The return to the State on free third-level fees is a thriving education system, which is the engine of our economy, argues Will Priestly
With the worsening of the financial climate, the Minister for Education and Science, Mr Dempsey, has unleashed panic among students and parents by casting doubt over the future of free fees for third-level education.
From a student's point of view, the immediate response is the truism that education is the engine of our economy. It is widely acknowledged that a large number of university graduates end up in the highest tax bracket and over 90 per cent of graduates find employment of some nature.
The return on every euro invested in education is considerable. It is the strength of our education system that has won us plaudits around the world. It has also attracted multinationals such as Intel due to the quality of our information technology graduates.
In a time of financial difficulties it is third-level education that should be protected first. Long gone are the days when a Leaving Certificate was a passport to a job in this country. A healthy and thriving third-level education system can only benefit the country as a whole.
However, as Mr Dempsey casts this shadow over the future of our free fees system a number of important issues have been raised. There is a school of thought that would argue that third-level education is a choice like any other in life. If one chooses to go to college, then one should have to pay for it. The extension of this argument is that college is a luxury and the preserve of the wealthy middle and upper classes.
The implication that third-level education is a luxury not only buttresses the idea that college is a choice but also suggests that it is not a necessity.
There are two important points raised here. The first deals with the make-up of the student body and the second with the necessity of college attendance. There is no doubt third- level institutions are dominated by students coming from a stable economic background and indeed there are some who could easily afford to pay €10,000 a year in tuition fees. It would also be spurious to suggest that one of the major aims of the introduction of free fees in 1996, i.e., a broader inclusion from all sectors of our society, has, as yet, yielded noticeable results.
In September 2000, the then minister for education' Dr Michael Woods, set up a task force of experts to examine how best to open up the education system, following the modest progress made following the abolishing of fees. This report, which was published in May 2001, outlined 78 items to be implemented. As yet only a handful of these recommendations have been carried out. They include bringing third-level grants up to social welfare levels, and a national access office. Should not these recommendations be implemented before any drastic steps be taken, such as the reintroduction of fees?
We must also bear in mind that sociological patterns do not change overnight. To imagine that in the years immediately following the abolishment of third-level fees that a flood of students, who never intended to enter third-level education in the first place, would rush to the gates of UCD and Trinity is unrealistic. The changing of a generational mindset takes decades not years.
Furthermore, the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds attending third-level education is skewed. It is not the case that everyone is making it through primary and secondary education in the first place. Despite the world renown of our system, we still have 1,000 children who never make it from primary to secondary education, as well as some 13,000 students who never sit the Leaving Certificate. This must be considered when figures are touted about the number of students from school X or Y not attending third-level.
We must also bear in mind that although the Minister for Education has been keen to highlight the shortfalls in the system, this has not prevented him from cutting €5 million from programmes aimed at attracting socio-economically disadvantaged school-leavers to third-level, and €6 million from planned initiatives to reduce the school drop-out rate.
Money plays a huge role in this debate. It must be recognised that the cost of third-level education is not free at the moment and many parents and students have to make sacrifices to go to college. There are many families who fall into the all-embracing category of middle-class for whom the decision is a significant one, especially if the student is away from home.
Little has been made of the modest number of students from Kerry and Donegal enrolling in Trinity this year (illustrated in the university tables in The Irish Times) even though we have free education. Could that have something to do with the fact that a year's third-level education away from home costs in the region of €7,500? The tariff of both registration and fees on top of this would bring the amount to €12,500 a year. It does not take a genius to work out that this amounts to €50,000 for a four-year course.
IT IS no secret that, although we are supposed to have free education, some 51 per cent of students have part-time jobs even though at least half already receive a State grant. To imagine that anyone but the moneyed elite in this country will be able to study any of the non-vocational courses, such as history or sociology, is particularly optimistic.
One other aspect is whether or not the Government intends to legislate for tight-fisted parents who refuse to pay for their child's third-level education, parents who perhaps do not see eye to eye with their offspring or parents that are separated? Furthermore, what will be the outcome of situations where parents, not agreeing with the CAO decision of their child, threaten to withdraw financial support? Or where parents, faced with the expense of having more than one child at university, opt to support one sex over another?
Then there is the argument which opposes third-level education fees coming out of the State coffers on the basis that not everyone benefits. The most logical response to this is to highlight the billions of euro spent each year on projects which do not affect every single citizen.
Take Croke Park and the millions pumped into that by the State. What about the people who are not interested in the GAA? The €400 million already spent on the Bertie Bowl?
The Jack Lynch tunnel in Cork? Why should my taxes go towards that? I'll never be driving a truck under the River Lee. TG4? SSIAs? The list goes on.
The truth is, of course, that all these projects play their own part in the broader prosperity of the country. To suggest in the 21st century that third-level education falls outside this bracket would be one of the greatest regressions.
• Will Priestly is the Students' Union president at TCD