30 % utenlandske studenter er jo mer enn nok belegg. Om det er i Oslo som i Bergen at bortimot 50 % av de som bor i studentboligene er utenlandske, så synes jeg det er alt for mye. Det kan vel heller ikke være særlig økonomisk gunstig for SiO, ettersom disse leier hybel fra sånn midten av august og til starten av desember eller fra slutten av januar og til mai/starten av juni... Da står jo mange boliger ledige flere måneder i året, noe man kunne unngått med norske studenter som feks leier en hybel i fem år.

Studentboligene bør vel også sikre at NORSKE studenter kan få studere i sitt eget land også, selv om man kanskje kommer fra laaaangt unna Oslo og ikke har mulighet til å komme på visning?

Boliggarantien vil bestå uavhengig av hva Velferdstinget vedtar fordi denne i utgangspunktet gjelder mellom utdanningsinstitusjonene som har inngått utvekslingsavtaler.

Det er mer fornuftig at UiO bruker noen hundre tusen på boligformidling i det private boligmarkedet enn at SiOs beboere betaler flere titalls millioner i unødvendig høy husleie.

Merk ogås at KD har signalisert at de ikke er interessert i å gi flere tildelinger dersom beleggsprosenten ikke er samfunnsøkonomisk forsvarlig.

Uio kan selvfølgelig ha en internasjonal boliggaranti, men de kan ikke garantere at SiO vil tilby alle disse boligene. Dette fordi Velferdstinget bestemmer hvor mange internasjonale studenter SiO skal ta inn. Og bestemmer Velferdstinget et tak, så får UiO begynne å søke på finn.no da!!

På høy tid at en begynner å prioritere norske studenter når det kommer til studentboligene.

De utenlandske studentene er her kort tid, men tar beslag på opp mot 50% av boligene vil jeg tro. På Fjellbirkeland, Sogn og Kringsjå er i alle fall over 50% utvekslingsstudenter.

Boligene de bor står nok også tomme kanskje opp mot 5 måneder av året også. Sommerferie fra Mai-September, og juleferie fra slutten av november til januar/februar.

Er det egentlig studentsamskipnaden sitt ansvar å ta vare på UiO sine utvekslingsstudenter, eller er den til for studentene som år etter år betaler avgift til dem? Mange av de utenlandske studentene betaler vel ikke engang semesteravgift ved UiO og til SiO, men til sitt studiested i hjemlandet?

I så fall så sponser vel de studentene som blir tvunget ut på det private markedet pga boliggarantien til de utenlandske studentene igjennom semesteravgiften?

Til Janne: Jeg leste nylig i Inside, avisen for BI-studentene, at det var 42 % innvekslingsstudenter som bor i SiO-boligene. Så ja, det er nesten 50 %... og det er alt for mye!

Studentpolitikernes valgkampløfter om at de arbeider for å bedre boligsituasjonen for de norske studentene ved bygging av flere studentboliger er en bløff så lenge den prosentvise økningen antall utvekslingsstudenter (innveksling) er høyere enn utbygningstakten av nye studentboliger hos SiO.

Dersom UiO ønsker 20 % studentmobilitet i sin strategiske plan for 2010 – 2020 vil to enkle grafer vise at med dagens boliggaranti vil SiO i fremtiden ikke ha noen studentboliger å tilby norske studenter. Ikke ukjent følger det ikke midler med KDs føringer for sektoren.

Til Janne: Bakgrunnen for at en del innvekslingsstudentene ikke betaler semesteravgift skyldes avtaleverket i utvekslingsprogrammene, og SiO kompenseres for dette ved at utreisende studenter fra Oslo betaler semesteravgift her. Kun dersom det ikke er samsvar mellom innreisende og utreisende er dette være ett problem.

Avvikling av boliggarantien tiltredes. Iallefall fram til man har klart å realisere nok nye studentboliger til at det er forsvarlig, og ikke kaster den jevne student ut i et overpriset marked.

Dear all,

After some research, I hope that the following information provided will be helpful towards ensuring a better understanding on the issue: In Innstilling S. nr 229 (2003-2004) point XIII, Stortinget asked the government to earmark and allocate funds for construction of accommodation equal to 1000-1200 student housing units annually (with 60% of the cost being granted). Such proposal has been unanimously adopted by Stortinget in (and thus, became an obligation of the Government from) June 2004. Despite the above, in 2005 only 500 student housing have been built, while in 2007 only 477 have been under construction. In 2008, the Ministry of Education and Research (KD) has granted 153 million kroner to new student accommodation, part of which would cover the cost of building 103 student residences in Oslo.

In the above legal framework, Velferdstinget’s 2006 (adopted) policy has set the goal of achieving a housing coverage of 20% by the end of 2009, and 1,000 new student housing units being built yearly by SiO until the goal would be reached. Please note that the local (in UiO) percentage of coverage in 2006 has been equal to 14,4 % (when the national percentage has been 14,6 %), while in 2007 the UiO percentage has been 16,9 % (when the national has been 14,5 %).

At this point, it must be clarified that the responsibility of new student accommodation does not just lie with the Government, SiO and/or Velferdstinget, but also with the individual municipalities, which must make sure to provide plots of land on which one can build more housing (relevant is the issue with Hausmania, Bjørvika, etc.).

Regarding student population and its number in UiO, please note that currently (2009/2010) the University has 27.472 overall students, from which 3.272 are foreign/international. In 2008/2009, the total number was 27.429 students, from which 3.288 were international, while in 2007/2008, the numbers have been 28.571 and 3.293 respectively.

With the above figures in mind, it is difficult to understand how an eventual change on the accommodation guarantee for (a small, slowly decreasing number of) international students will be more beneficial than your national students’ organisations’ (NSU and StL)’s (successful) campaign on committing the Government/Ministry of Education in providing financing for the construction of 1.000 new student housing units each year. In this respect, please note that SiO has been provided with 983 new housing units for this year, resulting in the building of a new student accommodation (Vestgrensa II - planned to be ready by May 2010) and the examination of several other options (Haussmania, etc.).

It is worth mentioning -for the sake of a well founded argument (and public discussion)- that apart from the fact that Norwegian students are eligible for a 10-month student grant from Lånekassen (which -despite the fact that is not enough to cover all expenses throughout the year- it certainly does provide some degree of financial independence and certainty), international students do not stand the same chances with Norwegians on finding a suitable accommodation in Norway/Oslo, as well as that not all Norwegian students are in seek of accommodation (because of other personal circumstances, like staying with parents, couple, etc.). In this respect, the available data from the year 2005 show that 13% of student population (nationally) had been opting for other choices than “studentbolig” (which amounted to 14%) and “leier privat” (amounted to 73%), while the percentage has been equal to 20% in 2001-2002 (with more than 60 % from the above students living alone). In view of the above (official) figures, and referring to the points raised earlier by your messages, please note that the practise adopted (and followed) by SiO (and Velferdstinget) so far has been based on a sensible and far-sighted approach, founded in and legitimised by a national policy/priority which Norwegian governments so far considered important for their own nationals, i.e. better internationalisation of Norwegian education (in and for Norway). Hope the above have contributed towards a better public dialogue.

Looking forward for your points of view/arguments, expected to be voiced through your democratically elected representatives in UiO (Student Parliament’s Arbeidsutvalg, ISU UiO Board).

Kind regards, George Vlazakis ISU National President

George Vlazakis: It takes some nerve to argue that the about 3-4000 international students should keep their right to student housing, when they as a minority take up over 40% of all student housing in Oslo.

To further the argument and saying that Norwegian students should keep out of student housing because they can take up student loans is downright rude.

If you cant pay to study in Norway, and cant accept to apply to student housing by the same terms as the Norwegian students then you should perhaps look to another country to study in.

Norwegian students should not take up expensive student loans, which takes them half their professional lives to pay back, to sponsor foreign students stay in Oslo, one of the most expensive cities to live in, in the world.

If it hit the news and became part of the political agenda that we are building loads of student housing, but Norwegian students still end up renting in the private market because over 40% of all student housing is automaticly given to foregin students, one could wonder if the politicans would allocate any more funding to the building of student housing at all. I dont think so.

Dear all,

Please excuse my incorectness in the amount of housing units allocated this year, since the number of 983 units corresponds to the national level (from which 167 have been allocated to SiO). Additionally, please note that the budget earmarked by the Ministry of Education for this year has been 227.9 million kroner, and has been destined for follow up and completion of already started projects.

Kind regards, George Vlazakis, ISU National President

@Janne: You forgot to mention that many international students from non-EU/non-Western countries actually receive stipends from Lånekassen just as Norwegian students do. The only difference is that they receive their money as stipends, not loans. Let's face it: Norwegians are not privileged in their own country.

My oh my...

Det ser ut til at stemmningen snur i forhold til dette fenomenet. Om det blodrøde studentparlamentet også skifter mening så står ikke verden til påske.

Utlendinger i 50 % av boligene? Det er verre enn hva jeg hadde trodd. Kan det være sant.