Third level education and access

May 22nd, 2003 | by aobaoill |

The arguments presented by (certain) members of the Irish government, advocating the re-introduction of fees for third level education, are superficially attractive. Ultimately, however, they are misleading and wrong. Positing a false dichotomy, and rewriting history, they attempt to deflect attention from true issues of, and solutions to, inequality, while appealing to principles of equity and access.

Prior to 1996 students in third-level institutions in Ireland paid tuition fees on a half-yearly basis. The fees were around ¬£2000-¬£3000 depending on your course (and subject to steep inflation over time) for those of Irish or EU origin, and about double that for others. A grant system (actually two systems – run by local authorities and regional vocational education committees) provided tuition payments and (inadequate) living expenses to students whose families’ incomes were deemed to fall under a certain threshold. There was a common belief that PAYE workers (that is employees) found it more difficult to qualify for grants than the self-employed (such as farmers and professionals – lawyers, accountants).
Those who could afford it used a covenant system to subvent education expenses. Such covenants – from a parent to a child for instance – were tax deductible, and were frequently used for tax evasion (as well as the, obvious, tax avoidance) purposes. A school colleague of mine, for example, regularly received a covenant payment from his aunt which he promptly returned to her, allowing her to claim the tax benefit with none of the pain.
In 1995 the ‘rainbow’ government – Labour, Democratic Left (since merged with Labour) and Fine Gael – decided to remove fees for Irish and EU students engaged in their first primary (Bachelors level) degree. This decision came into effect in January 1996. As part of the new system covenants were abolished, which provided some savings. The grant system continued to provide cash payments for living expenses of those on low incomes.
Much of the criticism that has been levied at free fees has been couched as an attack on ‘free-loading’ by high-income families. Consider this comment from An Taoiseach, as reported by RTE:

But, he said the current situation was unsatisfactory where there were people who were in receipt of several hundred thousand pounds who were entitled to free fees.

If An Taoiseach is genuinely talking about fees for those on ‘several hundred thousand’ euro (we’ll assume that his reference to pounds was a slip of the tongue rather than yet another sign of incompetence on economic matters) then an interesting question arises: are there enough people in this situation to justify the elaborate bureaucracy that would be required to ferret them out? Would the cost outweigh the benefit, or minimise the impact of the measure. Bear in mind here that the Minister for education has consistently linked the reintroduction of fees with the shortage of funding available for tackling educational disadvantage.
There is a more fundamental point here, however – one on which I surprisingly find myself in agreement with Mary Harney. Again from RTE:

She said she believed the way to collect taxes from the rich was through the general taxation system.

Let us look at An Taoiseach’s argument in a bit more detail. The implication is that because ‘the rich’ have more money they should contribute more personally. But why should this apply to third level education when it doesn’t, for example, apply to second level education, or roads, or policing? Of course the general idea is that they do – through a progressive taxation system. Fianna Fáil governments, however, have shown a great fondness for eroding the progressive elements of the Irish taxation system. They have almost always prioritised tax rate cuts over increasing tax credits. If Fianna Fáil, and in particular members of the government, want to make sure ‘the rich’ pull their weight, they should start with the general tax system, allowing not only the education system, but the health system, the roads system, and other less ‘sexy’ services to be improved.
Of course there may be situations where individuals should pay on an individuated basis – such as where the benefit accrues primarily to the individual rather than to greater society, and where society sees the benefit as sufficiantly elective as not to be worthy of societal support. However I would contend that no such threshold is met in this case. There are a number of benefits that can be seen to arise from third level education. Individuals improve their employment prospects – graduates earn more, on average, than other members of society, and have higher rates of employment. A related consequence is that society benefits economically from having better educated citizens. Whether the wider benefits are more significant than the benefits to individuals is debatable. I would point out, however, that removing free fees will not, in itself, tackle the structural imbalances that make third level more open to some sectors of society than others – and that, the minister’s fine rhetoric not withstanding – there is no reason to believe that the reintroduction of fees will make a noticeable revenue stream available to the government, or that this revenue will indeed be applied to tackling educational disadvantage.
Further, however, there are cultural and social – as opposed to societal – benefits from having a better educated citizenry. Fianna Fáil views the benefits purely in economic terms. A consequence of a student loan system – one of the proposed solutions – is to pressure students (or at least those who need to rely on such systems) to always seek the job that pays them the most. Working for a lower rate, in a job that benefits society, becomes less attractive as graduates enter the job market saddled with large amounts of debt, and are thinking about repayment schedules from the beginning.
As a final note, a system based on parental income will always work against those who, for whatever reason, cannot rely on their parents for support. Although many people, myself included, are lucky enough to have had such support on an ongoing basis, there are those who will be trapped – assessed on the basis of their parents’ incomes, without the benefits that accrue. The simplest, the fairest system, is to use a general taxation solution to address this issue.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.