This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie
There’s always an unfortunate moment in one’s life where it’s necessary to take the side of people one despises. If the best shade of the peculiar feeling of schadenfreude is, as Jarod Kintz once said, “bright red, from a haughty spanking”, then this equally curious sensation of agreeing with Fine Gael leaves one feeling rather blue.
Defending the corner of Enda Kenny is not something I envisaged myself doing frequently during his tenure, but it is extremely difficult to deny that the following statement made in February by the Taoiseach carries some weight: “It’s part of my own philosophy that we prove by 2016 we’re the best country in the world in which to do business and a really strong and vibrant third-level system is fundamental to that, and it’s got to be paid for.” And yet such a pronouncement does nothing to convince me that the answer to the third-level question is an increase in student fees. Nor do I believe that the other proffered solutions are any more edifying either, for that matter.
University education is a fundamental human right, and not the privilege that many wish to characterise it as. Being educated to the limit of one’s ability is something that every citizen of this country should be entitled to, and such a simple normative value makes Jack Leahy’s absurd claim in this paper that student contribution is “fair” all the more vituperative. Even if working class students attend University, a study done in 2005 by the London South Bank University shows that these undergraduates are far more likely to undertake paid work during term time in order to pay their way, which subsequently has an adverse effect on their attainment. Raising fees means that students from disadvantaged backgrounds will carry that same disadvantage with them their whole lives.
Free fees, cheap credit, and a graduate tax are all discussed as possible options that could combat the problem of affordability in education. All of these routes, however, have somewhat obvious drawbacks. Free fees would mean that the taxpayer sets the price of education. Cheap credit would be a problem due to a possible debt aversion amongst prospective students. A graduate tax would have the unfortunate public relations problem of being seen as taxing something beneficial to society. Ultimately, however, the efficacy of education does appear to be unquestionable in this regard. Studies have revealed that an extra year of education boosts earnings by 7.7%. And of course, the MNC’s that Ireland is so dependent on as a country will only choose to set up bases in places with a large pool of skilled workers.
One of the most alarming manifestation of Ireland’s recession has been the “brain drain”. We are currently experiencing structural unemployment in this country, with a clear skills mismatch for all to see and experience for themselves. A recent Hays survey showed that there is a dearth of skilled IT talent in the country, and that employers are having trouble hiring proficient staff from this field. Given the overdependence on this sector in recent years in terms of FDI, such a revelation does not bode well for Ireland’s immediate economic future.
Perhaps there is a way of blessing two birds with one lotus. A system exists in Malaysia whereby the tertiary education is paid for by the government for Malaysian citizens. This education can occur in Kuala Lumpur, Dublin, or even Oxford. In return, these students are contracted to remain in or return to Malaysia after they have completed their degree for a period of ten years. If such a system were implemented in Ireland, it would prevent this “brain drain” from occurring, and also satisfy the concerns of people who cannot afford to pay for third-level education. If at any point these graduates wish to leave the country, they will of course be free to do so, provided they pay back the proportion of fees remaining that is owed to the state. Needless to say, this proportion will be relative to parental income, and not a flat-rate amount.
The conservative commentators and columnists in this country are right in one sense. There is no reason why the taxpayer should provide for the free education of students if they seek to migrate to Australia or America as soon as they have attained their erudition. Such consequences are a waste of good money, and a waste of good will, at a time when there is not an abundance of either to go around. But if we force (yes, force) these graduates to pay back their education through hard work, then we can certainly view it as the investment it ought to be. You don’t have to be a bleedin’ heart liberal to see it makes sense.
