Fees for the Rich: Provost

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

From Irish Times today:

"TCD provost urges return of third-level tuition fees"

Seán Flynn, Education Editor

In a significant move, Trinity College Dublin provost Dr John Hegarty has called for the return of third-level tuition fees in order to allow Irish universities to compete on equal terms internationally.

Dr Hegarty said it "makes no sense" that many students from a wealthy background were not paying fees at third level, even though their parents had spent €5,000 a year for fee-paying secondary schools and grind schools.

Trinity is the only Irish university in the league table of the top 200 published by the The Times Higher Educational Supplement , where it is ranked 78th in the world.

In an Irish Times interview, Dr Hegarty said: "Look at the universities who are grouped around us. They have a staff-student ratio which is vastly better than ours. On average they receive twice or three times the level of funding from national government."

He also criticised what he termed the "disconnect" between Government rhetoric about a "world-class" university system and the harsh financial reality facing colleges.

While Trinity was managing its finances well, the financial situation was "very tight" and required constant attention.

While acknowledging the huge increase in research funding for the universities, he said this was creating new problems. "The research funding is increasing but the core grant from Government which must put the supports in place, as well as funding undergraduate programmes, is continuing to shrink," he added.

While all the political parties ruled out the return of fees during the election campaign, senior figures in the education sector say the issue is already back on the agenda because of the financial pressures facing the third-level sector.

The funding problems facing Irish colleges is set to dominate a key meeting later this month of the seven university heads, chaired by Dr Hegarty.

In recent months, UCC president Dr Michael Murphy has also publicly backed the return of fees. Universities, he said, were not going to be able to meet the Government objective of building a world-class third-level system without fees and other new resources. "It will prove very difficult for us."

Dr Hegarty stressed that any new fees regime must also make provision for disadvantaged students.

In the run-up to the election, Minister for Education and Science Mary Hanafin said the issue of fees was off the political agenda "for the foreseeable future". Four years ago former minister for education Noel Dempsey pressed for their return but he failed to muster support from the PDs and some other Cabinet members.

The Dempsey plan would have seen fees of some €5,000 a year for most general arts and business courses, with higher fees for prestige courses like law and medicine.

In 2004, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on higher education in Ireland backed the return of fees, abolished by the then Fine Gael/ Labour coalition in the mid-1990s. Critics say the abolition represented a subsidy to the middle-class and helped boost private fee-paying education at second level, but supporters of free fees say it has helped to widen access to third-level.

Dr Hegarty also expressed concern about the lack of overall planning for the third-level sector. The third-level system, he said, often found itself operating in something of a policy vacuum, without long-term planning and objectives.

Last week, DCU resident Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski said a cabinet minister should take responsibility for third-level as the Department of Education and Science was preoccupied with primary and second-level schools.

© 2007 The Irish Times

Meh. He's like a broken record at this stage. Every few months he comes out with it.

I have to question whether he actually wants fees to be brought back in or is it just an opportunity to add a bit on how third level education needs to be funded more by the Gov.

Fallen Seraph

I don't really like Hegarty, and, while I understand where he's coming from, the paying for grind-schools comment is a crass generalisation and really tactless to bring up in such a sensitive debate.

Neverthless; I gotta agree with the basic premise.

Crash

This is a premise i've always agreed with, HOWEVER it needs to be accompanied by a proper and expanded grants system (and working, did I mention working?)


A proper means test fee system is the best way for our Universities to survive without a noticeable drop in quality of education.

however:

Noel Dempsey wrote:

The Dempsey plan would have seen fees of some €5,000 a year for most general arts and business courses, with higher fees for prestige courses like law and medicine.

I'd forgotten that man was an idiot. charge extra for prestige courses me hole.

"Sorry timmy, you got the points for medicine, but thats gonna cost you extra."

Is this the provost that wants minions?
Maybe he wants fees so he can pay their salaries

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote:

Is this the provost that wants minions?
Maybe he wants fees so he can pay their salaries

Nah. There are plenty of courses to cut for that to happen.

Sure we're only undergrads, remember!

/I know you're not, but humour me here.

uberwolf

&#231 wrote: »

I'd forgotten that man was an idiot. charge extra for prestige courses me hole.

"Sorry timmy, you got the points for medicine, but thats gonna cost you extra."

Presumably you'd accept that some courses cost more to provide, not ranked by prestige, so much as materials and resources - like science, medicine

dan719

Then one could equally argue that courses such as English should command higher fees because they have to use the library so much. Fees would act as a barrier to education. And a loan system such as in the U.K rewards the rich as they do not have to take out such a loan, and thus pay interest. I do however believe that the system which allows UK students come to Ireland and not pay fees is ridiculous, we would have to pay fees over there.

Nietzschean

actually all courses need to use the libraries.
And if i remember the figures going around at some point the arts courses are substancially cheaper to run than pretty much any of the sciences. Labs/smaller classes/tutorials are far more expensive than the massive lectures that can happen in the arts....

i don't know about law but medicine is far more expensive to teach than pretty much any course(i do believe to repeat a year as a result costs far more than normal too)

gilroyb

At the same time if the government is trying to encourage people to do science so that they can find a nice job in this knowledge economy they probably shouldn't make it more expensive on top of everything else.

He probably does have a point though, as long as the upper bound is high enough and the grant system expanded then for those who actually really need it, there is room to make the system a lot fairer while improving the quality of education for students.

Tacitha

Back when there were fees, they were higher for laboratory course because they cost more to teach. Not unreasonable - though not inevitable - if you charge fees at all.

But the 'prestige courses' idea, which seems to be Dempsey's and not Hegarty's, is indefensible. It looks like an attempt to build in disincentives for anyone getting ideas above their station.

Never know quite where I stand on this issue, but if there are to be fees, what's to stop the government reducing its share? And will fees money go on teaching and on undergraduates generally?

dan719

Nietzschean wrote:

actually all courses need to use the libraries.
And if i remember the figures going around at some point the arts courses are substancially cheaper to run than pretty much any of the sciences. Labs/smaller classes/tutorials are far more expensive than the massive lectures that can happen in the arts....

i don't know about law but medicine is far more expensive to teach than pretty much any course(i do believe to repeat a year as a result costs far more than normal too)

I know I was being facetious. Surely if one reduces it to pure economics, all non-earning courses should be dropped. Oh I see literature isn't earning any revenue, bye. History? Good luck. Irish? You must be joking. We would be left with only the hard sciences. That would be a disaster, one cannot reduce Universities to money making machines, they are places of education. I would much rather see Unis heavily subsidised by the government rather then a new racing course, or another tax break for the exhorbinantly rich. (as a taxpayer)

Sparks

What a brilliant analysis. The government creates the problem by cutting funding to the source of the recent economic boom (a well-educated labour pool) and Hegarty's solution isn't to address that problem, but to call for even more restriction on the size of that labour pool by making it harder to get in?
Feck's sake.
Free fees came in when I was in second year. I remember both systems and the transition between them. And it was a bloody good move abolishing them.

Time Magazine

dan719 wrote:

I would much rather see Unis heavily subsidised by the government

Unless I'm vastly mistaken, they are.

Aside from academic fees totalling €30.6m (or €2,00 per undergrad), there are additional non-reseach State Grants amounting to €84.9m, €5,500 per undergrad. To me, that makes a €7,500 subsidy per undergrad. It's a simplistic view of things, by all means, but if you're the government accountant that's the figure that would stick in your head. That seems quite a lot to me.

Figures based on the 2004/2005 Consolidated Accounts with a figure of 15,428 undergrads.

Sparks

That seems quite a lot to me.

Seems like a pittance compared to what you buy for that.
And it seems unbelievably short-sighted to try to cut corners on that at a time when we have more money than ever before, a situation brought about because of having spent much more that that on education.
On top of which are the two points that (1) if the government is spending so much, why is the college still forced into academically questionable partnerships with industry in order to maintain basic operations and even those at a reduced level of staff, services, courses and so forth; and (2) why is an academic institution, whose reason for existing at all is the uneconomic pursuit of both basic research and basic education, being treated as though it ought to be a commercial company?

What we're getting by bringing in the assumptions best left to commercial companies is reduced service, poor education, and a problem that in ten to fifteen years will turn round and bite us in the same way that the decision taken in the 80s to cut corners on cleaning turned round and set MRSA on us in the hospitals in the last few years.

xeduCat

Ibid wrote:

Figures based on the 2004/2005 Consolidated Accounts with a figure of 15,428 undergrads.

Tut tut Ibid. We don't have 15,428 undergrads - far from it. Stand in the corner! The actual numbers

snappieT

OK, explain this to me.

Trinity fees for a given course are €8,000. The government pays this on behalf of the student, and the student is left with just the administration cost.

Trinity needs more money.

Since the government are still going to pay the fees, why not just make the fees be €10,000. Student pays no more. Trinity gets it's money. And the government pay for the best 3rd level education available.

Why not just raise the cost of doing a course?

Sparks

why not just make the fees be €10,000

Government won't pay the extra €2k.

snappieT

Sparks wrote:

Government won't pay the extra €2k.

But aren't some courses more expensive anyway?
Aren't some colleges more expensive than others?

[whinyVoice]inflation[/whinyVoice]

snappieT

snappieT wrote:

Why not just raise the cost of doing a course?

They are. Check out the cost of doing a postgrad by yourself! I think it went up by a huge % last year or the year before?

Marathon Man

Bring back the fees for the rich. It'll just mean two holidays a year instead of three for mammy and daddy.

Time Magazine

xeduCat wrote:

Tut tut Ibid. We don't have 15,428 undergrads - far from it. Stand in the corner! The actual numbers

Whoops! . Damn shortage of caffein and my requirement to focus on other trivial issues such as my exam next week. I haven't even started typing up my legendary submission to the Statutes Review Working Party yet, which should be in by Monday week.

The new figure per undergrad is €10,700.

Based on (€30.6m + €84.9m) / 10800

xeduCat

That's better, young man.

Plus, exams are a distraction from the important things in life. Like using your economic skills in arguments (much more fun).

If you want to discuss the HEA funding models and the notional cost per student of a degree and the various ups and downs of the Estimates, you know where to find me. AFTER YOUR EXAMS.

shay_562

Bring back the fees for the rich. It'll just mean two holidays a year instead of three for mammy and daddy.

Ah, the considered viewpoint. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty strongly against fees; first off, as was mentioned above, it's just a tad disingenuous for Heggo to announce the creation of new minions for him while simultaneously whining about the lack of money for actual educational matters, but more importantly, because I'm not sure how it could fail to disadvantage those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I know that the increase in poor people going to 3rd level wasn't as dramatic as people would have liked it to have been when fees were scrapped, but from a very basic "people buy less of things when they cost more" perspective, I'm genuinely not sure how introducing fees wouldn't prevent poorer people from going to college. (Before anyone mentions grants and means-testing, our grants system at the moment is pretty flawed and poorly run, so adding a whole heap of extra work onto it with greater losses for people when it screws up may not be the best plan ever)

gilroyb

@ sparks: yes there is nothing other than higher education that needs to be taken care of, all money that the government has should be spent on a group of people who are obviously intelligent enough to care for them self. Excellent planning all round.

As for Shay_562, just because the current system of grants doesn't work doesn't mean that a proper system of tests wouldn't be possible. If you want to really make your point, then point to the fact that every single previous system substantially favoured the rich; then you might have a point. If it wasn't for farmers claiming destitution then maybe partial fees would have worked in the first place.

Marathon Man

gilroyb wrote:

If it wasn't for farmers claiming destitution then maybe partial fees would have worked in the first place.

Excellent point.

Moorsy

gilroyb wrote:

As for Shay_562, just because the current system of grants doesn't work doesn't mean that a proper system of tests wouldn't be possible. .

Aheam Fianna Fail just got re-elected..........The main problems with the grant system as it works for students is 1)It ain't centralised, so money, depenging on with Council area you are in, is paid out as the paper work gets done. Highly in-efficient and means some students don't get their first grant until after Christmas. 2) The grant has for the last couple of years has not risen in-line with inflation.

Time Magazine

Moorsy wrote:

Aheam Fianna Fail just got re-elected..........The main problems with the grant system as it works for students is 1)It ain't centralised, so money, depenging on with Council area you are in, is paid out as the paper work gets done. Highly in-efficient and means some students don't get their first grant until after Christmas. 2) The grant has for the last couple of years has not risen in-line with inflation.

You might want to re-read gilroyb's post.

shay_562

As for Shay_562, just because the current system of grants doesn't work doesn't mean that a proper system of tests wouldn't be possible. If you want to really make your point, then point to the fact that every single previous system substantially favoured the rich; then you might have a point.

By the same token, "Well, it hasn't worked, but this time, when it's being run by the same people on a larger scale with more complexities, I'm sure it will!" is hardly the most inspiring comeback ever.

snorlax

My course is pretty expensive. I think it's close to 8 grand. but we have a lot of practical elements to our course for example the cadavers (bodies) in anatomy require trained laboratory technicians etc to preserve them for the 3 years or so, or presumably they'd rot.


. then there' the materials we need to learn how to make splints which cost about 60eur or so per student to buy. then there's the assessments we use which change all the time and can cost anywhere between 200-1000eur. then all the wheelchairs etc.

wesclark

What's the story on university fees in other countries?

I know roughly the situation in the US. Prima facea astronomically expensive but they manage to get a good social mix in.

I thought fees were the norm in Europe but I know some unis in Germany are only 500e a year. I can't imagine France charging large fees. UK?

Dave3x

Germany's third level system is far more diverse than ours- there are different types of educational institutions for different types of qualifications.

In the UK, it seems to work out that it's incredibly easy to get a student loan to cover tuition, which you pay back once you et your degree and a nice job. Or so I've gathered from talking to students studying here.

wesclark

yeah I understand loans in the UK come from a government student loans 'not for profit' company.

The possible downside of that is brain drain. And earning 26k(euro) (or whatever one starts off on post-degree) isn't exactly a lot so that prospect may turn people off 3rd level

Moorsy

Not to forget the fact that when you leave Uni in England you may want to leave your home, get a car or even do a postgrad but a 20,000 debt may rule-out you doing these things....Many people in Britan go to Scotland for free fees.

Chakar

Trinity's student population is 61% female.

Delicious.

Not to forget the fact that when you leave Uni in England you may want to leave your home, get a car or even do a postgrad but a 20,000 debt may rule-out you doing these things....Many people in Britan go to Scotland for free fees.

I have about 20 grand in loans from the Student Loans Co in the UK just from paying for accommodation, food and books. Most students in the UK are responsible for themselves and their parents don't pay for those things like they seem to in Ireland (as far as I know) I came to Trinity so I wouldn't get even more in debt by paying tuition fees. My sister is at Cambridge and borrows about 10 grand a year to cover the tuition and living expenses. I couldn't believe it when I came here and realised most people would be graduating debt free.

defiantshrimp

shay_562 wrote:

but more importantly, because I'm not sure how it could fail to disadvantage those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Easy. Getting rid of fees has done feck all to improve access. It has been a means of taxing the poor to pay for middle class children's education. Middle class children who were always uni-bound get it for free and poorer children remain out of uni.

Another effect of free fees is that a bunch of people who have no real interest in being in uni go along for the craic, witness the incredible drop-out rates in UCD arts and science for example, not to mention the ITs and even TCD.

America has the highest level of tution fees in the world yet also one of the best levels of access from lower socio-economic groups. By having a proper fees and means testing system you can afford to have generous scholarship packages depending on need and merit.

The fact of the matter is that a degree benefits the holder far, far, far more than anyone else. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to pay something for it. Free fees have failed monumentally to achieve their aim of improving access and are unjust. In the meantime our universitys' standards drop further. We can't afford to attract the best professors and researchers, our student facilties get squeezed, we have issues with capital maintenance and so on.

Moorsy wrote:

Many people in Britan go to Scotland for free fees.

On a nitpicking side note, no they don't. The English are the only EU citizens that have to pay to go to Scotland. A court case saying it violated EU laws failed since there was nothing ruling out differentiation within a country but rather only between countries or something to that effect.

Sparks

Middle class children who were always uni-bound get it for free and poorer children remain out of uni.

Speaking as one of the poorer children, you're incorrect.

By having a proper fees and means testing system you can afford to have generous scholarship packages depending on need and merit.

Ah, so all we have to do is to introduce a proper system which is fair, transparent and administered competently and is properly funded - in Ireland.
Yeah, that should be ever so easy...

The fact of the matter is that a degree benefits the holder far, far, far more than anyone else. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to pay something for it.

The first sentence is wrong - the holder gets a better job and the economy is better off than if he/she is on the dole. Your second assertion is still right however. That's why free fees makes sense. It's better to have a well-trained workforce because then we're more attractive to multinationals. That's why Poland is going to crucify us in the next ten years.

shay_562

Easy. Getting rid of fees has done feck all to improve access.

...and bringing them back will help? How? You're not actually explaining anything, or offering a system beyond "Oh, we'll means-test and give scholarships" - again, I ask you, given that we can't even operate a basic grants system efficiently and effectively, what exactly do people think will happen? Magic pixie dust will fall from the sky and the Dept. of Education will become competent overnight?

he fact of the matter is that a degree benefits the holder far, far, far more than anyone else.

See above; an educated workforce attracting investment is one of the major reasons that we now have the luxury of making "three holidays a year" cracks.

Crash

Sparks wrote:

Ah, so all we have to do is to introduce a proper system which is fair, transparent and administered competently and is properly funded - in Ireland.
Yeah, that should be ever so easy...

It doesnt have to be easy, but it HAS to be done.

Giving up on the idea of a proper means tested grant system isnt an option IMO - we need to work out a proper setup otherwise there'll be serious problems. In the same way that without proper funding there is gonna be a major collapse in undergrad education at some point in the next 10-15 years, without major reform.

Therefore if the first issue could be resolved, then i'd be all in favour for fee introduction - though fee introduction has to be dependant on a proper grant system.

defiantshrimp

Sparks wrote:

Speaking as one of the poorer children, you're incorrect.

I fail to see how that somehow invalidates my point. I'm afraid I didn't say NO lower class children end up in higher education. I said that since abolishing fees the participation rate of lower-socio economic groups in 3rd level has not improved. That's a fact and you being in higher education does not disprove that somehow in the same way as the fact that I speak French and am Irish doesn't invalidate the fact that on average, Irish people generally aren’t very knowledgeable of foreign languages.

You might say we used to have a system where the well off paid for their education and there was insufficient support for those less fortunate. Now we have a system where the well off don't pay fees and instead have those fees spread among the general tax-paying population. Which might not be so bad if it were the case that all groups in the general tax-paying population had equal participation. But they don't. That is a great injustice.

The argument that "well the government can't do anything right so logically we should leave the system as it is now" doesn't stand. The UK and Australia both offer well functioning student loan systems to help cover fees and living costs. It’s not that hard. Just because you hold this idea that the Irish government is s**t and can’t do anything doesn’t make it fact.

I also never said the scholarship system has to be centrally administered by the government, in fact I think that the it should be the remit of the universities themselves, as it is in the US. I would like to see the Universities freer too set their own fees and aid programs, I see the state’s excessive meddling in the universities and their funding as a bad thing. If universities were better funded they could afford to provide more generous bursaries, better student supports (health, accommodation, housing, etc..) to all students. That would likely be more helpful in improving access than abolishing fees. All that has achieved is letting middle class families get a free ride on the backs of the rest of taxpayers.

Sparks wrote:

The first sentence is wrong - the holder gets a better job and the economy is better off than if he/she is on the dole. Your second assertion is still right however. That's why free fees makes sense. It's better to have a well-trained workforce because then we're more attractive to multinationals. That's why Poland is going to crucify us in the next ten years.

Will all due respect, no it is not society that benefits the MOST from my degree, it is me. My degree will allow me to start as a graduate earning above the average industrial wage and that premium will continue throughout my life. The extra taxes I will pay are negligible in comparison to the extra income I will receive. The majority of the benefit lies with me.

Whether or not the government pays for my degree I would have studied for one because of its value to me and that is why the argument that “OMG but the Poles and all those other countries with masses of educated people will crush us, if we don’t have free fees why would anyone bother going to Uni?” is a wrong and poor one. People will go to Uni if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs (on terms of fees, lost earnings and other costs, in fact lost earnings make up the bulk of the opportunity cost of going to third level). Witness the USA having one of the most educated workforces in the world and also the highest fees for education.

Again I didn’t say that there is no benefit to society in me having my degree, there surely is. What I did say is that that benefit is small in comparison to the benefit i receive.

Tricity Bendix

defiantshrimp wrote:

Lots of Sean Barrett-esque stuff

I'd generall be in agreement with most of what you've posted.

However, there is a problem in the short-term with reintroducing fees for red-brick ivory tower dwellers like my good self. Families with children currently in education have made medium-term spending plans which would be greatly upset by an exogenous increase in the cost of going to college.

While I believe the decision to introduce free fees was a poor one, any sudden change would be grossly unfair to families.

dragonkin

I don't understand why I should be paying money to subsidise research I am paying for an education not to be taught by some world famous academic (although he can create the program) after that I'm happy to be taught by somebody who understands the material and is able to answer questions if I want to hear about the latest research I will travel to a public lecture or watch it on the internet.

Now if I was to pay fees I would expect my university to be built around me, not the academic.

1)All night librarys
2)Multiple lectures and tutorials around times that suit me.
3)Credit based modular system.
3)Prioritised funding towards facilities that I benefit from sports clubs, societies, international speakers, grounds, student support services etc.

Now if the university is spending too much maybe it needs to look at cutting some of its research or firing its beuraucracy instead of getting its undergraduates to pay for this. Now I'm not against the idea of fees in general especially means tested fees provided I'm not paying for all the irrelevant extremely costly extras.

All the best academics have a lab full of postgrads/postfocs and papers to write, what on earth are they teaching me maths for and why should I pay for somebody's divided attention?

As for research maybe we need to set up a few dedicated research centres where resources both private and public can be focused something like http://www.cshl.edu.

PHB

I said that since abolishing fees the participation rate of lower-socio economic groups in 3rd level has not improved.

Any data for this?

defiantshrimp

PHB wrote:

Any data for this?

Have a look at the National Surveys of Access to Higher Education by Patrick Clancy (available in your local Berkley and Lecky) and look for the remarkable similarities between 1988 and 2001. I also read some figures in the Irish times about participation rates a few tjmes but I can’t remember the dates unfortunately.

dragonkin wrote:

Now if I was to pay fees I would expect my university to be built around me, not the academic.

And that is what happens. US universities have far, far, far superior Library, computing, student and other services than here since they are forced to compete with one another and have the funds and the freedom from government (since it is no longer holding all the purse strings and setting the Uni's priorities) to do so in a meaningful way.

Sparks

dragonkin wrote:

I don't understand why I should be paying money to subsidise research I am paying for an education not to be taught by some world famous academic

In fairness to the world famous academics, in TCD you were (a few years ago, I can't swear as to now) hired as a lecturer, but evaluated on the basis of your academic research. So an academic who shows up, put's his heart and soul into teaching and every one of whose students excels and loves his course and so forth, can still get fired at the end of the year; whereas an academic who shows up to teach half a lecture here and there during the year, leaves the rest to the TA, ignores cheating or anything else untoward in his course, offends students left, right and centre, and at the end of the year grades on the basis of how far down the stairs a thrown exam paper will go, he can be promoted if he's published enough - and with the amount of time he saves by not bothering to do the job he's officially hired to do, he can publish more. Everything follows from there, like a worked example in natural selection...

Now if I was to pay fees I would expect my university to be built around me, not the academic.

Yeah, good luck with that - we certainly got none of what you're looking for when we were paying fees from our pockets, not at any time, be it the recession in the 80's when money was so hard to come by that you'd think people would work for it, and not later on either. Why exactly would you think that bringing in fees now would be any different? I mean, it's not like Irish people have all had a group epiphany in the past decade where they've all learnt how to run a service industry!

Now if the university is spending too much maybe it needs to look at cutting some of its research or firing its beuraucracy instead of getting its undergraduates to pay for this.

The problem is that all those billions the government is talking about putting into 3rd level education is actually being put into applied research grants (read, researching new products to sell). You get nothing for being a great teaching university. If, however, you have a lot of research going on, you get lots of grants and for every grant that comes in, TCD's central coffers get a slice off the top.
In other words, there is no incentive for them to teach well. It just doesn't pay the bills, and means that the next generation of students learn about TCD in history books in UCD or DIT...
As to firing beaurocracy, well... let's just say that TCD's red tape is 400 years thick and you'd need quite the knife to do it, and it does not appear to be on the priority list for the Provost right now to eliminate unnecessary staff, just the necessary ones.

As for research maybe we need to set up a few dedicated research centres where resources both private and public can be focused something like http://www.cshl.edu.

You mean like Media Labs Europe again? Wasn't once enough to learn that lesson?

Marathon Man

defiantshrimp wrote:

I didn't say NO lower class children end up in higher education.

Indeed, thats why we have the TAP.