Madam, - According to the Labour Party's education spokesperson, Jan O'Sullivan TD, it is the abolition of fees that has allowed "a substantial number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend universities" (The Irish Times, September 9th).
I have never heard such a simplistic reason for the increase in the number of disadvantaged students progressing to third level. So it has nothing to do with the billions spent on the numerous primary, second and third-level initiatives to encourage the participation of these groups? To most disavantaged students the carrot of free fees is on the end of a stick so long that they cannot see the carrot.
When I started college in 1990, my parents' means were assessed as being so inadequate that I qualified for the ridiculously low grant threshold, meaning my fees were paid for and I got a ridiculously inadequate grant and had to work up to 30 hours a week to survive. My best friend in college, who was from a wealthy family, had to pay fees, and did not have to work. Send both of us on a time-travel trip to start our college careers in 2004. I would still not have to pay fees, still receive a ridiculously inadequate grant and still have to work up to 30 hours a week. My friend would now not have to pay fees, and not have to work. Which of us has benefited?
Re-introduce fees and use the increased income to raise the eligibility thresholds for grants so as not to disadvantage PAYE workers. Increase the grant to a realistic level and invest more in the primary, secondary and third-level initiatives to promote participation of under-represented groups at third level. And can the Labour Party stop trying to pander to middle- and upper-class voters, get back to its roots and attract working-class people to the polling booths? - Yours, etc.,
PAULA FITZELL, Access Officer, University of Limerick.