Madam, - Michael Casey (Opinion, August 20th) makes some bizarre arguments for a reintroduction of university fees.
Firstly, he claims the economic benefits of third-level education accrue entirely to the person receiving that qualification. This is untrue on two counts. Firstly, a highly educated workforce makes it much easier for the government of the day to attract investment and promote entrepreneurship, providing an enormous boost to the national economy. Secondly, by earning higher salaries, third-level graduates contribute more tax.
Secondly, Mr Casey argues that providing free third-level education is equivalent to handing over money for personal enrichment. The same argument could be made against universal access to primary and secondary level education, yet such an argument would be immediately ridiculed. In a democratic republic, education should be a right, not a service, and that theory underpins the system of universality introduced by Niamh Bhreathnach.
Thirdly, Mr Casey says that poor families fall through the cracks, and that their taxes go towards the cost of third-level education for middle-class children. Certainly, by lowering the rates of income tax and corporation tax and raising indirect stealth taxation, successive governments have weakened the progressive tax structures which were designed to prevent any widening of the poverty gap. However, the real neglect of poor communities lies in the failure to fully implement the RAPID programmes, or invest enough in primary and secondary education in disadvantaged areas.
Finally, Mr Casey says abolishing third-level fees was "crassly political". This assertion is clearly based on his own ideological position. It is his own article which could more easily be described as "crassly political".- Yours, etc,
NEIL WARD, Philipsburgh Terrace, Dublin 3.
Madam, - I agree with Dr. Brian Maurer's assertion that the abolition of university fees in the mid-1990s was a regressive step (The Irish Times, May 18th).
It starved the universities of funds but left money in the pockets of the better-off. It forced those who failed to achieve enough points for one of the "free" universities to go to a fee-paying college if they wanted a third-level education. On campus it emptied the bicycle racks but filled the car-parks with new cars - gifts from grateful parents to fresher sons and daughters for getting a free place in university, having spent many years in fee-paying secondary schools and attended grind schools. Such an unjust system is simply not sustainable.
I suggest the phasing in over three years of yearly fees of between €5,000 and €10,000, depending on the course, with various allowances made for parents earning less than €75,000. - Yours, etc,
ANTHONY MacGABHANN, Herbert Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.