Head to Head: Danny O'Haresays bringing back fees in the form of student loans would make third-level education both better and fairer. Richard Morrisroesays education is a public service, not a commodity.
YES - Danny O'Hare:Let me start by upsetting the symmetry of this disputation, by making the point that the real issue here is not university fees but the adequacy of funding for undergraduate teaching at third-level.
It is the quality of that teaching that determines the economic dividend from the vast bulk of our graduates, and the recent underfunding of this aspect of the universities' work creates the imminent risk of a collapse in graduate calibre which would make nonsense of our national aspiration to be a leader in the knowledge-based society.
This underfunding is masked by the massive (and very welcome) increase in the allocation of research funds to third-level institutions.
But you cannot build a knowledge society through research activity alone; it needs an equal attention to quality at all levels of third-level education. Far from receiving that equality, undergraduate teaching has been starved of resources and in real terms gets less government support than it did a decade ago.
The gap involved is very substantial, and growing all the time. A recent estimate put the present annual shortfall around €300 million, and projections for the future are even more frightening. As the recent OECD report on Irish third-level education put it bluntly, a "quantum leap" in third-level funding is essential if the education system is to deliver on the ambitions the Government has set for it.
Perhaps mindful of the universal reluctance of Departments of Finance to make "quantum leaps" in anything, the OECD suggested that the source of educational funding should be broadened beyond direct government subvention. This is where the question of restoring university fees came into the picture.
Though the OECD could perhaps be excused for not knowing it, simply to bring back university fees in their previous form is a political non-starter in this country. Any such suggestion will be met - as indeed it has been - by a torrent of abuse from both parents and students (who are ironically the two constituencies who should feel most threatened by a collapse in the quality of third-level teaching). The same excuse of political non-awareness can hardly be made for the university presidents, who very unfortunately allowed their recent interventions on the subject to be shorthanded as an appeal to "bring back university fees".
Restoring the old fees regime is, of course, simply not on. But equally it would be disastrous to allow the present underfunding to continue. What to do, in the light of the likely tightening pressure on exchequer finances in the decade ahead? The moral case for expecting those who directly benefit from being university graduates to contribute a fraction of the cost of their education is easily made.
True, the whole economy benefits from education, but individuals who graduate benefit additionally through substantially increased earnings throughout the length of their careers.
The most equitable way of arranging that future graduates contribute part of the cost is not by putting a burden on their parents or by forcing students to support themselves through excessive amounts of part-time work. It is, instead, to fund the student contribution through a government loan, which would be repaid when the graduate moves into the workforce.
The scale and speed of repayment would be contingent on the income the graduate earns.
The loan would cover not only the student's tuition charge but also his or her living expenses during their time at college.
The amount of the loan in each case would be determined by the individual's needs.
This is not an idea that is untried or untested. It has been in operation successfully in Australia for the best part of a decade, and similar approaches are now under active consideration in several other countries.
Fees under another name? Perhaps, but at least this approach would be free of the disadvantages of a simple return to fees, and bring considerable positive advantages of its own.
Under such an arrangement parents would pay less, not more, as the student's living expenses could be met out of the loan.
Students would not have to work part-time to make ends meet, as they do now to an extent that is harmful to their studies.
For both parents and students, the value of a quality university education would be maximised - a lifetime benefit.
For disadvantaged students, a truly level playing-field would be created for the first time.
For all parties, the threat of a collapse in teaching quality would be averted.
The Government could realise its ambitions for education as a contributor to the economy without either bankrupting the exchequer or alienating the electorate.
So if it takes the form of an income-contingent loan scheme, "reintroducing fees" offers a win/win situation for all.
It is surely the most practical way of ensuring that undergraduate education is adequately funded in an increasingly expensive future.
Danny O'Hare was president of Dublin City University from its foundation in 1980 until 1999
NO - Richard Morrisroe:Vested interests almost invariably seek a debate on tuition fees at this time of year.
The Taoiseach is on record as opposing fees, the Minister for Education seems to do little else but tell people that they're not on the cards, and all the political parties committed to not reintroducing them in their election manifestos. Consensuses don't come any broader.
And yet the Irish Universities Association (IUA) insists on a spurious debate. Their long-term strategy would see public education recast as a private commodity. To achieve this end, the issue of State under-investment in third-level (real) is conflated with the separate idea (false) that public services must be made subject to commodification.
The stronger argument is in favour of keeping public services public. Ireland's higher education system has expanded massively in the past 10 years, giving the institutions far more students and far more research funding. The goal is to see all parts of society represented in third-level in proportion to their presence in the general population. In this regard we have made great strides in increasing the enrolment levels of groups historically under-represented. More than 10 per cent of all first-time entrants are now classed as mature, for example. Though only a start, it is a promising trend, and similar trends have been noted for people from low-income backgrounds, people with disabilities and people from minority backgrounds.
But tuition fees have been shown in studies to exert a deterrent effect most strongly on these under-represented groups. By deterring entrance to college in respect of people from low-income backgrounds, the progress that has been made thus far would be halted and social justice dealt a blow. Moreover, anything that had the effect of restricting social mobility would carry economic implications. Growth will stall if we fail to extend educational opportunities and instead restrict them, rendering Ireland less internationally competitive.
Proponents of a fees system argue that the public funding of tuition represents a subsidy from the less well-off to everyone else, because (they allege) the financial returns of higher education accrue mainly to the individual.
Their premise is fundamentally flawed. However, on this basis, fee proponents contend that the individual or their parents should make a private contribution to the cost of tuition.
This argument ignores two points. Firstly, the nature of a progressive taxation system. Progressive taxation means that those who earn more, pay higher taxes. Secondly, the nature of civic responsibility. Everyone who utilises any public service is being "subsidised" in respect of that particular service by everyone else who uses it less or not at all. ("I don't drive, so why should I pay for the motorway network? I've never needed to go to hospital, so why should I pay for the health service?") Every individual makes different demands on different public services. The least well-off in society should derive the greatest benefit from public services overall, because their tax burden is supposed to be the lowest.
While the wealthy are able to pay for alternatives to public services, the vulnerable and less well-off have no such option if services are effectively restricted. In any case, State funding of public services like education should never be crudely tied to whether they contribute to the economy (though, in the case of universities, they clearly do).
While too few people from the lowest income groups currently attend college, the solution is to substantially increase maintenance grants, and to lower the eligibility thresholds. The inadequate grant explains why a disproportionate number of those going to college still fall into the middle-income categories, despite all the progress that continues to be made.
The impact of tuition fees would not just be felt as a deterrent for people from low-income backgrounds who would be dissuaded from pursuing higher education. In a different way, the effects would be felt by students fortunate enough to surmount a fees barrier.
A system that increased the overall cost of college would encourage higher take-up of bank loans and credit cards. We know that as the costs of college increase, student debt and levels of hardship rise concomitantly.
The seven members of the IUA are right to highlight State under-investment in third-level. If they were worried about the financial plight of low-income students caused by the inadequate student grant, their concerns would certainly be justified. But in response to a real issue, the IUA proposes a "solution" diametrically opposed to the public interest.
The proponents of fees would pull up the ladder on people from low-income backgrounds for whom the cost of college is often a significant or determining consideration. At the same time, a move to make third-level a commodity would see financial pressures intensify for all students. By opposing principle and consensus, the IUA is betraying its reason for existing.
Richard Morrisroe is president of the Union of Students in Ireland
online: join the debate @ www.ireland.com/head2head
Last week, Jack O'Sullivanand Clare Dalydebated the question "Should metered water charges be introduced?" Here is an edited selection of your comments:
Yes, but I think that they should also work urgently to reduce leakages and people should be allowed to use a reasonable amount of water without being charged. The charge should kick in for excessive usage and obviously a large family should be allowed to use a lot more water without charge than a single individual.
- Conor, Ireland
It is just another way to tax the poor for something that is their natural right to have: a right to life - fresh water is essential for life!
- MD, Ireland
Yes, water should be charged for, as it is treated, which costs money. So the more we waste, the more it costs to treat and distribute. Charges will focus attention on usage and hence manage cost of production. People have a naive opinion that just because it rains we have loads of water. Storage, treatment and distribution cost money, so we all pay for it - we just do not see it as a separate charge.
- Diarmuid, Ireland
Water is such an important resource that I think making people pay for it will make them appreciate it more. We have been in a drought situation for a long time in Australia and believe me, we all know how important water is. - Margi, Australia
It should be metered. This will prevent people wasting it. While fresh water is necessary for life, it does not come for free - someone has to build and maintain the reservoirs, filter beds and pipes and this all costs money. You don't get electricity or gas for free, why should you get free water?
- J Mahon, Ireland