Financial and Social Support to Students in Higher Education Institutions of Armenia: Analysis of the Issues and Recommendations

Transcription

1 Financial and Social Support to Students in Higher Education Institutions of Armenia: Analysis of the Issues and Recommendations Karine Harutyunyan and Kristina Tsaturyan Summary This case study focuses on the public funding of higher education in Armenia. It also analyses the State policy on social and financial support to students in Armenia and compares it with the policies in other countries. The final part describes the Armenia s new policy on alternative funding scheme: the Competitive Innovation Fund in Armenia. Funding of higher education is a matter of great importance for the country and, hence, this study has the potential to inform decision makers and suggest new policies and practices aimed at improving the situation. Keywords: enrollment, equity, access, tuition fee, scholarship, stipend, student support, funding mechanisms, competitive funding. 1. Introduction Studies have revealed that the current developments in the world such as globalization, demographics and technological advancement have resulted in radical changes in Higher Education. Over the next twenty years the demand for higher education is expected to grow exponentially, from the current 99 million students worldwide to 414 million by 2030, with China showing by far the highest increase in recent years followed by Brazil and India. The thirst for knowledge and social mobility in emerging economies will place higher education within the reach of hundreds of millions of citizens around the world 1. Under these circumstances financing of Higher Education (HE) becomes critically important issue and require special attention. Thus it is essential to understand the funding policies of different countries in maintaining equal access, educational attainment and quality of the HE, and to explore alternative financing mechanisms. 2. Analysis of international practice in respect to tuition fees 1 European Commission, European Higher Education in the World; Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, Brussels, COM (2013) 499 1

2 This part provides brief overview on the models of tertiary/higher education financing and levels of support available to students in the OECD countries. It also provides comparison of policies on setting the tuition fees in the OECD countries and Armenia. The OECD provisionally divides countries into the following 4 groups based on the policy and arrangements regarding the tertiary education tuition fees set up by educational institutions or in other words by the cost of tertiary education 2. Group 1: Countries with low or no tuition fee but generous student support systems This group includes Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Island, Norway, and Sweden), which have progressive tax policies. As a result of such tax policies, students do not pay tuition fees and at the same time benefit from substantial public support. The average entry rate to tertiary-type A education 3 (mainly Bachelor s programmes), in these countries is 75%, which significantly exceeds the OECD average of 60%. This high entry rate is an indicator of not only the absence of tuition fees, but also well-established student financial support systems. Particularly, more than 55% of students in these countries benefit from public support: state grants, loans or both. This approach to funding of tertiary education reflects the deeply rooted social values in these countries, such as social equity. Group 2: Countries with high tuition fees and well-developed student support systems. This group includes Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Tuition fees in these countries are high, thus the entry into tertiary education is connected with financial obstacles. Nevertheless, the majority of students receive financial support, thus the average entry rate into tertiary-type A education in these countries is 76 %, which is quite high in comparison with OECD average and even higher than in many countries with low tuition fees. 2 OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. 3 According to the OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms (Education at a Glance, OECD, Paris, 2002, Glossary) Tertiary-type A programmes (ISCED 5A) are largely theory-based and are designed to provide sufficient qualifications for entry to advanced research programmes and professions with high skill requirement. Tertiarytype A programmes have a minimum cumulative theoretical duration (at tertiary level) of three years full-time equivalent, although they typically last four or more years. Basically Tertiary-type A programmes are Bachelor or equivalent programmes. 2

3 The private sector in these countries contributs the most to financing higher educational institutions. In other words the tertiary education cost in this group of countries is shared among the State, households and the private sector. The average tuition fees in Bachelor s programmes is high (more than 1500 USD), nevertheless more than 75% of students receive public financial support. Group 3: Countries with high tuition fees but less-developed student support systems. In the group 3 countries, such as Chile, Japan, and Korea, tuition fees for Bachelor s programmes are high - more than 4500 USD. At the same time the student support systems are less developed than in the 1 st and 2 nd group of countries. Thus, the burden of tuition fees is mainly shared by the students and their families, resulting to a relativity low entry rate into tertiary-type A education as compared to the OECD average: in Chile 45%, in Japan 52%. The situation differs in Korea, where the entry rate is 69%. It is worth to mention, that the public expenditures allocated to tertiary education in these countries, as a percentage of GDP, is comparably small. Group 4. Countries with low tuition fees and less-developed student support systems. The 4 th group is comprised of the European countries not included in the other groups (Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain, Czech Republic etc.), and Mexico. The tuition fees in these countries are quite low as compared to 2 nd and 3 rd group of countries and do not exceed 1300 USD. So, the students have relatively less financial difficulties to enter tertiary education. However the level of public support is also considerably lower; less than 40% of students receive it. Besides, this support is mainly targeted to certain groups of students. The entry rate is 56% in average, which is below the OECD average. Nevertheless, students and their families can benefit from other types of support such as housing allowances, tax reductions or tax credits for education. 3. Situation in the Republic of Armenia This part provides an overview of the situation in Armenia in regard to financing of HE, tution fees and student support, as well as comparison with the policies in other countries. The total government expenditure on education and on HE The total government expenditure on education in Armenia has had a dramatic fall after independence (1991), however it has increased 9 times since 3

4 1996 reaching 128 billion AMD in 2014 (about mln. USD). Still, government expenditure on education, particularly on the HE, remains quite low. Changes in the government expenditure on education repeated the pattern of changes in the total government expenditures and the GDP. Particularly, the education share of the total government expenditure has increased from 11% in 1996 to 15% in 2006 and then decreased back to 11% in 2014 due to the global financial crisis and drop of the students numbers (demographic changes). Annual government expenditure on education as percentage of GDP has fluctuated between 2% to 2.6%, reaching its maximum value of 3.4% in Government expenditure on HE has increased 1.9 times from 5.3 billion AMD (about 12.2 ml. USD) in 1996 to 10.2 billion AMD (about 21.6 ml. USD) in HE share in the total government expenditure was 0.82 % in 2014, and in the total education expenditures 7%, which formed about 0.2% of GDP. For comparison, the average annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of total public expenditure in the EHEA countries is about 2.7% in average. Moreover, government expenditures on HE are almost entirely spent on student scholarships. Tuition fees Tuition fees in Armenia are high; meanwhile the student support systems are comparably underdeveloped. In this regard, Armenia is closer to the OECD 3 rd group of countries, having high tuition fees and less-developed student support systems. To make a fair comparison between Armenia and other HE systems, operating in a huge variety of cultures, a simple common indicator was taken: an average annual tuition fee for Bachelor's programmes as a percentage of GDP per capita. In the OECD 3 rd Group of countries the annual average tuition fee as a percentage of GDP per capita fluctuates between 15% and 35% 5. In the academic year this indicator in Armenia was in average 32.7 %, although it varied significantly not only from one higher education institution (HEI) to another but also from one specialty to another within each HEI, fluctuating from 14% to 85% of the GDP per capita. According to the National Statistical Service of Armenian (NSSA) data, in the academic year tuition fees for 64.5% of the fee paying students were 4. Republic of Armenia Public Expenditure Review: Expanding the Fiscal Envelope, Report No AM, the World Bank, The GDP indicators are taken from the World Bank data: 4

5 between 200,000 and 400,000 Armenian Drams (AMD) ( USD), for 15.8% between 400,000 and 600,000 AMD ( USD), for 15.6 % up to 200,000 (492 USD) AMD and for 4.1 % above 600,000 AMD 6 (1477 USD). Compared to the previous year, in the academic year the average tuition fee has risen from 450,000 AMD to 500,000 AMD (from 1108 USD to 1225 USD) forming 34% of the GDP per capita. Enrollment in HE The gross enrollment rate in the Bachelor s programmes in Armenia is quite high. In the academic year it was 44.3% 7. According to this indicator Armenia is also close to the OECD 3 rd group of countries. However, the gross enrollment rate in Master s and Doctoral programmes in Armenia is relatively low. In the academic year the gross enrollment rate in Master s programmes was 10,2 %. According to the NSSA data the total number of students enrolled in all 3 cycles of HE in Armenia was 103,405, out of which 84.3% paid fees. The number of students enrolled in Bachelor s programmes was 90,145 (87.1% of all students), in Master s 12,105 (11.7%) and in Doctoral 1,155 (1.2%). The analysis revealed an interesting tendency; the higher the education level, the lower the number of fee paying and part-time students. Particularly, the percentage of students who pay fees at Bachelor s level is 86.9%, at Master s level 72.8% and 51% at doctoral level. The percentage of part-time students in Bachelor s level is 36.2% and in Master s level 17.8%. The following argumentation provides clarifications to the decrease in the student enrollment rates at Master s and Doctoral programmes, especially for those involved in the paid and part-time education segment. The poverty rate in the country is high (32.4% in 2012) 8 and the ability of population to pay tuition fees is low; the majority of 1 st cycle graduates are immediately looking for a job in order to get income. The number of university places at Master s and Doctoral levels is low (Master s level: about 20 % of the Bachelor s places and Doctoral: about 9% of the Master s places). The number of State-funded scholarships is even lower (Master s level: about 9% of the Bachelor s places and Doctoral: about 9% of the Master s places). Besides, only 24% of male students out of those who receive state scholarships are released from mandatory military service, thus the majority of the Bachelor s level male graduates have to complete 6 Social Situation in Armenia in 2012, Statistical Yearbook, Yerevan, Social Situation in Armenia in 2012, Statistical Yearbook, Yerevan,

6 military service. After fullfilling their obligations they often do not return to studies due to financial constrains and difficulties resulting from being out of the educational process for a long time. The motivation to get Master s or Doctoral degrees is low because the 3-cycle system is viewed by students as not well established. From a content aspect, the educational programmes of Master s level often repeat the Bachelor ones. The Bachelor qualification is often sufficient to enter the Armenian labour market. Access to HE Although the gross enrollment rate at Bachelor's level cannot be considered to be low, access to HE is not equal in Armenia. It substantially differs across social groups, and is especially low for young people from poor or extremely poor families. The enrollment rates in HE for the different population welfare quintiles are as follows: for year olds from the 1 st poorest quintile of population it is 19%, while for the wealthiest 5 th quintile it reaches 64% 9. State support to students Only up to 20% of all students in Armenia get State support for their tuition fee payments in the form of full or partial reimbursement of the tuition fee (through state scholarships). In the academic year 15.7% of students received state scholarships. 10 This is substantially less than in the OECD countries, including those which are the closest to Armenia in terms of the enrollment and tuition fee size (at least 40% in the 4th group of countries). Meanwhile in the OECD countries, even in those with high tuition fees, 40% to 75% of students receive State support, which ensures equity and high enrollments in HE. The forms of financial and social support in these countries are different: scholarships, grants, loans, accommodation payments, health insurance, tax reductions for families and other benefits. The table below shows which groups of students receive state scholarships in Armenia. 9 Social Snapshot and Poverty in Armenia: Statistical-Analytical Report, Key Findings of the 2012 Integrated Living Conditions Servey, National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, The student groups eligible to receive reimbursement of their tuition fees (state scholarships) are specified in the Law on Higher and Postgraduate Education of the Republic of Armenia (2204) and Government of Armenia Decision N 1183-N dated

7 N Groups of students receiving state scholarships ( academic year) 1 Students receiving merit-based full scholarships and having the military-duty-postponement right 2 Students (up to the age of 23) deprived of parental 1,97% care 3 Students with level 1 disabilities 0,28% 4 Students with level 2 disabilities 1,48% 5 Students disabled from birth 2,2% 6 Students children of persons killed/died during military service/armed conflicts 7 Students who became disabled during the compulsory military service 8 Winners of the International Olympiads, World and European Sport Championships 9 Male students who have completed compulsory military service and have been admitted to HEIs during 3 years after release from the service. % from the total number of students receiving state scholarships 87.9% 3,64% 0,31% 2,12% 0,1 % The table shows that about 90% of all state scholarships are merit-based. Number of students receiving state scholarships in other groups than 1st is quite low. In addition, since the academic year government started to provide 50% to 100% tuition fee reimbursement (on need-based criteria only) to the students whose families are registered in the State System of Family Benefits. The reimbursement amount depends on the assessed vulnerability score of the family (the higher the score, the more insecure the family is considered, hence the reimbursement amount is higher). According to the data provided by the HEIs, only about 1% of all students have received such reimbursement in the first year of the programme, but their number is increasing. Support to students by HEIs In addition to the government support, HEIs in Armenia also provide financial support to students both on merit-based and need-based principles (with the majority on a need-based principle) in a form of tuition fees discounts. 7

8 In the academic year state HEIs provided discounts to 15.3% of the total number of their students or to 18.1% of the students in the paid segment (80% of them were Bachelor s level students and 20% Master s level). Students receiving support from the HEIs mainly represent different vulnerable groups 11. The analysis of the statistical data 12 revealed that the majority of students receiving HEI support proceed from the following two groups: families with more than two children enrolled in HE (41.5% of the students supported by the HEIs 13 ) and single parent families (19.5 % of the students supported by the HEIs 14 ). Student stipends provided by the State In Armenia students of the state HEIs also receive monthly leaving stipends from the Government. What is more, these stipends are granted to the 90 % of those students who already receive full state scholarships (study for free). The provision of stipends according to the existing mechanism may be considered as a quite inefficient way of allocation of the State resources, as the monthly stipend amount is very small (6,000AMD or about 12USD) to address the social needs of a student. Furthermore, stipends are not target-oriented, since both state scholarships and stipends are provided based on the merits/high performance of the students, and not in relation to their social needs. Meanwhile, highly performing students do not necessarily need financial support. According to the estimates, if the amount allocated in the 2013 State Budget for stipends (7,7 ml. AMD equal to USD) were to be reallocated to the students who need support in paying tuition fees, then at least additional 2000 students could receive full scholarships. This calculation is based on the average tuition fee in Armenia. Considering that the tuition fee for 64.5 % of the students is below the average, the number of benefitting students could increase substantially. Students needing financial and social support As mentioned above, 85% of all students in Armenia are paying tuition fees. Hence it is important to reveal who, among them, needs financial and social support. 11 The groups of students eligible to receive partial reimbursement (discount) from HEIs are specified in the Government of Armenia Decision N 1183-N of Data is received from the HEIs academic year academic year 8

9 The study 15 commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Science for that purpose examined students social welfare through a combination of 5 methods evaluating family poverty level (measuring family financial welfare index, material welfare index, material deprivation, and family monthly income, plus separating students into to 2 groups: scholarship recipients and others). The study revealed that 23% of all fee paying students in the state HEIs and 44% of them who study on a full-time basis have the same level of social well-being as those who receive state scholarships. This means that almost half of the full-time students in the paid segment of the state HEIs need financial assistance. Sources of money for paying tuition fees and other costs A further question examined was: How do most students finance their education? The same study revealed that the most common source for paying tuition fees in Armenia is family income. 87.3% of the fee paying full-time students benefit from their families' support. Student jobs are the second most common source of income among Armenian students for 8.5% of the fee paying full-time students. Other sources of income for covering tuition fees are less common in Armenia: student loans (for 2.8% of the full-time fee paying students), donations from relatives and friends (for 2.7%) or benevolent organizations (for 2.2%), consumer loans (for 2%). Finally the less common sources of income are: sale of family property, debts, etc (for 0.1% to 0.9%). The most socially vulnerable students So, on one hand 87.3% of the full-time students in the paid segment get support from their families to cover tuition fees, but on the other hand 44% of them face financial difficulties. Therefore, it is essential to find out which part of students is the most socially vulnerable in order to direct state support to them. Among students that need financial support the most vulnerable can be considered those who: drop out for the reason that they cannot pay tuition fees: in general the drop-out rate (for this particular reason) is not high in Armenia and is 15 Support to Students in the State HEIs of Armenia and Bologna process in Armenia (2013), sociological study, report HER 2/2013, IPSC (Institute for Political and Sociological Consulting) 9

10 about 1.25% of all fee paying students 16, 60% of which study at the state HEIs; find various ways to pay tuition fees: work, take consumer loans or borrow money from friends, relatives, and sponsors (12.7% of students who do not get the support of their family). In total 14% of the fee paying students in the state HEIs might be considered as the most socially vulnerable ones. In addition, there is a certain number of young people who get admitted to an HEI every year but are not registered as students due to inability to pay tuition fees. In the academic year 1.9% of those who were admitted to Bachelor s programmes and 10.3% to Master s programmes of the state HEIs were not registered as students 17. The estimated percentage of the most socially vulnerable students is comparable with the ANSS data on enrolment rates in HE per population welfare quintiles. In particular, the enrollment rate for year olds from the 1 st poorest quintile of population it is 19%. This on one hand the means that students from the poorest families can t afford paying tuition fees, on the other hand signals that access to HE is not equitable in Armenia. Social services for students Many students in Armenia encounter times of hardship where they did not have enough resources to meet their needs, such as food, shelter, transportation, or health care. Sometimes needs are so great that student s academic achievement suffers. However, currently the State doesn t provide social assistance services to students who need additional supports and resources. Such assistance might include but not limited to the following services: Providing dormitory accommodation to out of town students Based on the results of the study 18 11% of the out of town full-time students in the state HEIs need dormitory rooms and only 12% of them are provided with accommodation in dormitories. 16 Social Situation in Armenia in 2012, Statistical Yearbook, Yerevan, Accroding the Ministry of Education and Science data 18 Support to Students in the State HEIs of Armenia and Bologna process in Armenia (2013), sociological study, report HER 2/2013, IPSC (Institute for Political and Sociological Consulting) 10

11 Providing transportation services or free travel passes to be used on Armenia public transport network. The study revealed that in average 67% of the full-time students in the state HEIs uses public transportation. Providing student loans on favorable conditions to help students pay for tuition, books, and living expenses The study revealed that 50% of the full-time students in the state HEIs are in favour of the student loans. However provision of student loans has started only 3-4 years ago and currently 50% of students are not informed about it, thus only 0.5% of full-time students have received student loans in Competitive Innovation Fund The study also examines a new Government initiative directed at providing competitive funding to promote university innovations and initiatives. Currently state HEIs in Armenia are deriving an increasing share of their resources from tuition revenue paid by students. This has resulted in some increase in the HEIs revenues from tuition fees but any benefit has been small as they have, in general, allocated any new tuition-derived income to recurrent expenditures and mainly to pay the salaries of staff, which remain relatively low. Since HEIs invest hardly any of their income in capital improvements and innovations, the public s perception is that the quality of HE is deteriorating. Hence, to improve the quality and relevance of HE and promote innovations, the Government came up with a initiative to diversify the funding and introduce a Competitive Innovation Fund (CIF). Prior to starting the design and implementation of CIF a comparative analysis of international trends and feasibility study was conducted, which revealed weaknesses of the existing funding schemes of HE The pilot phase of CIF implementation was launched in 2012 with the funding provided by the World Bank under the Second Education Quality and Relevance Project. Three funding options were offered to the HEIs: consortia projects to promote public and private partnerships; HEIs individual projects for wider internal coverage and impact; individual project for private HEIs directed to capacity building and consolidation of several small institutions. The budget allocated for the first phase was 3.5ml USD. 10 Projects received funding on a 11

12 competitive, particularly curriculum modernization, modernization of teaching and learning resources, convergence of research, teaching and learning, as well as innovations. An evaluation of the CIF mechanisms employed for the first pilot phase has revealed that additional trainings for the Proposal writing and Project Management are required. It is too early to evaluate the impact and the purposefulness of the Projects funded, however it is the first step to diversify the funding of HE and provide alternative mechanisms for that. 4. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Since the independence of Armenia in 1991, the responsibility of financing HE has consistently shifted away from government towards students and their families. So, private money is replacing government funding of HE and, as a consequence, tuition fees are gradually rising. Public expenditures on HE, are quite low. HE share in the total government expenditure was 0.82 % in 2014, and in the total education expenditures 7%, which is about 0.2% of GDP. State HEIs are deriving an increasing share of their resources from tuition revenue paid by students whilst private institutions are funded solely from tuition fees. HEIs have seen some increase in their revenues from tuition fees but any benefit has been small as they have, in general, allocated any new tuition-derived income to recurrent expenditures and mainly to pay the salaries of staff (which remain relatively low). Evidence suggests that rising fees have not suppressed the aggregate demand for HE on the contrary, gross enrollment has increased during the past 10 years. The gross enrollment rate in Bachelor programs in Armenia is about 45% which, when compared with the OECD or EHEA average is not so low. Average tuition fees in Armenia as a percentage of GDP per capita are high. Indeed, the cost of HE in Armenia approaches that of OECD countries categorized as having high tuition fees and less well developed student support systems. 84.3% of all students in Armenia pay tuition fees with just 15.7% receiving financial support from the public purse. This may be compares with OECD 12

13 countries having high tuition fees and relatively weak student support systems where however at least 40% of students receive public support. The situation in Armenia imposes a heavy financial burden on students and their families making HE unaffordable for many. This results in inequity of access. In particular, enrollment data shows that 64% of students are from the wealthiest families and only 19% are from poor families. The State does provide monthly leaving stipends to students, but only to those who have are already in receipt of state scholarships. However, stipends are very small and cannot resolve the students social needs. Moreover, since scholarships are merit-based the students benefitting from stipends are not necessarily those in greatest need of assistance. This basically represents an inefficient use of state funds. Since HEIs invest hardly any of their income in capital improvements and innovations, the public s perception is that the quality of HE is deteriorating. In addition, both the State and the HEIs invest little in improving student support systems and so rising tuition fees have no positive effect on participation by socio-economic background. Recommendations Based on the key findings of the study the following recommendations are developed, but taking into account the fact that no major increase of public funding for HE is likely in the near future. Increase gradually the state funding of the HEIs and change financing mechanisms through moving towards performance based funding principles. In parralel to the increase of state funding enlarge the number of state scholrships together with increase of equity. In particular, diversify public funding on one hand allocating more resources to specialties having high priority for Armenian economy, on other hand making a shift from access to affordability; i.e. increase the proportion of need-based versus merit-based scholarships making them more targeted towards students of different socioeconomic background. As a specific measure separate the group of students receiving state scholarships from those who get state stipends and redirect the amount of stipends to the neediest students. Promote private investments in HE, encourage both more systematic dialogue between HEIs and employers and participation of employers in HE. 13

14 Develop the work on entrepreneurship and innovation in the HEIs eliminating the existing legal barriers for it and expand services to society provided by HEIs. Integrate the research with education in the HEIs and promote vertical and horizontal cooperation of research institutes and HEIs. Improve the mechanisms for setting tuition fees by HIEs and liberalize the policies for payment of these fees by students making them more flexible. Broaden and strengthening the social services provided to students from poor backgrounds Support the quality improvements in HEIs by providing funding on competitive basis for innovations further developing a Competitive Innovation Fund. Literature 1. Social Situation in Armenia in 2012, Statistical Yearbook, Yerevan, European Commission, European Higher Education in the World; Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, Brussels, COM (2013) 499, available from: 3. Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. OECD, available from: 4. OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms, Education at a Glance, OECD, Paris, 2002, available from: 5. Social Snapshot and Poverty in Armenia: Statistical-Analytical Report, Key Findings of the 2012 Integrated Living Conditions Survey, National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 2013, available at: 6. Republic of Armenia Public Expenditure Review: Expanding the Fiscal Envelope, Report No AM, the World Bank, 2014, available from: 7. Government of Armenia Decision N 1183-N dated Law on Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education of the Republic of Armenia, Government of Armenia Decision N 1986-N dated on

15 10. Government of Armenia Decision N 2114-N dated on Support to Students in the State HEIs of Armenia and Bologna process in Armenia, Sociological Study, Report HER 2/2013, IPSC (Institute for Political and Sociological Consulting), Yerevan, Thomas Estermann, Enora Bennetot Pruvot & Anna-Lena Claeys-Kulik, Designing Strategies for Efficient Funding of Higher Education in Europe (interim report), European University Association, National Student Fee and Support Systems: 2013/14, Eurydice Facts and Figures, European Commission, Payne, B., Charonis, G. K., Haaristo, H. S., Maurer, M., Kaiser, F., Siegrist, R., Xhomaqi, B., Primožič, R., Compendium on Financing of Higher Education, Final report of a Project Named Financing the Students' Future, By the European Students Union, Brussels, Biffl, G. And Isaac, J., Should Higher Education Students Pay Tuition fees?, European Journal of Education,Vol.37,No.4, pp , Callender, C and Kemp, M., Changing Student Finances: Income, Expenditure and the Take-up of Student Loans among Full and Part-time Higher Education Students in , Department for Education and Employment, London, Christie, H., Munro, M. and Rettig, H., Making Ends Meet: Student Incomes and Debt, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp , Daniel, H-D, Schwarz, S. and Teichler, U., Study Costs, Student Income and Public Policy in Europe, European Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp7-21, 1999 Karine Harutyunyan PhD in Physical and Mathematical Sciences Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Armenia Tel: Address: 0010, Yerevan, Main avenue, Government Building N 3 kharutyunyan@mail.ru Kristina Tsaturyan Head of International Cooperation Unit Armenian State Pedagogical University after Khachatur Abovyan Tel: kristina.tsaturyan@gmail.com 15