Higher Education Review: Statements. 22nd February 2005

Higher Education Review: Statements.
22nd February 2005
Mr. Norris: I thank my colleague, Senator
Henry, for making time available and Senator
Mansergh for his courtesy in cutting short his
interesting remarks to allow us to participate. I
welcome the Minister to the House. It is appropriate
as, like me, she was a teacher.
I have read a report of a speech made in Cork
by one of this report’s principal authors, Professor
Shattock. He highlighted two major issues,
namely, the massive increase in funding and the
large scale internal reorganisation and restructuring
of universities. The first may cause difficulties
for the Minister and the second may cause difficulties
for academic staff. It is true and has been
acknowledged on the other side of the House that
there was a period of cutbacks totalling 14%, 6%
of which has been recouped. We are still in a situation
of shortfall.
The figures are stark. We are 14th of 26 OECD
nations. We are often told about our wonderful
educational system and spending but this ranking
is factual. Overall investment in education is
below the OECD average and investment in
research and development taken as a percentage
of the wealth of the State lags well behind both
OECD and EU averages. The report points to
low numbers of international mature students
and students from traditionally disadvantaged
areas. We must either make further investment
or adjust the way in which finance is used.
This review coincides with a readjustment of
university management structures. This will cause
concern as increased business presence in university
governance is called for. Expecting universities
to be efficient and to take account of the so called
"real world" are issues but if they are
driven too far in that direction there will be considerable
dangers. What is the cost-benefit analy
sis of imagination, for example? In the old days
it was the university versus the marketplace. Perhaps
that was wrong and we should try to ride
both horses simultaneously but it would be disastrous
if we simply introduced the values of the
marketplace wholesale to universities. There are
examples — Queens University, Belfast, closed
its department of classics and music departments
are suffering the same fate in Britain. The president
of the students’ union, Francis Kieran, said:
"We must be aware of the commercialisation of
third level education as, at the end of the day,
attending college — sentimental as this may
sound — is meant to be about broadening the
mind and experiencing new ideas." He is absolutely
right. We must find a way to combine
these ideas.
A problem exists regarding fees. There are no
free fees, regardless of the intention to abolish
fees. If the point of this was to encourage individuals
from lower socio-economic areas into universities,
it has been a disastrous failure. The rate of
increase of participation in Irish higher education
by lower socio-economic groups has actually
slowed compared to the 1986-92 period when targeted
student grants were the policy instrument.
In other words, if they are targeted then the
disadvantaged are reached. A recent report
entitled Supporting Equity in Higher Education
shows a disparity of almost five to one — 79% to
21% — between the higher, professional socio economic
group and the unskilled manual work
group in total participation in third level education.
The current approach is not working.
When considering the result of money directed
from taxpayers, the benefit to the individual
student is a benefit to society as a whole.