As competition in the job market intensifies, a number of graduates continue school life in an attempt to escape employment pressure. A few of them are in effect keener on diplomas than academic research. So if we assure the poor student a comfortable life at school by offering subsidies, it will encourage irresponsible students to follow this example.

Finding a job is perhaps a better choice for poor students. As a matter of fact, to be self-supporting is not that difficult at school, because poor students can easily apply for school loans, win scholarships or do part-time work. After all, young people need more opportunities than subsidies.

Cheng Biao (Changjiang Times): Traditionally, we believe that to receive education will help lift people from poverty. Knowledge is power. In the job market, a good educational background is the yardstick to measure one's competence and thus determine one's destiny. As far as academic degrees are concerned, the higher, the better.

In an attempt to build up a stronger talent pool, the government is pouring huge amounts of money into the field of education to prevent poor students from dropping out of school. But the poor students should be aware of being financially independent and find every possible means to make ends meet, such as tutoring younger students or doing trivial jobs.

Therefore, I suggest that the government should not subsidize the higher education of poor students because it could make them less financially and mentally independent.

Li Zhongqing (www.qianlong.com): What will be the use of education, if bookworms have to be fed by state subsidies after years at school? It is controversial because it is ridiculous that a student with a top academic degree cannot survive without subsidies. In fact, universities now provide school loans and hourly job opportunities to help poor students. For a postgraduate, a suitable part-time job will be more than enough to meet daily school costs.

Equal living guarantee

Xiu Yangfeng (hlj.rednet.cn): For a long time, some of us reckoned that the basic living allowances are the "privilege" of the low-income group, characterized by less education, a poor family and a disadvantaged social status.

But in fact, the subsidies will reach whoever demands humanitarian relief and assistance for basic living. The only measure to assess applicants ignores education or identity and focuses on living conditions.

This student, even though holding an above-average academic degree, is poor, and the subsidies will be useful to help him finish his three-year course. In addition, these subsidies may help the student change the destiny of his poor family after graduating.

Zhou Xiyin (Information Times): The implementation of the basic living allowances is based on residency, measured by total family income, not on a specific individual. A postgraduate student is still a student without a fixed income source, and to cut the subsidies may destroy the student's future by forcing him out of school as a result of financial difficulties. This will harm China's intellectual strategy as a whole.

It also violates fairness in education, since the poor are naturally deprived of opportunities for higher education. It is actually not simply subsidizing a poor family, but will eventually encourage the poor to make educational investments, which will bring more children back to school and is a policy with long-term benefits to the country.

Fang Yan (www.tianshannet.com.cn): It is stipulated that either unemployed or disabled can enjoy the subsidies, and that an unemployed student qualifies.