Sorry I haven’t got around to replying directly, I’ve been very busy – as you can tell from the bump I gave it, I think it’s a worthwhile article and adds to the debate. Veronica has given my view on it for the most part, especially in her final paragraph – I’ll add one thing…

You say…”The argument in favour of returning basically is. ‘The person receiving the education has gained monetarily from the education therefore they should pay’”

I’d contend that – I argued that, while the above is an element, in the long term a poor quality third-level system is a waste of time even if we do have a large number of people passing through. “No point in a load of people who went to college without paying having a bit of paper with ‘BA’ written on it if the eduaction behind the paper is of a shite quality”, may be a more concise and brutal summary of my arguement…

This is a very thought provoking article and it was indeed a pity it got swamped by Snip. You’re right to point out that the debate on free third level fees is a bit of a distraction, at least in the way it is conducted. We might be better off posing the question in terms of : what do free fees do for us?

The political reason given for making third level education a fee-free zone was that (a) it would increase access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds to third level, especially those from semi-skilled backgrounds whose family income fell short of qualification for grant-aid; (b) an ideological premise that, like education at primary and secondary levels, universality of access should apply and not be constrained by ability to pay and free fees for everyone was the best way to give effect to that principle (c) something needed to be done to wipe out the taxation benefit to the better off that they achieved through various loopholes for setting aside endowments for their children’s future education. The argument made was that the benefit in tax receipts from eliminating these loopholes would ultimately outweigh the actual cost to the State of introducing free third level education.

The unstated political reason was that the announcement of free fees would keep the Labour Party’s middle class voters on board in the next election in 1997. In the event, it didn’t – the ungrateful beasts said ‘thanks very much’, pocketed the dosh, and went back to voting for Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and the PDs.

The increase in the number of disadvantaged students attending third level didn’t really work out, though defenders of free fees would argue that it takes time, maybe even a generation or two, before effectiveness on this score can be properly judged.

As for (b), the principle of universality in entitlements is not a very good one and fosters inequalities in society rather than narrowing them (e.g. the impact on primary care services in disadvantaged areas of universal ‘free medical cards’ for the over 70s illustrates the point, as does the immediate shift by the middleclasses toward fee-paying secondary schools for their offspring following the introduction of free fees and the impact of this on pupil mix and pupil numbers in schools in poorer communities.)

On (c),well, it’s generally acknowleged there have to be better ways of snuffing out fleas than taking a sledgehammer to them.

One of the other main consequences of the introduction of free fees was to increase centralised state control over third level institutions, which is perhaps the reason why the Department of Education was so happy to go along with the political proposal in the first place. I don’t know anyone in the sector who would argue that this is a ‘good thing’ and the widespread dismay caused by the latest directive on staff embargoes from the Department of Education would tend to bear this out.

I think the first mistake was to approach this issue along class lines. Generally speaking, the better educated the population, the wealthier the society. For a peripheral country with few natural wealth resources, the creation of intellectual capital is essential. The real question then, is how do you achieve this for the maximum number of the population?

Instead of tinkering around the edges with policies like free fees, that were primarily populist and not thought through, we might have been better off completely reviewing our education system from rump to stump and then putting the money in where it was likely to have most effect – arguably at pre-school and primary levels. We’ve missed the boat on that opportunity and the unhappy truth is that we can no longer afford the free fees fantasy either.

Also, I would question if there are many parents out there who would support the notion that primary and secondary education are currently ‘free’. The state makes a subvention per pupil to the schools and pays the salaries of the teachers after that it is fund-raising for this and lots of paying for that. And not secondary education experiences are the same either. I would say our debate needs as you indicate to be more that about fees. It should be what is education really for, does it need to be fulltime for as long as it is, if we have scarce resources where is the best place to direct it (I would favour universal pre-school support long before I’d be support universal free 3rd level), and if we are true to the idea of life-long education than it needs to about more that classrooms and schools. We should make accessible, publicly funded and well maintained libraries the very lifeblood of education.

If we had all the money in the world, I would still favour the person attending 3rd level making some direct contribution themselves. That’s just the way I look at the world. And the best way of doing that is related to their income post graduation. I also favour society making a contribution to the cost of this education in all but the most financially well set of people.

The post is Simon’s reply to my early pro-payments article which can be seen here, as I said in the first line, it got lost in Snip and hence deserved a bump.