Partnership between government, industry, the public and third level hasserved us well in the past and should continue to be the model for the development of third-level education, writes Evelyn Mahon.
The OECD review of higher education has put third-level education on the agenda at a crucial phase in its development. While the terms of reference of the review are very comprehensive, the first issue that has been picked up by the media is the privatisation of universities. Indeed, our university leaders, by choosing Harvard as a role model, made this inevitable. The aspirations of our leaders are laudable.
But, as The Irish Times letters columns have exposed, there are financial obstacles to this. For instance, between 1996 and 2003, the private fundraising campaign for Duke University, in North Carolina, had raised $2.3 billion.
While Irish universities have been successful in getting some private benefactors, it will take some time before that American experience will be replicated here, so the sector will have to rely on the public purse for a long time.
The justification for public support is a case that has to be argued and it will depend on what role we think third-level education should play in society, locally as well as globally. This debate has just begun.
Education has long been highly valued in its own right and as a very important form of capital for Irish people. OECD figures indicate our comparative success. At second level we had completion rates of 76 per cent in 2001, as compared with 72 per cent for the US. But many other European countries have higher completion levels: Germany, 92 per cent; Denmark, 96 per cent; Finland, 91 per cent; Poland 92 per cent. So we must not be complacent.
Our third-level success between 1991 and 2001 is much more impressive.
One comparative indicator used by the OECD is the percentage of people aged between 25 and 34 who have attained tertiary education. In 2001 the Irish figure was 48 per cent.
This can be contrasted with 39 per cent for the US and 29 per cent for the UK for the same age group, and is identical to the Japanese rate. Canada was highest at 51 per cent.
This is by any standards impressive, especially as our figures increased from 20 per cent of adults (aged between 25 and 34) in 1991 to 48 per cent in 2001.
So what factors brought this about?
Firstly, I would argue, the work done by the late Irish Times columnist, Christina Murphy, who urged the universities to devise a common entrance points system. This made our CAO admissions procedure easier to understand.
This competitive common points system generated a trust in the fairness of the admission system. Irish people have wanted to break away from the old "who you know" way of getting ahead and embraced the competitive entrance policy.
Secondly, general subject admission requirements to third-level fields of study have been kept reasonably open. Thirdly, the abolition of fees has promoted increased participation by lowering the costs of going to third level and by generating a cultural shift which orientated a high proportion of school-leavers to aspire to third level.
Fourthly, foreign direct investment played a major indirect role in third-level expansion. Industrial policy for the past 20 years here has concentrated on the attraction of scientific and technology-related industries.
In particular, we wanted an Irish silicon valley and the State actively pursued this goal. Massive State support for Intel and other high-tech companies was accompanied by huge investment in training at third level.
Between 1980 and 1998 the number of students in technology grew from 3,364 to 8,497.
New computer departments sprang up. The combination of Government expenditure, industry demand and immediate third-level response achieved this transformation quickly. Students responded and IT almost began to displace the old traditional areas of law and medicine, particularly for high-achieving males.
Yet, despite a policy stress on science, its increase in student numbers was comparatively modest, from 1,898 to 3,938. But this example shows that public universities can be just as responsive to new needs as private ones.
Fifthly, during this same period, student numbers in business/commerce increased from 2,736 to 7,028 while the numbers in humanities increased from 1,955 to 5,302. Expansion in these subject areas was not driven by the same factors, but by the increasing expectations of Irish school-leavers to enter third level.
Business and humanities/arts faculties were cheaper to run. Their lecturers did not insist on laboratory spaces and hundreds of students could be accommodated in lecture halls. A high quality of intake could be maintained while increasing the number of admissions. These graduates acquired many transferable skills and were willing to work in a wide variety of jobs in both the public and private sectors.
It was just as well that our school-leavers insisted on getting into universities and that governments and the third-level sector responded to their needs. They were "at the ready" when the Celtic Tiger arrived somewhat unexpectedly.
Sixthly, this expansion in tertiary education was greatly facilitated by European Social Funds which came to us courtesy of our European Union membership. But this success at third level has led to a new agenda item: fourth-level or postgraduate education. The tension earlier this year between the universities and the Minister for Education over the PRTLI s (Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions) put fourth level firmly on the political agenda under the Research and Development label.
The continuation of PRTLI funding was in effect support for doctoral training - fourth level with even funding for some post-doctoral (fifth?) level. The establishment of Science Foundation Ireland is another step in the promotion of this fourth level.
However, these crucial distinctions between third and fourth levels are not spelt out in the HEA submission to the OECD review committee, though I suspect that this distinction might underlie the term "mission drift" in the section of the report which compares universities and institutes of technology.
It is to everyone's credit that public institutions performed so well in a period of such rapid change. A privatised system may not have served us so well. It was the partnership between government, third level, industry and the public which has made third level so successful to date. The next shift to fourth level will be a far more challenging one but one which might best be developed by furthering continued partnership.
Dr Evelyn Mahon is a senior lecturer in sociology and Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin