Education is a privilege that’s taken on the guise of a right around here.
In June, just over 53,000 students sat the Leaving Certificate.
The CAO has received a record 68,000 applications this year.
18,000 of those are made up of people moving over from FETAC courses and mature students.
That leaves you with 50,000 out of a possible 53,000 Leaving Certificate students applying for a third level course in 2008.
While I can’t find any figures on actual uptake (and I hate it when Google staunchly refuses to tell me things), it’s excellent in one way that the education message seems to have got through – strong and clear. Only, it seems that applying to 3rd level has become just another means of following the crowd. It would be surprising if 50,000 Leaving Cert students actively wanted to go to college. Surprising because you can remember exactly how many people in your year in school never cared or did their homework. Surprising because you can remember just how many of them couldn’t wait to leave school. It doesn’t make their application any less valid – because no matter how much you dislike school or learning, the state does succeed in informing you that they would really rather like if you learned something and hey, sure you’ll get a better pay packet in the end if you do.
Most years, the CAO will tell you that they’re now offering a record number of courses. Availability at 3rd level continues to expand to meet the growing need. Deadly, says you. Not so much, no.
Back in the day, before ‘free fees’, very bright people did miss out on college. It was altogether a sad situation – but sure they probably joined the civil service and lived happily ever after, unless they were women in which case they got married and said sayonara to the job, but that’s digression for you.
However, abolishing tuition has only done its job to an extent. Opening the door to education for all has made all feel like they should avail of it, which isn’t necessarily the case. Plenty of people are stuck in degrees they don’t like and still more drop out. So what has paying fees got to do with all of that?
Nobody wants a return to the situation where going to college was based on how much money Mum and Dad had in the savings account. To be fair to the government, that’s not what’s being proposed either. Minister O’Keeffe tells us he wants an audit of the 3rd level institutions. It’s not bloody surprising if you’ve been through one recently. UCD administration, as a personal example, would be fairing better under the stewardship of a blind monkey. The university system is looking a little shambolic around here and those funding it ought to be asking where all their money is going. I refer you to Stephen’s excellent appraisal of the situation here.
At the same time, universities are dealing with greater numbers of students and budget cuts every year – the worst coupling known to man since Woody Allen married his daughter. They’ve been asked to reduce their staff bills by 3% this year, and they’re already running at huge deficits.
It comes down to this: what students want is an education system that provides competently and adequately for their needs so that they can emerge into the jobs market as real contenders. What the government what is an education system that provides competently and adequately for its students’ needs so that our graduates can allow us to emerge on the world market as real contenders when it comes to homing big businesses.
For a few years now, we have been doing well because we have more Science and Engineering graduates than other people (the rate was almost twice the EU and OECD average in 2007). It’s going to be difficult for that to continue if investment in education stagnates due to economic problems. You can’t ask a university to continue to be competitive on the world market while taking funding out from under its feet.
So what have the universities been doing? Well let’s go for the personal example again. UCD manages its money by frontloading investment at what is essentially 4th level and dropping the coppers in the area of research and postgraduate pursuits in an effort to gain international status. In order to do this, sometimes the rug gets pulled from under more traditional undergraduate programmes like oh, say, Early Irish.
On the one hand, Early Irish isn’t doing anyone’s economy a huge favour. On the other, what makes a university a university is its focus on being educated purely for the worth of academia, without care for the merit of the subject in the working world. While it’s definitely a time for caring where that degree will lead you, university should not be forced into a position of only being a business pursuit. If there’s something you want to learn, you should be able to learn it.
While agreeing that gaining international status for our universities is eminently desirable, it does seem that more funding for them isn’t going to magically free itself up anytime soon. So take a look at the fee option.
In 2006, there were 26,000 students in receipt of grants. (Yeah, I’m wary of all these suspiciously round numbers too, but the stats are coming from eminently reliable sources like the Indo, the Times and the Examiner, promise). In 2008 there are going to be about 50,000 students entering 3rd level, so let’s assume that there are about 200,000 students in third level education at any one time by multiplying by the average number of years a course will take. It should work out about even because while medicine is six years, Arts is only 3 and of course while there are postgraduates to be accounted for let’s all just deal with the fact that this is the best Google will give me. So call it 200,000, with around 26,000 receiving grants. That’s an eighth by my reckoning.
Now let’s assume that if an average of 1 in 8 students are eligible for assistance then an average of 1 in 8 students definitely isn’t going to be asked to pay fees out of their no money. What about the other 7?
Well, the cut off point for a full maintenance grant is 39,760 euro if you have 4 dependant children or less. It increases to 47, 430 euro if you have 8 dependant children or more. You can earn up to 47,205 euro (4 dependant children or less) or 56,320 euro (8 dependant children or more) and still get 25% maintenance.
The issue here becomes that there is a view that the income thresholds should be higher, that PAYE workers get the raw end of the deal and that grants should be catering for more people anyway, fair point.
Putting the issue of fees on the table puts education at the centre of national debate. The problems in education are normally always highlighted by the student side while the Dept of Education press release our high levels of literacy and the fact that over 90% of Irish kids complete the Leaving Cert now. That’s deadly and all, but what’s the point in it if they’re going to drop out at 3rd level or do the wrong course or still not get to study the thing they want to study?
It seems that in student politics it is always about saying their agenda is never given attention and never about taking advantage of the merits of the agenda that is already there. Yes, the reintroduction of fees does have the potential to go horribly, horribly wrong. The fact is, a rather foolproof system needs to be developed. The means testing for fee paying would want to encompass an income threshold a lot higher than the one for maintenance grants. The system of fees would need to be accurately costed according to award and institution. There should probably be some sort of look at altering fees due for students who also having to contend with moving out of home for college. It would seem right that there would be assurances for students already within the system that they aren’t suddenly going to be hit with a big bill that they didn’t sign up for. There are a lot of eventualities and facts to be taken into account. There’s nobody more aware of them than students themselves.
The USI website proclaims the following:
NO to Tuition Fees
FACT: Tuition fees have a disincentive effect on the poor and middle-income students1 .
[2005 UK Study]
FACT: With rising student debt entering higher education is an increasingly risky investment decision for low-income students.
[2005 UK Study]
Even when such students do take this risk, they are more likely than their more affluent peers to experience financial difficulties while studyingwhich affects their academic performance and achievement[and] their chances of completing their courses successfullyHence it could be argued that the fear of debt exhibited by the low-income prospective students in our study was rational.
FACT: Undergraduates who work part-time during term-time are likely to do less well academically than their contemporaries.
[2005 UK Study]
When working 15 hours a week, the odds of working students getting a first class or upper second degree were found to be 62% of similar non-working peers.
Working during term-time has more impact on students degree results than any other factor3.
FACT: Debt and economic conditioning discourages graduates from going into lower-paid caring jobs.
Well, that’s all well and good and I don’t deny any of the facts but there’s everything to be said for interpretation. The fact is, students are working all those part time hours already because grants are insufficient. By accepting that the education agenda is on the table in this guise, they can do more for low income students by accepting that a fee hit for high income students isn’t such a tragedy .
The fact is that yes, tuition fees do have a disincentive effect – which is probably increased by all of the bad press they’re given by, amongst others, student lobby groups. Maybe if students themselves espoused the merits of such systems while also insuring through engagement with the relevant bodies that genuinely disadvantaged people were not affected, tuition fees wouldn’t get a bad wrap.
The fact is that our universities are not of the standard that they should be and unfortunately with money matters as they are, the government can’t afford to give them a dig out. Who wants a free education that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on? Everyone can go to university for free and get the same degree – of spurious merit, or some people can pay and some people can go free according to their status, and everybody can get a good degree from an improved system that moves them a little bit up in the world.
The fact is that by paying for your education, you become the master of it. You gain more rights of redress when your university make a mess of things and your payment for a service means that you become deserving of a standard that has been lacking.
The fact is that nobody wants to see middle class families take another financial hit. The way to deal with this is to recognise that the money needs to come from somewhere and there are far less appealing options. Avoid the graduate tax. Avoid accepting sub-standard universities. Take a look at the ways in which this can really play out.
In scenario A, maybe public outcry achieves its aim and Batt O’Keeffe gets back in his box. Sub-standard grants, sub-standard universities and sub-standard prospects after graduation remain unchanged.
In scenario B, because student lobby groups choose to deal with the proposal through blanket protest (as in 100% protest, not like Long Kesh style blanket protest or anything, that would be weird) the government implement their plan without proper consultation, inviting the potential for huge fuck-uppery and dark days for the middle classes who suddenly can’t even afford Furniture Making in Letterfrack anymore.
In scenario C, student groups take a look at what’s being proposed and propose other good stuff in tandem. They get the income threshold as high as they can for fee payment and as high as they can for grant payment. They work out a joyous system for all. Birds sing, craic is had. Universities improve, degrees are worth more, we maintain this knowledge based economy that is apparently going to save us. Some people are paying for college, sure, but the fact that a lot of people have been paying for private 2nd level education is indicative of the fact that some people can afford to.
The government aren’t going to want to get this wrong. Too far in the wrong direction and there’s no money flowing into the university system, there’s just a slew of kids not going to university. There isn’t essentially an issue with moving from paying for 2nd level to paying for 3rd level instead. Private school can’t make you smarter. A previous post on public/private education threw up two facts: where kids apply for better schools and don’t get in, they still do well in whatever school they go to because the desire to do well is there. Even better than that, they create incentive among kids for whom further education wouldn’t normally have been an option. That sounds deadly.
We can reject this all we want, and it does have the potential to go wrong, but that’s all the more reason to engage with it and steer it in the right direction. Most kids who do the Leaving Cert nowadays apply for college, that’s one fact. Another is that the numbers doing the Leaving Cert are actually dropping. School retention rates are good, but there are just less kids at the moment. It’s demographic / birth trend stuff. The thing is, we’re going to be on the upswing again in 2012 (I guess a lot of people were doing the horizontal tango in 1993). We’re going to have more kids than ever wanting to be educated, all going well. If things are left as they are now, that’s going to be hugely problematic.
The thing about something having the potential to cost you money is that you value it and think about it a whole lot more. If education isn’t free then it starts becoming a privilege again, which is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their basic standards, yes, but then you earn your higher standards by being a hard worker. You think about what university course you really want, whether you actually want to go to university at all.
It’s decidedly true that I engaged myself in student politics to about the same extent George Best engaged himself in drying out programmes….not for very long and not really with any heart. Maybe I have a naïve view of the epic struggle of the student. Perhaps it’s all very easy to say this with your BA in hand, but I imagine that all of this, which is of course all opinion with a sprinkling of back-up facts, is not an entirely incorrect view.
I’d be delighted to entertain the other side of it via the comment button.
Go on, I dare ya.
If they were to introduce more fees for college, I wouldn’t be able to afford it…
It’s hard enough having to save half my income each week just to pay the outrageous lump sum accommodation costs (otherwise it’s 2 hours in an out every day) – and even then half my income can’t sustain me…
Fees = fail.
I don’t think you have to worry Chris. If you genuinely can’t afford it, your means test will show that. They wont be trying to force people out of education because that negates the benefit of increasing funds for universities.
It’s alll just my 2c anyyway!
Its simple economics. An uneducated population does not economic stability make. Education may not be a right but it is in the country’s best interests as a whole to offer it to everyone. We live in a welfare state and I would see free fees as part of the package to be honest. A system like the U.S. would greatly alter the dynamics of society and in fairness you only have to look at the boom of the last 15 years for proof that educating the masses worked for us. The people that really don’t want to go to college don’t work for the points simple as. Drop-out rates are due to choosing the wrong course which is easy done at 17. I don’t think its a follow the crowd scenario but, if it was, whats the problem? Following a crowd into education is far better than not. All the government needs is a little forward planning in terms of funding instead of reaching out for the panic button at the first sign of economic uncertainty.
I’m far too lazy to write anything thoughful, insightful or edifying so I’ll just say this:
What Mary said.
That is all.
P.S. Education is a right, NOT a privilege.
@Mary I do think that education has proven good for the economy and I think that’s why it should continue to be free for people who can’t fund it for themselves. I wouldn’t advocate the US system. I just have an underlying belief that if you can afford to pay for something then you should. I think part of being a good member of society is to engage in give and take, and be willing to say “No hang on, I can cover that one myself Batt, I earned a hoofload this year”.
@Seb I think a basic standard of education is a right because it allows you to provide for yourself and participate in society. I think if you happen to live in a society where 3rd level is the standard then you deserve to get to that level if you want to – but fees don’t make it preventative. Either you can pay for it if you can afford to or be provided for if you can’t – because by educating someone, you equip them to probably be able to pay for the education of their own offspring. I don’t think your rights are removed by changing the system, it can just be given the appearance that they are when people keep saying it. There’s a lot of spin being put on the idea of bringing back fees. Nobody’s saying that people on minimum wage can piss off back to manual labour, but that’s what the soundbites would have you believe, nobody’s saying “Fees for those who can afford it”.
But Sinéad, as it is its borderline pay for it yourself. The grant system is a disaster and I know people who have had to drop out because they don’t qualify for grants but just can’t manage either. Also why is education not a right? I agree that 4th level should not be paid for. However, why should everyone not have the right to be educated to a level that will actually influence their lives. Everyone knows that the best way to stay employed is through education…a working society is a successful one.
Also, the fees for those who can afford it idea. Lovely in theory but surely you can see that it would create a new element of hierarchy between universities. Only the rich can pay for the best ones…..
I’m in total agreement that the grants system is a mess, I just look on this as an opportunity to get going on the clean-up effort. If everyone had a vested interest then suddenly everyone would want a very clear-cut means testing system that worked across the board. There’s going to be no improvement with leaving things the way they are – borderline cases will still miss out on grant suppor and those getting money still wont be getting enough. The bad system now could be indicative of how any new one will work – or it could be an opportunity to fix things up on both counts. If there’s blanket resistance from all parties with a vested interest, they’re not going to be asked to the table when all the working-out goes on.
I don’t think there would be a hierarchy between universities because our public universities are the best in the country and nobody on ‘free fees’ would ever be prevented from going to them, the tuition would just be coming from a different place.
I think the fact that there’s free education now and that education is good for the economy isn’t just a happy coincidence. Nobody’s doing it to be nice – they’re doing it because it was economically sensible. People deserve a basic leaving cert because they need it to be employed at this point really. Educating everyone up to 3rd level might be sensible but if we can’t afford to, better fees for some than fees for all and a better-funded university would have more weight behind its degrees.
I can see the points you’re making, I just think that they’re the things that need to be looked at to make it work properly rather than the reasons to abandon it.
And I really didn’t mean to be that long-winded