LEFTFIELD: Having seen five Ministers for Education come and go, it's clear what makes a good Minister for Education

SO Ruairí Quinn is the new Minister for Education and Skills. I’m sure he won’t mind my saying that he and I go back a long way, back to when he was Minister for Labour in Garret FitzGerald’s government and I was lecturer in industrial relations in TCD. I’m sorry that my term of office as president of DCU did not last just long enough to see him in his new role. I suspect he and I wouldn’t agree on everything, but I believe that he is genuinely interested in education, and has a willingness to take higher education seriously.

That is really important, because he starts with a programme for government that says interesting things about our school system, but which shows spectacular ignorance and a failure to understand even the basics of the university system in its brief comments on third level.

Maybe Ruairí Quinn can make a real difference and initiate a proper and constructive dialogue with the sector.

In DCU, I worked with five ministers: Michael Woods, Noel Dempsey, Mary Hanafin, Batt O’Keeffe and Mary Coughlan. I just missed Micheál Martin, who left education on the same day I was appointed DCU President.

So we have had a new minister every two years on average, which is quite mad. Education is a sensitive policy area and needs consistency. So I hope Ruairí Quinn will be in the post for a good few years to come. Taoiseach Enda Kenny has already signalled 2013 as reshuffle year, and so I’d like to say that I’ll be watching him and will be very cross if education changes hands at that point. There, that’s the Skibbereen Eagle bit out of the way.

So now, back to the last decade’s parade of ministers. How good were they? Indeed, what makes for a “good” Minister for Education?

From a third-level perspective, the first requirement is that they should have an interest in the post-secondary scene. Left to their own devices, or much worse, to the devices of their officials, they wouldn’t. As far as the department is concerned, schools come way before universities and colleges. And that is also the political instinct. Every family in the land has, or has had, someone in a school. Fewer than half have, or have had, someone in a third-level college. Furthermore, you can’t score many points by criticising teachers, not least because most politicians have traditionally been scared witless by the teacher unions.

Having a go at academics goes down a treat almost everywhere. So ministers tend to come into the role all ready to be sensitive and emollient in dealing with teachers, but keen to make up for that by being aggressive towards higher education. After a while they begin to see that third-level institutions actually add great value to the country, and as they become familiar with us they tend to change. As I pointed out previously, the moment they get to that point, they are reshuffled.

The second characteristic that the third-level sector would look for in a good minister is an understanding of what higher education actually is. At the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of the Oireachtas last autumn, some politicians demonstrated that they hadn’t the faintest idea what universities actually do or what they are for or how they operate. While the university representatives didn’t handle the encounter particularly well, the questions asked by some of the committee members were shocking in terms of the ignorance displayed, and perhaps wilfully displayed in order to play to the gallery.

Higher education will, to a remarkable degree, determine this country’s future. What we do in teaching students; in research, and in prompting economic and cultural development, will play a massive role in helping to get us out of the economic crisis. Don’t get me wrong, third-level reform is really necessary, but it needs some proper thought.

The minister also should be willing to be innovative about funding and resources. This is where I have real concerns about the new minister. In an act that I consider really unwise, before the election he signed a USI-drafted pledge not to introduce tuition fees. The last senior politician to do that was Nick Clegg of the British Liberal Democrats. Enough said.

So how did Ruairí Quinn’s predecessors shape up? Noel Dempsey and Mary Hanafin, both started off, I think, with some misgivings and prejudices about third level, but they came round and were imaginative and not easily blown off course. I score them highest, though I would also add that Batt OKeeffe showed some courage in running with the fees issue.

Higher education is in serious crisis. Some universities are, or are about to be, insolvent for all practical purposes, and not because they have mismanaged anything. Ruairí Quinn will be judged on whether, in a few years time, the sector is secure and viable and equipped to deal with the growing global competition. I am holding my breath, because it will be knife edge.

Ferdinand von Prondzynski is a former president of DCU