GER LENNON, M.A.,
Madam, - James Fryar (January 2nd) appears to object to levying fees on students above the means-test threshold on two very dubious grounds: that the families of well-off students have already indirectly contributed towards tuition fees in the form of taxes; and that these students will, in the future, generate wealth and tax revenue for the State.
Research has consistently shown that access to third-level education, as mediated through a points system, has less to do with innate ability than with the advantages of belonging to the higher socio-economic classes. The disproportionate representation of the affluent in tertiary education bears out this inequity.
Research by Prof Drudy in UCD indicates that the enrolment of more affluent students - i.e. those from the ABC1 social groups - increases with the perceived prestige of the third-level institute. Similarly, the proportion of students from this social sector increases dramatically in courses carrying higher prestige (and greater State subvention) - dentistry, medicine and law - within the universities themselves.
All third-level students are, to a large extent, already supported by the country's taxpayers in that the State uses its tax revenue to subsidise the vast bulk of college fees. Since most taxpayers do not come from the highest socio-economic brackets, they end up, in effect, paying for the education of their wealthier fellow citizens who are disproportionately over-represented in the more prestigious institutes and courses.
Wealth, for lower socio-economic groups, is normally defined by a wage or salary which is easily assessed for tax. This is generally not the case for the self-employed and professionals who have already benefited from third-level education. Thus an assessment of wealth, as opposed to taxable income, would be a fairer way to means-test third-level fees and grants.
Mr Fryar refers to the social and tax gains from a workforce educated to third level. But can he explain why the poverty gap has worsened over the past decade, during which our ostensibly "meritocratic" education system has been showcased? Given that education is a key to social mobility and social control, such a result is not surprising. If the socially disenfranchised are prevented from participating in an education system which allocates power within society, how are they going to effect social change in their interests?
The solution? Per-capita expenditure on third-level students, disproportionately comprising the higher social strata, is many times greater than at first or second level. Therefore a refocusing of resources towards first and second level would be fairer. Third level education is quite clearly an investment bestowing financial future benefits for each individual student; Mr Fryar himself points to an almost doubling of earning potential for the graduate as opposed to the non-graduate. Since third-level education already serves an over-represented social élite and it is funded by an under-represented social grouping, it is reasonable to expect most students to take a loan fund a privileged investment. The savings made could then be used to substantially increase access and participation in third-level education by socially disadvantaged groupings.
Education must stand for change and social justice. We cannot let it sustain a society run by, and for, those who happen to be born into affluence. - Yours, etc.,
GER LENNON, M.A.,
B.Ed., H.D.R.S.E.,
Kilfinane,
Co Limerick.