<doc.id=4038.b2>
<title> Should we privatise the system of study grants? </title>
In this argumentation essay I will present some arguments to why we should not privatise the study grant system. I will also try to counter argue some of the arguments presented by the Muf. Hopefully I will make you realize that we cannot let banks and private companies take over the system of study grants. 

Muf argues that the Csn should be abolished, the alternative would instead be to let banks and other private companies control the study grants. They also suggest that if banks were in charge of loaning the money, the state would have to guarantee the repayment of the loans. This last suggestion is totally preposterous since it would mean that banks and other private companies would make all the profit and the state would have to stand for the loss of unsettled study grants. If that isn't a welfare state what is? But only for the rich that is. Moreover, I don't think it would be a good idea to let banks control the system of study grants. A frightening scenario would be that banks grant loans only to people whom they see fit. It is of course more attractive to grant a loan to a student who wants to become a doctor than to one who wants to study free art. The bank is more likely to get money back from the doctor than it is from the free art student. I don't suggest the system we have to day is one of perfection. But I don't think we should abolish a system that after all has a good purpose and goal. I agree that Csn has deficiencies, but I still say we give them one more chance in form of greatly increased financial resources and hopefully we will see a more generous study loan system in the future. 

Muf also asserts in their article that the driving force for banks would be to gain profitable clients in the future. So be it, but we mustn't forget that, like all private agencies, banks want to make money as well. It would be naive to think that banks operate some kind of charity activity. For instance, will the bank extend their reception hours? 10:00 to 12:00 is not exactly the ideal time for a student to run bank errands. Many people complain about getting unbelievably high charge bills sent home for not having paid in time. But how much will the bank charge you for the same bills? And how much will each reception visit cost you? One can of course always speculate what will and will not happened when a new system is being introduced. But like I mentioned, banks doesn't serve as benefactors, they are as greedy as anybody else on the free market. 

Another argument presented by Muf to privatise the study loan system, is to raise the amount of money one is allowed to earn before having the grant reduced. Muf also asserts in their article that if the amount of money earned exceeds the specific sum, no grant will be given at all. "With a normal income summer job one will soon exceed that sum, and that will result in getting no grant at all". The latter assertion is not even true. The student is indeed given a grant, however, somewhat reduced. I utterly agree in this matter, since I use to have problems with exceeding that amount myself. Csn, or rather the government, has cured this ailment by raising the money you are allowed to earn per year from 54000 to 92500 Skr1. I think that many people misguide their critique towards Csn. The one to blame is actually the Swedish government because they are the ones who create all the laws and regulations. 

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot let banks and private companies take over the system of study grants. A lot of smaller issues would probably not be solved just because banks take over the system, for instance, charge bills. Anyhow, the most important issue is the one about elitism, the fact that banks can decide to which students they want to loan their money. The result could be that only educations leading to well-paid jobs would be prioritised. 

Summary: Muf argues that the Csn should be abolished, the alternative would instead be to let banks and other private companies control the study grants. The driving force for banks would be to gain profitable clients in the future. Their main argument is that students are left out to a system that centralizes politics and not the students will and motive to study. Another argument presented by Muf is that students cannot improve their financial situation by working extra (if exceeded, the grant will be reduced). Muf also asserts that it is arbitrary what education you get, and don't get study grants for. Lastly, Muf argues that by dividing the administration between several different actors, the students' power over their study situation will improve. 

1 www.csn.se (Fribelopp studiemedel) 2001-10-28
</doc>