Head over to our T
Gov’t Moving in the Right Direction on Third-level funding
Read more about: Columns, Comment, Education, Feature Gallery, Government, Ireland, Policy 
Third level fees have weaseled their way back onto the news agenda. On Tuesday Minister of Education, Batt O’Keefe submitted documents to cabinet detailing the range of options available to Government for abolishing the ‘free fees’ regime. See the Indo report, or The Irish Times for more newsy information.
As the Indo says, it is likely to be after Lisbon by the time the measures the cabinet agrees upon are made public. The minister reportedly prefers a ‘deferred payment’ system – a loan system. It’s thought this would ween the nation back onto the idea of individually and overtly paying for a third-level education and thus minimise the political damage – the hit to voters pockets wouldn’t come for another three or four years, post General Election.
You have to hand it to O’Keefe, he has serious bottle. This is an issue that his predecessors have failed to address (in Mary Hanafin’s case) or failed to follow through on (in Noel Dempsey’s case) for successive terms – that’s forgetting about Martin and Woods before them.
I believe I’m in the minority amongst my peers, I support the return of student payments – with certain caveats, which I’ll get to later. Maybe that is because I don’t attend a prestigious university, I’ve witnessed the free fees system let down the disadvantaged students it was implemented to protect. I’ve seen reformed drug addicts and young parents drop out of their course purely because their grant was cut – while hearing luckier students in the same course complain there wasn’t enough parking spaces around the college. Maybe that has shaped my outlook, maybe it’s other things…
Let’s be honest, Niamh Breathnach’s vision for a third-level system that was equally accessible to school-leavers from Ballymun as it was to school-leavers from Blackrock never materialised. People attempt to pick apart this assertion but the numbers don’t back them up. It has made no difference to the socio-economic status of the average undergraduate. Add to that the fact the sector as a whole has become massively underfunded since abolition – due to Government investment failing to get close to matching levels of inflation over the boom period – and a it’s clear fees must make a return. They’re an economic necessity.
The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) will throw their hands up and accuse the Government of targeting ‘vulnerable students’. The Government shouldn’t listen. Labour will oppose the measures saying the Government are ignoring the core issue of funding in the education sector as a whole, thus neatly side-stepping the real debate. Fine Gael will claim the measures as their own if the Government manage to spin it nicely, otherwise they’ll take the gloves off, pick apart the legislation and compare it negatively against their somewhat vague proposals (which include “changing the rules on philanthropy to encourage the potential for additional funding for the sector“). It’ll be interesting to see how the Greens behave.
Really though, that’s just talk which circles the issue, politics should be left aside. The fact is the ‘free fees’ system has adversely impacted, and will continue to adversely impact, the quality of third-level education in this country, people with experience working in the highest levels in the sector have been saying exactly that for years. Those who will be up-in-arms should look past their own education and consider the impact that a continuously declining system will have on the country as a whole. The time for tunnel-visioned self-interest has passed.
At present we have a high staff-to-pupil ratio and a low spend per pupil, that, a bright future, does not make. It has to change. To change the sector needs funding. The current system which has been reliant on the combination of overflowing national coffers and the abundant commercial funding of yesteryear just to remain afloat isn’t sustainable. Third-level education will need to be paid on an individual basis or the country as a whole will suffer in the future.
The Government is moving in the right direction, Batt O’Keefe deserves praise for his stance. ‘Fees’ – individualised payments – must come back. There is no other viable option.
-
I said my pro-fees opinion came with certain caveats, here they are
I’ve said the sector needs funding – fees don’t necessarily mean funding. The danger is O’Keefe will introduce individualised payments and not invest that money back into education, resulting in fees without funding. The often referenced ‘Australian Model’ that the minister seems to have based his favoured re-introduction system upon doesn’t allow this, ours would need to be the same. Down under once a student registers for a semester the Australian Government pays 75% of the cost of that student’s period of education directly to the third-level institute. After graduation, when the person is earning above a certain threshold, they begin to pay back the remaining 25% (which is subject to interest rates that match inflation). It’s a system that is widely admired internationally. The problem they have down there is with students moving abroad upon graduation and defaulting on their loans – the so called brain-drain – avoiding this would be crucial to sustaining our economy, there needs to be something in the legislation that incentivises graduates to stay at home.
A specified percentage of the revenue generated from individual input must be recycled into the student support fund (grant system). The current grant system is a mess, it must be one of the main beneficiaries of any individualised payment introduction.
Registration fees must be abolished or minimised – they would be a duplication.
PAYE workers must be protected. In this area Fine Gael’s stance deserves much applause. They have proposed tying payment to PRSI. In the past ‘talented’ accountancy has resulted in wealthy low-tax payers getting their children into the grant system while decidedly middle-class PAYE workers felt the real burden of registration fees, rent and all the other costs that accompany putting students through third-level. It’s of the utmost importance that this is not repeated.
And my final caveat – a rather trivial one – The re-introduction of individualised payments must be accompanied by a campaign in schools and the media encouraging disadvantaged students to strive towards third-level. So many disadvantaged students are not aware that they may be entitled to grants if they get to college, that they or their parents are eligible for certain social welfare payments while they are attending college or that the Government will refund certain expenses they incur relating directly to study – changing that must come with any re-introduction. Some students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a subconscious aversion to working towards college because of the perceived financial burden it would place upon their family, that too needs to be changed over a sustained period.
-
Edit: I wrote the vast majority of this on Tuesday night and had not studied the details on the third-level employment control framework recruitment freeze. I’d in no way support that and would mak it’s non-implementation one of my caveats.
Other than that, hit me where it hurts, minister – s’in d’national interest.
-
It’s worth reading Ferdinand von Prondzynski (President of DCU) for a more on this subject.
I disagree with the reintroduction of fees but I am in favour of the government introducing much higher taxes targeting those that are earning above certain thresholds. Had I been faced with the prospect of paying off a hefty student loan at the end of it I’m sure the notion of doing an MA would have simply been an unnecessary indulgence for me and others in my situation. After all it’s hard to monetise the value of studying literature and philosophy. If it means you’re going to be financially constrained in the future then it’s a cut and dry issue for people who are already struggling. The result will be catastrophic in my opinion. People will adopt a more utilitarian attitude to education and course selection at the expense of the humanities and the classics. It’s important that we continue to produce large numbers of engineers, doctors and scientists but the I think the reintroduction of fees would eventually result in universities being under pressure to cull modules in renaissance poetry, greek philosophy etc a time when we need cultural sustenance more than ever.
orlaith, part of the problem with the current set up is that we’re not producing large numbers of engineers, scientists and doctors. Our 3rd level institutions are full of chalk and talk course, law, ‘business’ and various types of liberal arts. This is not to eliminate the liberal arts but merely to try and redirect at least some numbers of the student population into fields we have an explicit need for. Of course, we would need to address the thorny matter of mathematics to do that too. But that’s a topic for another day.
I agree with you Mark. The free fees model was introduced initially to improve 3rd level education participation for all. It attempted to remove the financial barrier from preventing someone from a poor socio economic background from attending college. However it is clear that there are other much greater barriers than financial in relation to why people from disadvantaged areas do not participate in 3rd level education. This well intentioned experiment has failed and fees need to be reintroduced to adequately fund this sector. The only people to benefit from this scheme were the middle classes which can be seen in the rise of private secondary school attendance during the scheme.
I cannot understand how students can complain about having to pay for their education (when they are in a position to do so)
One final point which I have not seen mentioned in relation to this topic in some time is the following. All students should not have to pay the same fees to attend college, I think it should be predicated on whichever course you are taking. For example it costs a lot more to provide a degree in Medicine than it does in Arts, therefore Medicine students should have to pay more.
“a time when we need cultural sustenance more than ever.” Why exactly do we need cultural sustenance so badly at the moment??
Orlaith,
Thanks for the comment.
The problem is the Irish people don’t accept higher taxes, we’re economically right-wing and socially left-wing – see the uproar caused by the second home tax, just €200, last week.
Also, implementing much higher taxes (and it would need to be much higher) would just push us further into the quagmire we’re in now. Why should the man-on-the-street be struggling even more to pay in part for his own child to go to college AND in part for a millionaire’s child – while the millionaire does exactly the same without any issue. It’s fair mathematically but not socially. In fact, while I’m here, some would be argue I’m taking the left-wing stance on this issue in that sense…
Yes it is hard to monetise the value of a philosophy degree but does that mean we should continue to produce a larger number of sub-standard philosophers and a large number of sub-standard scientists and engineers? Instead of producing high-standard graudates across all fields from better funded institutes, at the risk of reducing the numbers of Greek and Roman Studies students? (Note: perhaps, though smaller number, those philoshopy students who do graduate would be far better qualified and therefore employable in their field).
See Harvard, tuition fees and middle-income earners for another look on how it could be done the right way.
Mark,
Nice post, you’ve very well thought-out reasons for being pro-fees. Personally, I stand somewhere in the middle: I acknowledgde the current system is underfunding universities, yet, as an indiviudal who’s benefited greatly from the free fees scheme, I find it difficult to cast it aside entirely (being perfectly honest about my personal bias).
In my opinion, one of the greatest faults of the current university funding system is the massive amount of administration, which, I believe, outstrips the cost of actual teaching staff in certain universities. The situation is, I believe, quite comparable to the problems of the health service: rocketing costs for experts, research, administration, and little to no focus on the basic reason for the institution’s existence: the student. I’d like to see these spiralling costs addressed in any consideration of tuition charges.
Also, the question about the monetising of a philosophy degree leads me to another point: it’s not all about return on investment. University is far more than a simple education factory; rather, it’s a major life experience. Now, in the event that middle- or upper-middle class families *could* pay fees, but the potential student in question did not *require* a degree for their chosen profession- say, a journalist- there’s a significant chance that parents could choose not to support their child. Or, further, that the child would be forced into a degree of their parent’s choosing rather than their own.
And this is the catch-22: we can have underfunded universities, or we can have high ideals about well-rounded individuals and life experiences. This, I think, is where the major difference of opinion lies. You seek a practical solution, and others cling to their idealism. I’m still sitting on the fence, hoping someone will come up with a magical solution.
I’m advocating for the millionaires to be taxed directly on their income and assets precisely so that we can preserve the principle of free education for all. The government is not proposing to target millionaires sons to pay tuition fees but everybody regardless. Surely that is a retrograde step.
With regard to the issue of encouraging more students from disadvantaged areas into third level then I think it begins with investment at pre-school and primary school level. Our investment in pre-school education in this country is paltry compared to more progressive and equal societies. It’s going to take some generations to see a more equal social mix in our universities but don’t just take UCD as the barometer. I went to UCC and there is a large mix of students from all backgrounds. I come from Mayfield, a disadvantaged area in Cork. Neither of my parents were university educated although my mother went back and received a nursing degree in recent years. There’s a lot more to be done in terms of accessibility but the answer is not reintroducing fees in my opinion.
Dave, here is the thing though. If the charge for the course is only recouped post graduate and after securing employment why should the parents be expected to pay? There is a strange dependency culture out there, if you were some bloke working in a shop aged 20 would you be expecting that your parent pay for your photography course or general living expenses? It would be nice if they did but you’d not expect it. We often hear about how students are adults, which most of them are but then the excuse of the mean parents comes up.
What must happen is that the amount recouped from the graduate/student must be (a) a fixed percentage of the cost of providing the course (b) that the state must commit to providing a fixed percentage of the remaining cost perhaps up to 100% perhaps not (c) that the money in fees goes directly to that 3rd level institution and indeed that specific department. There is a lot of funny activity in the 3rd level sector with monies collected from course X cross funding course Y. That must end. and (d) that monies that the college get from private funding aren’t used to reduce the state funding for that institution. The state should look to provide low interest loans for equipment for courses that it believes it in the national interest for a certain number of students to pursue. Yes, it is a form of social engineering but we can’t rely on the media to give an objective view of your employment prospects.
As for maintenance, I’ve never understood why students who have more expenses that someone on their todd on the dole used to qualify for less money per week from the state. And it would be simpler to administrate.
“the principle of free education for all” is nonsense. If the education costs money to provide then it is not free. Get the teachers, admin, lecturers to work for nothing and then come back to us about free education. This notion of free education is guff. If we don’t require the imbiber of the education to make a contribution over and above that required of everyone else then what incentive is there for the student to ever finish. We have limits as it is on “free education” in that it applies only to your first degree.
Orlaith “I come from Mayfield, a disadvantaged area in Cork.”, if that is the case then why would you be paying fees? The previous fees scheme exempted those on low incomes. As it is likely would any future scheme.
Daniel,
I’ll not deny there may be a system out there which circumvents the “dependency culture”, but at the moment, the income of a family household rather than a single individual is used to assess entitlement to grants. So a man of 20′s maturity or independence is a bit of a moot point unless he’s been living entirely independently for a certain amount of time etc, which is unlikely for school-leavers. Unless this changes, parents, and their (un)willingness to fund a particular course, can still be an issue.
Specifics aside though, I still think this whole argument comes down to idealism or practicality.
I wouldn’t be exempted from any scheme which is modeled on the one which currently operates in Australia. I’ve an Australian friend living here, she graduated in OZ over ten years ago and has yet to pay back her college loan/tuition fees. Like many in her situation they are loathe to return home only to find themselves swaddled in debt. That situation could be replicated here and it won’t be the working classes avoiding it. It will be the professional class that can find work abroad and stay abroad.
“There’s a lot more to be done in terms of accessibility but the answer is not reintroducing fees in my opinion.”
The fees are irrelevant. As Daniel pointed out they are unlikely to apply to low income families. But regardless the cost is not the issue. I worked in a disadvantaged secondary school during the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert examinations. The leaving cert class was extremely small. And many students sitting Junior cert didn’t turn up for certain subjects or at all!
In these areas we have lost them long before it comes time to filling out the CAO.
Orliath,
See my caveat “The problem they have down there (Australia) is with students moving abroad upon graduation and defaulting on their loans – the so called brain-drain – avoiding this would be crucial to sustaining our economy, there needs to be something in the legislation that incentivises graduates to stay at home.”
Which takes that point on board…
Will get back to this when I get home from work.
I see that you’ve taken the point on board Mark, my concern is that your voice isn’t strong enough at the cabinet table
One way to get around the brain drain, is that it be deemed you sign a contract with the state upon taking up the college place and should you not repay the loan over the course of your life time that the amount is levied against your estate. True it won’t get the state the money any time soon but it would mean that you can’t escape the repayment simply by going abroad. Unless, you go underground like the A-Team!
We could also look at getting people to take up jobs for less pay that might not be attractive but would involve reducing the debt. i.e. get some people from a tech/science background to teach for 1/2 years!
should 17 year be encouraged to commit to 4 year! courses and the accompanying debt?
steve, by that logic should a society be encouraged to go into debt by committing tens of thousands of euros of resources towards a decision made by a 17 year old?
no, but society is a lot more able to handle that then one 17 yr old, but thats not my point.
my previous comment was purposeful mark didn’t mention debt in his piece
They pay off the money once their income is above a certain level – if they’re earning nothing, they pay nothing. If they’re unemployed from the day the leave college to the day they die, they don’t pay a cent. If they leave college and enter a job at €60k a year, they start paying immediately.
See “the Australian Government pays 75% of the cost of that student’s period of education directly to the third-level institute. After graduation, when the person is earning above a certain threshold, they begin to pay back the remaining 25% (which is subject to interest rates that match inflation).”
The debt is subject to their income.
And steve there are loads of students coming out of college at the moment in debt and it ain’t fees that put them in it.
so yes there in debt, and daniel again not my point and not what we’re discussing.
steve, it is what you’re discussing. You’re opposed to fees because it would leave people in debt at the end of their time in college. Yet at present many former students are in debt without the burden of large fees and as Mark has pointed out in a new system modelled on the Ozzie system they wouldn’t have to pay off that debt unless they were earning a certain amount.
The point here is that those who are gaining the direct benefit of a third level education should make more of a direct contribution than others. As for the principle that education should be free, I believe that people shouldn’t go hungry that doesn’t mean that food must be free.
“The point here is that those who are gaining the direct benefit of a third level education should make more of a direct contribution than others. As for the principle that education should be free, I believe that people shouldn’t go hungry that doesn’t mean that food must be free.”
succinct
Dan, why did you say “direct benefit” rather than benefit?
My problem with your argument is that there are many people who benefit from the fact that we have a well educated workforce even though they themselves might not have received a third level education. In some cases, these people never even finished second level.
A plumber, an auctioneer or an estate agent might not have attended university, but they all benefit from the fact that their customers can pay more. A well-educated workforce attracts higher paying jobs. Higher paying jobs mean that people can pay more for goods and services, even those that one does not require a degree to provide. By targetting college grads, we would be encouraging people out of college into areas that, while high paying, do not require a third level education. This is a move that would not benefit the economy.
Let’s try and keep it as simple as possible. If you’re making any money, you should be taxed at an appropriate rate on your income. Those taxes should be used to pay for citizens’ entitlements and invested in areas that will benefit the entire economy. If we’re going to start targetting specific social groups with particular taxes, it should be those groups who are engaging in behaviours that we wish to decrease (e.g. industrial pollution) and which we can decrease through the use of taxes.
Now perhaps we can’t afford to pay for universal free education. In such a case, a load system may be the lesser of the available evils, but let’s make sure that we keep in mind that it is an evil, and not a matter of justice.
I find disgusting the idea that future generations of students would have to fork over at least €20,000. Education is an investment. I work with people now who would never have gotten their BSc degrees in computer applications and sience, were it not for free fees. Their families could not have afforded to send them.
And now instead, if this policy were to be put into place, the burden would be shifted onto young graduates, who, let’s face it, don’t make much money in the first ten years.
Mark when you say that Irish people are economically right-wing and socially left-wing, this is a fallacy. Ireland has never had a left-wing government, and beyond the ending of fees by the Labour Party, has never implemented left-wing social policies.
Support for this sort of policy sounds Progressive Democrats talk.
Speaking of which, I knew of a PD member called Mark Coughlin who was also a member of the Freedom Institute a few years back, who was fairly vocal on the internet – is this the same Mark Coughlan? The interest in reducing the role of the State seems strikingly similar.
Tom,
1. No it is not the same Mark Coughlan. I have never voted PD and I’ve never been a member or advocate for any particular party. If you must know, I vote on policies specifically, to the extent that I voted for Joe Higgins first in the recent locals and Eoin Ryan in the Euros (for Lisbon-related reasons).
2. You say “I find disgusting the idea that future generations of students would have to fork over at least €20,000″ – Students pay back over a period that can be as short as one year or as long as 50 years, depending on how much they’re earning. Also, it should be noted that the now €1500 “registration fee” would be removed or minimised, which is an immediate removal of a capital investment barrier to entry for disadvantaged families.
3. “Mark when you say that Irish people are economically right-wing and socially left-wing, this is a fallacy.” – The Irish electorate don’t know where they stand, they go nuts when the Government raises taxes by the slightest amount (see second homes, economically right-wing) but also let fly when they try to lower social welfare (economically left-wing). Fianna Fáil’s traditional support base is in the lower-middle classes, explain that one, it doesn’t translate across Europe.
Of course we’ve never had a left-wing Government, all FF have had to do is say “Labour are going to take money out of your pocket through taxes” and it undermines their position, the electorate don’t want that, it sounds painful in the short term. FF are never going to say “if we come in we’ll lower social welfare”, they’re too cunning for that – so we end up running ourselves into the ground with populist, centrist Governments, low taxes and high state benefits. We end up spending, quite literally, like there’s no tomorrow – individually and at gov level, until the arse falls out of our sector-reliant economy and everyone wonders what happened. It can’t be said that Labour would have done it differently, FFers lie, but they’re right when they say nobody (in the main parties, pointless talking about any others) shouted stop during the boom years.
Niall,
You say “A well-educated workforce attracts higher paying jobs. Higher paying jobs mean that people can pay more for goods and services, even those that one does not require a degree to provide.”
Yes I completely agree, a well-educated workforce is a necessity given our global economic position. However, under the current system our graduates are becoming less well educated – not it terms of numbers, but quality – compared to other states. A huge number of people with a piece of paper means nothing, it’s the quality of the education that results in people obtaining that paper which attracts investment. Our third level system is crumbling, our tax base is crumbling – individualised payments is the only way that may result in quality.
“By targetting college grads, we would be encouraging people out of college into areas that, while high paying, do not require a third level education. This is a move that would not benefit the economy”
If our economy is to attract higher paying jobs, which would require a quality third-level sector – thus individualised payments – then numbers of jobs which require lower educational qualifications will drop. It’s maths, there are only a certain number of people and therefore a certain number of jobs, in this country, the high-pay-low-qualification jobs would then fall to maintenance levels and inherently improve in quality. So, as you said, a “well educated workforce attracts higher paying jobs”, yes, and as the average position available in this country requiring higher educational qualifications grows and the number of high paying jobs requiring less than a third level education falls a college education becomes more of an attraction for people. Therefore, positions that are high-paying-low-qualification become more competitive because they’re less abundant, more competitive, less secure, and therefore less attractive, to school leavers. So a college education becomes more attractive, not less.
I agree that universal free education is the ideal. However, the fact is the State cannot, has not, and will not be able to fund a quality universal free third-level education system. I’m simply being pragmatic.
I mean, people pay for their third-level education in China!
BTW – If anyone wants to write a rebuttal to my argument feel free to email to coughlanmp [at] gmail [dot] com. I be happy to post it completely unedited.
EDiT: In fact, Tom I see you have a log-in, fire away if you so wish – be good to get a less fragmented version of the comments in this thread that are anti-payments.
Niall, I was being very deliberate in saying ‘direct benefit’ rather than ‘benefit’ as I recognise that the broad economy can (note that can, I will come back to it later) benefit from having third level education. However, there is a strong correlation between individual earnings and third level education. I don’t suggest that the state acting for the whole of society shouldn’t subsidise at least some of the costs of third level education but nor do I believe it should be that everyone makes the same contribution based solely on income. The reason for that is that some people’s income comes from their own unaided efforts while that of others has been more assisted by others and I think it only reasonable that those people pay some of that assistance back in order that we can continue to help others.
The argument that the plumber should pay the same towards the third level sector as a graduate because he needs the graduate to make his living is to my mind quite a snobbish attitude. It may not be intended that way but that is how it comes across to me at least. Plumbers and auctioneers were earning very high sums indeed during the last decade or more, but because of the scarcity of their skills or the product they were selling.
It might astound people to hear it but Ireland had loads of graduates in the 80s and it did very little to attract lots of high end jobs in and of itself. It is a condition that is necessary but not sufficient as my old maths proofs used to say. There are many places across the world that produce loads of graduates but that doesn’t mean the jobs flow there. It is as often if not more so the case that the graduates go where the jobs are.
There seems to be this idea that has popular currency all graduates irrespective of their area are of the same value to the economy and that merely having them hanging around the place will attract well paying jobs. Having loads of law and liberal arts graduates isn’t going to get us out of this recession. As for “targeting specific social groups with particular taxes” since when are graduates even remotely like a homogeneous social group with a common set of interests?
One other point, “I work with people now who would never have gotten their BSc degrees in computer applications and sience, were it not for free fees. Their families could not have afforded to send them.” I have to question the comparison that are being made with the free fees era and the prospective new fees era when we don’t know exactly what it will entail.
The dull fact is that people on low incomes did not pay fees even before the free fees era and I know that because that’s the background I come from. The problem for people from low income background was not fees it was maintenance, the simple cost of living. The grant paid you considerably less per week that the dole despite you having more expenses. My parents were/are what would be politely termed frugal folk and were it not for that fact, I couldn’t have afforded to go to college on the grant alone. My primary opposition to free fees is that they’ve been mainly a subsidy to the middle classes at the expense of those from lower income backgrounds. Where middle class people were very badly hit at the time was when there was more than one child in college at any one time as the system didn’t make much of an allowance for the expense involved. The covenant system was introduced to try and deal with that but was widely abused as a tax avoidance scheme.
Another beneficial aspect of a direct contribution might well be that more questions will be asked by the students themselves about what it is exactly that they are paying for. If you’re paying 5K plus for an arts degree (which is one of the figures in the IT article on this today) in classes of a few hundred with tutorials given by people themselves only just out of college that are mainly chalk and talk you might wonder why the costs were are so high. And in those cases the cost is mainly what we pay lecturers and prof compared to other countries and also the vast administrative apparatus that is the permanent universities. The primary interest of permanent staff in the 3rd level sector when they are taking about cutbacks is their own salaries and benefits.
The bottom line is fees in some shape or form or needed because we simply cannot afford to continue with current system. There was very good article in SBP this week about our national debt. It is short and provides a scary assessment of our financial standing http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/07/12/story43031.asp