Fees For Degrees

This mornings Irish Times reader poll is about the proposed increase in University registration fees, and remarkably, it is a 50-50 split at present; I guess the folks who want it all for free are still in bed.  I’m in favour not only of bringing back fees, but of actually charging every student full economic fees matched with a comprehensive loan scheme, and a proper scholarship system. I’m probably in a minority, but I am quite happy that my position is the right one.

While we might argue about the amount, it is clear that graduates earn more than non-graduates.  Many white collar jobs are only open to graduates, and in most cases, promotion to any sort of management level in both public and private sectors requires a degree. Degrees are worth money, so it seems right that the beneficaries of that system should pay for their meal ticket.

Opponents of fees argue that society benefits from the economic worth of graduates, and they are right, but they ignore a critical fact. If you need to services of a graduate in their profession, you have to pay. If you actually want prompt medical care, you have to pay. If you need a accountant to do your taxes, you have to pay. If you need a solicitor to process your house purchase, try telling her you’re not paying because you paid for her degree through your taxes. 

Where society really benefits from investement in education is at primary and secondary level. We still have shools housed partly or wholly in collections of leaky, cold pre-fabs. For some kids, University is the first time they will have a class that isn’t in a pre-fab – if they make it there. We still have class sizes up in the mid-twenties in every primary school. Kids who get left behind at primary level usually don’t catch up; they struggle through secondary and often live on low income jobs depending on state benefits to make ends meet. Primary and Secondary is where we need to spend more money, and if bringing back university fees allows money to be moved from third level back down to where it is needed, then we need to do that.  The government wants universties to produce more Phd graduates – but where is the intake to come from?  Somewhere out there this morning the Phds of the future are shivering in a prefab with 28 other kids, missing the bit of the teachers attention they need to make it.  That’s where we need to spend the money. 

The harsh reality is that the abolition of university fees has not done much to improve access for people from deprived backgrounds, but they all still pay for it. The woman flipping burgers in the fast food resteraunt on minimum wage pays taxes which subsidise middle class kids going to college. The guy laying blocks on a site in the rain pays taxes which support university. The abolition of fees has injected a significant and very visible element of regression in our tax system, where everyone pays for third level, but the middle classes are the main beneficiaries. It is wrong. It is plainly unjust that the bloke holding the “Stop-Go” sign at the roadworks should be subsidising the guy driving by in a company BMW, or even a company Vectra. 

And this brings me to one reason why everyone should be charged full economic fees. Suggestions that people will only be charged based on income thresholds introduce an unnescessary level of complication into the system. Charge everyone full fees, and then give full grants to 80% or 90% of students, based on income, as long as they are fully tax-compliant. Let the universities charge what we need to deliver the service, and let the government decide what level of support they can provide. Part of that government grants scheme should be generous support for children from lower income brackets – and I do mean generous – full fees, full accommodation on campus, a good laptop, pay for all textbooks and more than minimum wage on top for food and maintenance so that the grant is actually a genuine incentive for kids from poorer backgrounds, and not the token it used to be. 

Funding this level of support for people at the lower end of the scale does require the people at the top to get less support, and pay more.  The idea that only families earning €120,000 a year or more should pay fees, or take out loans for college, is pure political dodging. That threshold needs to come down well below the €100,000 level, possibly as low as €80,000.  I understand that people don’t want to leave college owing $60,000 or more in student loans, but that is much smaller that what you will pay for your house, and a degree is worth more. A government backed loan scheme, linked to ability to pay based on income, is a cheap way to get into a nice professional job. People spend more on wedddings these days, and that is all gone in one day, so why not spend it on something useful? The fact is that I have visiting American students in my classes every year who will graduate with that sort of debt, and they do fine.  In fact, because they are paying for their college education, they do better because they are motivated to get value for their money. 

I’ll happily argue about the details of how a system based on full fees, grants, and government backed loans will work, but the important thing is to agree on the first principle – that people should pay fees for degrees.