A chara, – How sad that in your newspaper Sean Melly, chairman of Trinity Business School, peddles the notion that "The abolition of fees for third level was a regressive step" (Education Opinion, April 19th).
He should know that progressive actions lower barriers, while it is regressive actions that raise them. I promised to open the gates of our third-level institutions by ring-fencing the savings from the abolition of tax covenants. It was subsequent governments that reneged on that commitment, and universal access to all levels of education remains today a socialist dream. – Is mise,
NIAMH BHREATHNACH,
(former minister
for education),
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
A chara, – Sean Melly is quite right – the abolition of third-level fees in the 1990s was regressive. The arithmetic is quite simple. Participation in third-level education in Ireland (particularly universities) is highly skewed toward the well-off. This pattern has not changed in decades and is unlikely to do for the foreseeable future. Prior to the abolition of fees, those attending (or their parents) would have made some contribution towards the costs, while those on low income would generally have benefitted from means-tested grants. The abolition of fees, therefore, was a straightforward handout to the relatively well-off. This is unambiguously regressive. Unsurprisingly, the research shows that the policy did nothing to improve access for the economically disadvantaged.
Fees by now have been reintroduced, by stealth, as the formerly fairly nominal student charge is a significant sum – though still lower in real terms than they were. However, it is worth noting that while fees varied by subject, with more expensive (and probably more lucrative) courses costing more, students charges are at a flat rate. Such courses invariably require higher points and are therefore tend to be dominated by those from better-off backgrounds as they get significantly better Leaving Certificate results. So even the covert reintroduction of fees was done in a way that would mitigate any progressiveness that this policy might have caused. – Is mise,
Dr KEVIN J DENNY,
School of Economics,
Geary Institute
for Public Policy,
University College Dublin,
Belfield,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – A number of recent letters to this paper have suggested that our higher education participation rates are too high. Some writers have suggested that this is due to little more than parental snobbery, while others have advocated for an increased emphasis on apprenticeships. However, some facts might help the discussion.
We know that of the 2011 cohort of school-leavers, 52.3 per cent pursued third-level education. A further 28.2 per cent re-enrolled in second level or pursued further education and training. We also know that a number of OECD reports have shown that the lifetime financial benefits of having a third-level education are especially high in Ireland. Finally, we know that the cornerstone of our economic policy has been the attraction of foreign direct investment. Our “highly educated workforce” has been a key selling point in this endeavour.
From both the perspective of the individual and that of the economy as it is currently structured, our supposedly high third-level participation rates make perfect sense. The really interesting question is this – why have our policymakers singled out third-level education as being unaffordable at the very time when it is so central to our culture and our economy? – Yours, etc,
Dr GREG FOLEY,
School of Biotechnology,
Dublin City University,
Dublin 9.