Higher educationâs Cassells report came under scrutiny this afternoon at a third-level education debate held in Trinity, with politicians of all hues quarreling over funding during a discussion that saw more arguments about figures and statistics than the ideas underpinning the future of the sector.
The seven speakers at the debate â held this afternoon in Trinityâs Business School â were more closely aligned in their ideas and proposals than their demeanor suggested, with few cutting through in a debate thatâs unlikely to have offered great reassurance to the sectorâs key stakeholders.
In a packed-out lecture theatre, Sinn FĂ©inâs pledge to invest âŹ170 million a year in higher education might have made for an appealing pitch, but the abiding memory for many will likely have been the gloves-off clashes between Fianna FĂĄil education spokesperson Thomas Byrne and Minister for Higher Education Mary Mitchell OâConnor â albeit with few revelatory moments.
Mitchell OâConnor came in for stiff questioning about her record as the countryâs first minister with responsibility for higher education, and came armed with a raft of figures to defend the governmentâs spending. She argued that ânobody talksâ about the âŹ1.88 billion spent on tertiary education, and frequently sought to turn the conversation towards apprenticeships and further education.
But for most, the figure that endures will have been the one read out by host Shane Coleman: the 40 per cent reduction in funding per student over the last decade.
And if higher educationâs role in the election has been peripheral so far, then today the terms of debate were clear early on: Provost Patrick Prendergast was unambiguous in his assessment of the âcrisisâ facing the sector. âWe have the resourcesâ, he said, in an arch opening statement. âBut do we have the leadership?â
Mitchell OâConnor sought to cast doubt over the efficacy of the Cassells report â long accepted as the blueprint for higher educationâs future â raising a gasp from the room when she argued: âEveryone talks about it like itâs like the Bible, but nobody has read it.â She also pointed out that the report doesnât take into account the revenue that universities bring in from lucrative non-EU student fees.
The debate brought speakers from seven parties â Byrne and Mitchell OâConnor from Fianna FĂĄil and Fine Gael respectively; Donnchadh OâLaoghaire from Sinn FĂ©in; Labour Senator Ivana Bacik; People Before Profit leader Richard Boyd Barrett; Green Party Councillor Neasa Hourigan and Social Democrat Aengus Ă MaolĂĄin.
And there was little disagreement, particularly among the parties tacking left, about the severity of the crisis. Boyd Barrett, fresh from a strong showing last night at RTĂâs leaders debate, delivered an assured performance that poked holes in the governmentâs decisions on higher education. Horses, he pointed out, receive higher average grants than students.
Hourigan and Ă MaolĂĄin, for their part, struggled to capture the ground on the left occupied by Boyd Barrett â though Hourigan garnered attention for her claim that the country needs to start preparing for green jobs â while Bacik was clear: option one in Cassells is Labourâs priority. Of the three politicians representing Irelandâs centre-left, Bacikâs address was the most impactful.
For a party flying so high in the polls, Sinn FĂ©inâs contribution to the debate was notably light, with Ă Laoghaire failing to land a telling punch on Byrne and Mitchell OâConnor. He did, however, get a positive response for his criticism of postgraduate working conditions.
After arriving late, Byrne delivered a predictably full-throated attack on the governmentâs record. But those present often punctured the ambition of his promises â Bacik drew a laugh when interrupting his description of âwhat Fianna FĂĄil has done over the yearsâ. âWe know what youâve done over the yearsâ, she said.
For Mitchell OâConnor, the core pitch comes down not to funding but to technological universities. Itâs prominent on her partyâs manifesto, and it was the topic she was the most comfortable discussing today. âWe are pushing the technological university modelâ, she told an audience member, âso education can be delivered in your regionsâ. But in a room full of people who seemed most concerned by funding, itâs not clear whether her pledge will have done her many favours.
Similarly, Fianna FĂĄilâs flagship promise â a new department for higher education â received more scepticism than support, with Mitchell OâConnor pointing out that constitutionally, introducing a full cabinet department would require abolishing another position. Other speakers didnât seem to see it as an effective way of tackling the funding crisis â Ă Laoghaire cited the Department of Housing to show that creating new departments doesnât address funding issues.
Bacik touched a nerve when she pointed out that the governmentâs approach to funding, through the Human Capital Initiative, could see the âdeath by stealth of the arts and humanitiesâ.
And the importance of research â something flagged by Prendergast in recent months â came up among audience members when one asked about how to fund blue-skies innovation as opposed to business-linked research. Ă Laoghaire argued that âSTEM benefits businessesâ, but admitted that âthere has to be space created for blue sky researchâ.
Questioned on measures to increase funding for blue-skies research, Boyd Barrett did not hold back in criticising the âmarketisationâ of research from philanthropy and industry.
âWe need to break the marketisation of education and research, basicallyâ, he said. âIf we donât have enough public funding, youâre forced to go to philanthropists and businesses who dictate what sort of research you do.â