very good. But just as you said. Why should we be spending all those millions in tax payers money on it? Why not take those same funds and improve our existing universities? That would have longer term benefits especially when u consider that some scholars do not return to tnt (ain't there was a case a few years where a doctor on a schol refused to come back to tnt and the government took him to court on it?). Thats what I meant. If you have the private funds for foreign university then do it. It's your money. But given the current situation globally. I think those with foreign education should consider migrating to foreign countries (as it is expected that developed countries will ramp up their economic activity to speed up recovery efforts after the covid-19 shock has fully worked itself out). So there could be ads/vacancies to work abroad with some guarantee of permanent residency. With crime on the rise in tnt and the fact that eventually oil and gas will become redundant (for example the UK government pledged to make it illegal to sell fuel powered vehicles by 2030) that is something to consider

[Redress10]

I understand. What I waa getting at was the link between wealth and affordability.

This is all part of the brain drain that those countries used to suck resources from the less developed. Now consider that less developed countries are poorer than those countries yet their citizens have to pay 4 times the tuition which as you can see will cause a country to lose valuable resources needlessly. Add to the fact that in the case of a doctor etc, the foreign country would seek to retain their services. They have basically gotten a foreign doctor that they have already charged 4 times the price to train yet retain that person on similar wages or sometimes even less than their own nationals. Not to mention the limited training, promotion possibilities that doctor may now face being a foreigner in that country cause let us be real. Their citizens would also take preference when it comes to training and promotions. So instead of that doctor coming back home and heading a department or leading research, they may stay in a foreign country and become stagnant.

What if we had taken that same money and invested in our facilities and training. We could have trained 10 doctors for thar price.

Remember the thing about scholarships etc is that they are granted on an "academic" basis but mainly the wealthy and connected have access to better educational opportunities in TT. There have been ministers who children received national scholarships in the recent past. Now study this, those people would have been part of "20%" to get their children into a prestigious school. Then they win an open schol that is basically a free schol. The problem is what about all the other tax breaks that a minister or MP already receives that make life easier for them and their families? So on top of all those perks, their children are to be educated overseas for free on the taxpayers' dollars?

Scholarships should be for the poor and academically brilliant. Anyone who could afford should be made to pay. We need to focus on helping the poor, those really in need and not the entitled.

[sMASH]

giving away millions to educate people who would be hard pressed to get that within their means, is evil. spending millions on carnival and farris family building is par the course. grate benefit to the country...
burr burrr burrr.

same ting like the kamala lap top. cry down de laptops as useless and waste of money. push come to shove, that same program would have been a life saver, if pnm didnt cut it.

[Redress10]

So why not just give them the millions since u have such a hard on. Why not give an open schol winner 1.2 million "gift" instead of giving it to a foreign university?

That's your logic?

[elec2020]

Redress10 I agree with you 100 per cent. Its nice to see someone who can think and not just go with what john public tells them. In an ideal world your framework is what we should follow. But in a country that we know is steaming with corruption. These things will never happen. Is until we on the precipice of economic demise will we change thins. That's what we do in the Caribbean (the most recent example being Barbados)

[Dohplaydat]

giving away millions to educate people who would be hard pressed to get that within their means, is evil. spending millions on carnival and farris family building is par the course. grate benefit to the country...
burr burrr burrr.

same ting like the kamala lap top. cry down de laptops as useless and waste of money. push come to shove, that same program would have been a life saver, if pnm didnt cut it.

I don't see how the logic of spending on Carnival even reach in here. Carnival is one of the few things we can be proud of and it employs tens of thousands and is one of our best 'products'.

But if allyuh trinis had allyuh way we'd do away with Carnival and then Jamaica and the other islands will get it right and take it over......then when you get old, you'll tell your grand children, "You know carnival was we ting in trini and the government let all them islands take it from we".


In conclusion, spending on Carnival = good, spending on Faris = bad.

[Redress10]

I don't mind gov't spending to "market" carnival and the country makes back that money via increased foreign attendence. My problem lies in gov't propping up ppl such as artistes and promoters. Plenty of those all inclusives, gov't ministries buy hundreds of fete tickets each year to give away to ministers, their friends and higher up public servants.

Fetes such as hyatt lime which cost upwards of 500usd are funded by taxpayers for ministers etc to further frolic at the expense of taxpayers. This is just excessive waste and that money could be better used elsewhere. Not to mention that hyatt already owned and operated by gov't so is left pocket money going into right pocket and they call it a successful event. Once again the minority benefiting at the expense of the minority. That 3000tt spent on that ticket cud easily be two 1500 welfare grants for people who needed it.

Also, remember under the UNC how the prize for soca monarch and chutney monarch became 2 million tt for 5 whole years. Craziness.

[Lou Screuz]

I don't mind gov't spending to "market" carnival and the country makes back that money via increased foreign attendence. My problem lies in gov't propping up ppl such as artistes and promoters. Plenty of those all inclusives, gov't ministries buy hundreds of fete tickets each year to give away to ministers, their friends and higher up public servants.

Fetes such as hyatt lime which cost upwards of 500usd are funded by taxpayers for ministers etc to further frolic at the expense of taxpayers. This is just excessive waste and that money could be better used elsewhere. Not to mention that hyatt already owned and operated by gov't so is left pocket money going into right pocket and they call it a successful event. Once again the minority benefiting at the expense of the minority. That 3000tt spent on that ticket cud easily be two 1500 welfare grants for people who needed it.

Also, remember under the UNC how the prize for soca monarch and chutney monarch became 2 million tt for 5 whole years. Craziness.

govt - govt - govt -govt - but then______UNC

calling the unc name but not mentioning pnm name anywhere good job buddy !

-

carnival , like housing , like tertiary education -

needs to be guided by the hands of a free market

take government out of Carnival/any cultural/religious event
take government out of housing
shut down CEPEP and URP -
shut down GATE completely and implement scholarships based on a fixed academic performance standard ONLY - and to be paid back

And with the money saved from doing that - implement universal basic income

bright bright people have already run the numbers and determined its work-ability

but you know nuh - they are not pnm economists

and that kind of freedom makes it harder to keep certain people powerless and dependent for 58 years and counting

[Redress10]

I don't mind gov't spending to "market" carnival and the country makes back that money via increased foreign attendence. My problem lies in gov't propping up ppl such as artistes and promoters. Plenty of those all inclusives, gov't ministries buy hundreds of fete tickets each year to give away to ministers, their friends and higher up public servants.

Fetes such as hyatt lime which cost upwards of 500usd are funded by taxpayers for ministers etc to further frolic at the expense of taxpayers. This is just excessive waste and that money could be better used elsewhere. Not to mention that hyatt already owned and operated by gov't so is left pocket money going into right pocket and they call it a successful event. Once again the minority benefiting at the expense of the minority. That 3000tt spent on that ticket cud easily be two 1500 welfare grants for people who needed it.

Also, remember under the UNC how the prize for soca monarch and chutney monarch became 2 million tt for 5 whole years. Craziness.

govt - govt - govt -govt - but then______UNC

calling the unc name but not mentioning pnm name anywhere good job buddy !

-

carnival , like housing , like tertiary education -

needs to be guided by the hands of a free market

take government out of Carnival/any cultural/religious event
take government out of housing
shut down CEPEP and URP -
shut down GATE completely and implement scholarships based on a fixed academic performance standard ONLY - and to be paid back

And with the money saved from doing that - implement universal basic income

bright bright people have already run the numbers and determined its work-ability

but you know nuh - they are not pnm economists

and that kind of freedom makes it harder to keep certain people powerless and dependent for 58 years and counting

But it wassss the UNC who gave away 2 million dollars each year in soca monarch and chutney monarch prizes etc. Remember when MM was winning soca monarch and road march each year with millions in prize money. That was taxpayers money. It wasn't generated by the industry or attendence. Remember when UNC gave MM 5 million to record a cd? Again, taxpayers monies. We are showing how public funds are used to prop up artists and events in the name of "culture".

All you see from this discussion is "UNC"? Really? It wasn't a one off spend..it was 5 consistent years of diverting public funds into the hands of private individuals for the "culture".

[Lou Screuz]

I don't mind gov't spending to "market" carnival and the country makes back that money via increased foreign attendence. My problem lies in gov't propping up ppl such as artistes and promoters. Plenty of those all inclusives, gov't ministries buy hundreds of fete tickets each year to give away to ministers, their friends and higher up public servants.

Fetes such as hyatt lime which cost upwards of 500usd are funded by taxpayers for ministers etc to further frolic at the expense of taxpayers. This is just excessive waste and that money could be better used elsewhere. Not to mention that hyatt already owned and operated by gov't so is left pocket money going into right pocket and they call it a successful event. Once again the minority benefiting at the expense of the minority. That 3000tt spent on that ticket cud easily be two 1500 welfare grants for people who needed it.

Also, remember under the UNC how the prize for soca monarch and chutney monarch became 2 million tt for 5 whole years. Craziness.

govt - govt - govt -govt - but then______UNC

calling the unc name but not mentioning pnm name anywhere good job buddy !

-

carnival , like housing , like tertiary education -

needs to be guided by the hands of a free market

take government out of Carnival/any cultural/religious event
take government out of housing
shut down CEPEP and URP -
shut down GATE completely and implement scholarships based on a fixed academic performance standard ONLY - and to be paid back

And with the money saved from doing that - implement universal basic income

bright bright people have already run the numbers and determined its work-ability

but you know nuh - they are not pnm economists

and that kind of freedom makes it harder to keep certain people powerless and dependent for 58 years and counting

But it wassss the UNC who gave away 2 million dollars each year in soca monarch and chutney monarch prizes etc. Remember when MM was winning soca monarch and road march each year with millions in prize money. That was taxpayers money. It wasn't generated by the industry or attendence. Remember when UNC gave MM 5 million to record a cd? Again, taxpayers monies. We are showing how public funds are used to prop up artists and events in the name of "culture".

All you see from this discussion is "UNC"? Really? It wasn't a one off spend..it was 5 consistent years of diverting public funds into the hands of private individuals for the "culture".

Rhedress, it's more like - 58 consistent years of diverting public funds into the hands of PN- i mean - private individuals, for culture and god knows what else

and the UNC is not that old


the point is - this abusive relationship between government (regardless of party) and the people needs to end

this - red party - experiment needs to end

The government in this country

is like a cross between an overbearing overprotective mother and a tyrannical narcissistic father

time for a strong free market capitalist economy with universal basic income.

[sMASH]

should do a means test for carnival spending

[bluefete]

Really intelligent contributions inside here.

I can categorically state that the PNM government was told, in the very early days of GATE, that there were no monitoring systems in place. They ignored that advice.

The PNM government was also told that GATE should be tied to national development. They ignored that advice as well.

When the PP came into office between 2010 - 2015, they saw an opportunity to enrich themselves from GATE. Several ministers opened tertiary education schools of different kinds using their family members as cover. They were supported by the Accreditation Council which gave quickfire approval.

A couple new schools even got accreditation like UWI although they were "Johnny come latelies"



Here is an article from the Trinidad Guardian in 2012.

Will Govt close half the GATE?

by

Wed Nov 14 2012
Anthony Wilson

Last week Friday, Dr Roger Hosein, an economist at the St Augustine campus of the University of the West Indies, recommended that the Government should scrap the Government Assistance for Tertiary Education (GATE) programme, which was initiated in September 2004.

Speaking at a bpTT function at the Hilton to discuss the release of the proceedings of June's revenue management conference, Hosein advocated that GATE be replaced by the Dollar-for-Dollar programme, with the addition of a means test.

Under the Dollar-for-Dollar programme, which was designed under the UNC administration, the State funded paid 50 per cent of the tuition fees for all new students enrolled at seven publicly funded educational institutions.

The Dollar-for-Dollar was replaced by GATE in September 2004, when the PNM administration kept the 50 per cent funding for tertiary-level education but expanded the programme to include approved privately funded, tertiary-level education institutions.

Under the original GATE programme, which lasted from September 2004 to September 2006, students from low-income families would have been able to access up to 100 per cent of the tuition fees if they completed a means test questionnaire and were able to prove that they were unable to afford to pay 50 per cent of the tuition fees.

Under the revised GATE programme, the PNM government scrapped the need for a means test to qualify for Government funding of tertiary education, meaning that for the last seven academic years the Government has paid 100 per cent of the tuition fees for any T&T citizen enrolled in an undergraduate programme at 19 publicly funded, tertiary-level education institutions in six countries: T&T, Barbados, Jamaica, The Bahamas as well as UWI's School of Continuing Studies in Monsterrat and St Kitts.

GATE, according to a November 2011 official report on the programme, also covers 100 per cent of the tuition fees of T&T citizens attending undergraduate courses at 43 private institutions ranging from St George's University in Grenada to Trinidad and Tobago College of Therapeutic Massage. It covers as well 50 per cent of the tuition fees of T&T citizens attending post-graduate programmes.

In the 2006 budget, delivered on September 28, 2005, then Prime Minister Patrick Manning, who was also the Minister of Finance, said: The GATE Programme replaced the Dollar for Dollar Education Plan in September 2004. In my 2005 Budget Statement I indicated that we intended to provide free tertiary education in public institutions by the first of January, 2008. Since then, our revenue situation has improved considerably. I am therefore pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that with effect from January 1, 2006, all nationals of Trinidad and Tobago enrolled at public tertiary institutions, namely UWI, UTT, COSTAATT and other institutions where the Government sponsors students, will be eligible for free tuition, that is free public tertiary education.


In my view-and this is something that has been written about in this space since 2005-the decision by the T&T government at the start of the 2006 fiscal year to adjust the GATE programme to pay 100 per cent of the tuition fees of any T&T citizen seeking tertiary education is one of this country's best post-Independence policy decisions.

Dr Hosein describes the payment of 100 per cent of tertiary-level fees by the Government as an inefficient use of State funds and a "manifestation of the resource curse problem at work" because it means that the State is educating citizens whose parents can afford to educate them or who can afford to educate themselves.

By that logic, there should be discriminatory pricing of all of the goods and services provided by the State such as water, electricity, healthcare, primary education and secondary education.

If the logic that GATE is an investment and not a subsidy is not accepted by the current administration, then there is little doubt that "free" secondary education and healthcare would be next.

If "rich" citizens should pay half the cost of tertiary education, why should they not also pay half the cost of sending their children to "prestige" secondary schools."

In fact, if the rich can pay half the cost of education, why should they not pay 100 per cent of it?


The universal funding of tertiary-level education by the State must be seen, not as a subsidy, but as an investment of taxpayers' dollars in the development of the country's human resource capital.

If not by GATE, how is T&T going to achieve a workforce that is able to drive diversification both within its energy sector and into other sectors that would allow the country to continue living in the manner that it has become accustomed.

An argument that the Government should return to only 50 per cent of tuition fees and only fund education at publicly funded institutions is a retrograde step and will mean thousands of middle-income households having to go into debt to educate their children and themselves or not being able to afford it at all.

It would be impossible for T&T to achieve the kind of diversification and entrepreneurship needed to transform the country from an economy whose revenues are dominated by the energy sector without the continued investment that is being made in the tertiary level education from the natural gas windfall.

It can be argued that the GATE programme is also an effective means of medium-term poverty alleviation as there is a clear and indisputable link between attaintment of tertiary-level education and the ability of the recipient to earn an income that places them well above the poverty line.


If, as I am arguing, GATE is an investment in the country's human resources, the most important point, and the thing that should be occupying the minds of the UWI academics, is to determine the return on the investment (ROI) that T&T is getting, how is the ROI being measured and how can that ROI be improved.

It seems that those who designed Dollar-for-Dollar and GATE, did not build in to these systems of state funding of tertiary-level education a method of measuring the ROI, the impact that these recipients of "free" tertiary-level education are having on their society, their community, their families. Even a cost/benefit analysis of the programme would suffice.

UWI's Economics department needs to get cracking on tracking the jobs that all GATE graduates have been employed in since 2004, their incomes and their contributions to the wider society before advancing ideological and theoretical arguments that would limit state funding for tertiary education.

GATE is more than UWI. It's estimated that some 50,000 citizens are granted GATE funding a year. It would be interesting to find out how many of those accessing GATE are recent secondary school graduates and how many of them are returning to UWI or UTT or SBCS to enhance their education and qualifications-for example, a teacher who is working on a DipEd or on a degree.

Introducing a means test to determine who qualifies for GATE funding has the potential to skew the analysis as a teacher with 12 years service doing a DipEd may be earning over $9,000 a month. Under Dr Hosein's recommendation, this person may be excluded from qualifying for GATE even though the quality of her teaching is likely to improve significantly having done the course of study and she is likely to earn an increment in her salary for her educational attainment.



Ramesh Maharaj
yes, the cost of education in all parts of the world is high, but the cost of not getting an education is much higher.

https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2. ... ee9537703c

[elec2020]

I never like Hosein but he made valid points on GATE

[bluefete]

I never like Hosein but he made valid points on GATE

Same here but true as well.

[sMASH]

I never like Hosein but he made valid points on GATE

what bout the part that its an investment, and not a subsidy?

[bluefete]

Between 2004-2014 $7b spent on Gate: $100m recovered by Gov't
by

Wed Aug 03 2016
Rhonda Krystal Rambally

While there have been reports of wastage and corruption in the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (Gate) programme, close to $100 million has been recovered for the period 2007 to 2014 from students who failed to adhere to the contractual agreement.

Since the programme was introduced in 2004, taxpayers have spent approximately $7 billion to fund students' tertiary and vocational education.

Roughly $35 million in reimbursements by students were due to failures to complete courses, low GPAs, programme-hopping, institution-hopping and funding of non-nationals by the T&T Government, which resulted in millions of dollars in wastage.

Nothing was recovered for student reimbursement for the fiscal years 2004 to 2007.Monies were also recovered from audits conducted on the programme – $35 million and $28 million from tertiary level institutions based on reconciliation.

The money recovered from institutions was derived from a disparity in the reconciliation statements which they are expected to submit monthly and at the end of the programme. There were students who were being financed but not attending classes.Gate liaison officers monitored and evaluated the performance of institutions who received funding.

The total Gate funding recovered was $100,305,694 million.In 2013, the agreement between students and Gate and Gate and institutions were revised.When the Government entered office last September with a shaky economic environment given the decline in oil and gas prices, it signalled changes to the programme.

Last month, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley said his Cabinet would proceed with "a caring eye" on the matter.While on his trip to Jamaica, he said: "We are committed to cutting out the waste, the abuse and the corruption and to ensure the sacrifice we make to pay for your education is the best we can afford."

T&T Guardian examines how monies were expended in the last ten years on different institutions and areas of the programme.

Yesterday, Education Minister Anthony Garcia announced Cabinet's decision on task force recommendations for the programme.

The stipulations:

In 2013, new clauses in the Gate agreement were created to eliminate wastage.

Clause 5.2 (j) and (k) states that tertiary level institutions were required to inform the ministry promptly in writing of each student who failed to meet a minimum standard of performance in his or her course.

Clause 5.2 (p) provided for a 100 per cent refund of all monies paid by the ministry on behalf of a student who at the time of payment was not a citizen of T&T with three years continuous residence immediately prior to submission of the said application.

$230 million to StGeorge's University

For the fiscal years 2010/2011 to 2013/2014, Gate approved $229,534,312 to 322 students studying at St George's University in Grenada (SGU). The enrollment of new students for September 2014 was 16.In 2014, the total claims for SGU were $61,241,442.73. The total payment was $60,370,487.05. In 2015, the total claims were $58,842,673.15 while the total payment was $58,159,730.11. From next year all funding for medical students at that institution will cease.

Expenses jumpedfrom $100 million to$700 million annually

For the past two years, the Government spent just over $1.3 billion on tuition fees on the programme.Last year, 57 institutions were paid $699,884,393.83 for claims, with the University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus, receiving the lion's share of $178,474,155.48.

In 2014, 52 institutions were paid $638,353,296.78. UWI, St Augustine, also topped the list for highest payment – $133,163,432.This is in comparison to 2004, under the Dollar-for-Dollar Programme, when the amount expended by Government was $102,193,273 million. The following year, the amount increased to $179,699,121.

$331 millionin Help loans

In addition to Gate funding, the T&T Government has been guarantor for the Higher Education Loan Programme (Help.)Since its inception in 2006, the programme has granted loans to 17,408 students at a cost of $331,117,068 million.The loans are administered by First Citizens Bank, RBC Royal Bank, Republic Bank and Scotiabank.

The loans are used to cover tuition fees, accommodation expenses, transportation costs, living expenses and study material.The loans were granted to students pursuing all levels of tertiary education, including certificates, diplomas, professional qualifications and doctoral degrees.

In 2006, the number of loans granted was 481 at a total of $8,203,649. That figure jumped to 2,529 loans to a tune of close to $41 million in its second year.By 2013, the number of loans was 1,600 valued at $35 million.

$105 million toUWI Cave Hill

For the period 2009 to 2014, the total expenditure on Gate to UWI, Cave Hill campus, Barbados, was $105,159,347.The total number of students who received Gate funding for the fiscal years 2011/2012 to 2013/2014 was 1,163.The number of students attending UWI, Mona, Jamaica, who received funding for the same period was 1,304 while the number at UWI, St Augustine, for the same period was 43,503.

For the period 2013/2014, 378 students at Cave Hill were pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. Many of these degrees are offered at St Augustine. Of that number, 103 were enrolled in medicine.For the fiscal years 2010/2011 to 2013/2014, Gate approved $229,534,312 for 322 students attending the St George's University. These students receive 100 per cent funding.

https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2. ... f474c41073

[elec2020]

I never like Hosein but he made valid points on GATE

what bout the part that its an investment, and not a subsidy?

Bluefete just put up some crazy numbers there and from that u can see that Hosein was right GATE should be treated as an investment not a subsidy. Hence the need for the government to sit down with UWI board and come to an agreement on what classes UWI should push (for example those fields in agriculture to try to help with the food import bill) and those that they should drop or have a low amount of students in (for example Art or Literature). If the government partnered with UWI the returns from UWI graduates would have been greater. Instead you have a truck load of students doing 'easy' degrees like management/marketing and when they come out no jobs for them because no employer looking for that right now. If past and present governments were not stubborn and took on the pleas of the academic community we would have never been in such a grave position (even with covid-19). Alas que cera cera.

[bluefete]

UNC Youth Arm: PNM Closing The Gate To Education
Posted On 17 Jul 2016


Youth Arm Chairman Chris Hosein

The Youth Arm of the United National Congress notes with great concern and discomfort the recommendations made by task force appointed by the Rowley-led Cabinet to review the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (GATE) programme. From the various reports, the Rowley-led Cabinet is being asked to introduce a means testing scheme, undergraduates to pay one-third of total tuition and a total discontinuance of post graduate funding. Should Cabinet act on these recommendations it is tantamount to destroying the future of our nation. It is a gigantic leap backwards in our nation’s development as it disentitles thousands of students for a chance at achieving a tertiary level education.

It has always been and continues to be the policy of the UNC that every child should be entitled to free universal education. In 2001, the then UNC Government introduced the “Dollar for Dollar” Education plan which funded 50% of the cost of tuition for students. This was expanded to what we now know as GATE where tertiary education is 100% funded by the government. When the People’s Partnership came into office in 2010, one of the first things they did was to secure and expand the GATE programme to also include Technical and Vocational studies.

Subsequently, in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, the PNM in their manifesto promised the people to “Preserve, maintain, and expand where necessary, our system of free education and training at all levels.” And also “Ensure that the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (GATE) system, which we created in 2004, remains relevant, easily accessible and available to all citizens who need it.” Any adherence to the recommendations of the task force will be nothing short of a betrayal of the trust of the people of Trinidad and Tobago and any restrictions to the GATE programme will be undeniably a retrograde step.

We believe an education thrust develops a nation but since assuming office in September 2015, the PNM has been anti-education. In their first budget as a government, they have cut over $85.6M from the Ministry of Education and further cuts were made to Education in the government’s mid-year review in April of this year. In addition to this, scholarships have also been cut by 15% by the Ministry of Education.

During the mid-year review, the Minister of Finance indicated that it was time for the GATE programme to conserve expenditure and further indicated that there needs to be the implementation of some sort of means testing criteria for persons to access GATE by the next academic year. It is in this light that we are asking if the utterances of the Minister has prejudiced any findings and/or recommendations of the Task Force.

Further, if the Cabinet accepts the recommendation for a means test, the Youth Arm calls upon the nation to remember the incidents of the PNM “secret scholarship slush fund”, where there was rampant discrimination in the awarding of scholarships. The trust and integrity of any such process has already been eroded.

The UNC Youth Arm is of the view that the GATE programme has become necessary for students especially in these difficult times. We call on the Rowley-led Cabinet to give education the respect and support it deserves as our nation’s children must be properly equipped to be the leaders of tomorrow.

Chris A Hosein
Chairman
UNC Youth Arm

https://unctt.org/unc-youth-arm-pnm-clo ... education/

[bluefete]

SMDH - Just the 1st page alone (the IRONY) ......... then pgs.15-16 on Education


http://www.caribbeanelections.com/eDocs ... 202010.pdf

[Redress10]

I think it's a subsidy and not an "investment". The reason being everyone was entitled to it that means both rich a d poor. The fact that the ones who could have afforded to send their children to school no longer had to face that financial burden meant that money was spent elsewhere. It may have been an additional car, additonal room at the house, trips abroad for the family, carnival costumes and fetes or limes on the avenue. A whole list of things that money was probably spent on resulting in nothing more than consumption and not reinvestment or business creation. Were those things adequately taxed as well?

That also caused the wealth gap to further increase between the rich and the poor. Say a poor person living Toco and going UWI St Augustine to study and all she is getting is tuition paid by gate. She still needs to get up early, travel, spend the whole day in classes and lectures and then leave school late at night to head back toco.

Compared this to the girl living Westmoorings whose parents already had money and now no longer have to cover tuition. Instead she rents an apartment near to UWI. Living near campus means she's very comfortable and doesn't miss a lecture because of travelling distance. Now imagine if she had to pay tution and live in her parents home whilst commuting daily to UWI for school.

All "equality" isn't equality.

[sMASH]

I never like Hosein but he made valid points on GATE

what bout the part that its an investment, and not a subsidy?

Bluefete just put up some crazy numbers there and from that u can see that Hosein was right GATE should be treated as an investment not a subsidy. Hence the need for the government to sit down with UWI board and come to an agreement on what classes UWI should push (for example those fields in agriculture to try to help with the food import bill) and those that they should drop or have a low amount of students in (for example Art or Literature). If the government partnered with UWI the returns from UWI graduates would have been greater. Instead you have a truck load of students doing 'easy' degrees like management/marketing and when they come out no jobs for them because no employer looking for that right now. If past and present governments were not stubborn and took on the pleas of the academic community we would have never been in such a grave position (even with covid-19). Alas que cera cera.

ministry of agriculture already has a lot of free courses for many local foods. u dont need to know the exact science, but they teach u a lot.
i woudl argue against cutting management. cause a lot of running a competitive/profitable business is about managing the people and the operations. the aim for the management courses should not be to produce managers, but to enhance the skill set of people already in other feilds or entering. the degrees give u info that u may not readily learn bye the way or ojt. as was mentioned earlier, getting rid of the fly by night schools should be the aim.

arts and culture... nah, buss dat. let who ever want to open a school, or a course get funding from their fellow carnival patrons.

if u so like carnival and think its that profitable, come together and crowd fund ur own.

y the govt should fund the other feilds? cause those benefit a wider range of citizens for much more than just two days.
and u can produce people that can be exported.

[elec2020]

^ I agree I may have been harsh with the management /marketing program but essentially u get the gist of my point. Anyway GATE basically dead. Expect future cuts to happen. Any government who has intentions to stay in power would decimate GATE in their early years so by year 5 it not as big of an issue as it was before. Hoping Mickela makes the difference next 5 years. Although I was disappointed in her ducking the GE. She was never going to win that GE but at least she would have built up a base. One of the reasons why I am so behind Mickela is her insistence on youth which imo is needed as just how we talking about what should be done and it clear cut to us the older heads don't wanna entertain those discussions. And what do we end up with? The closure of an organization that helped maybe tens of thousands enjoy a standard of living that they may have never attained in their or their children's lifetimes.