Mr. Ned Costello:

I thank committee members for their questions and observations, which are all very interesting.
I will begin with the criteria. Senator Averil Power correctly mentioned the Marginson report. At the time we made a submission to the HEA stating we felt it had set the bar very low. I commend the Minister because he has upped it relative to the Marginson report.
With regard to the qualification level of the staff of technological universities, everybody accepts that there must be a starting point, but the criteria provide for an absolute. The HEA recommended there be a trajectory, whereby at the beginning a certain proportion of staff would have doctoral qualifications and the aim would be to increase this over time. That would be a positive approach. We have made significant investment in postgraduate and doctoral education in Ireland and should see many graduates migrating into the university and technological sector. The bar would be raised, but it would be done in an organic way.
With regard to level 10 educational provision and research, it is very important to have collaboration between technological universities and universities. Research and level 10 education are expensive and demand scale. We can see very good examples of this in the clusters, but it needs to go further.
Deputy Charlie McConalogue and Senator Fidelma Healy Eames raised funding and transition issues. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked what planning had been engaged to cost and provide technological universities. The answer is somewhere between very little and none. In recent years we have seen a progressive erosion of Exchequer funding for higher education and I see no plan to reverse it. This is at the heart of the sustainability difficulty.A number of measures could be taken to deal with it. Any system will involve a mix of public and private funding of higher education and we must acknowledge that there has been a significant transfer of the cost of higher education to individuals through the increase in the student charge. Whether €3,000 is the right level merits debate. To return to the Nevin report, one of the reasons for holding the symposium is it is important to have a debate. There is no direction or debate, which is a problem.
Two years ago a €25 million temporary budget cut was made to higher education funding and the funding was to be restored last year. Regrettably, it was not restored; it should be. That would at least be a gesture of good faith in the system.
On Monday an article I wrote appeared in the Irish Independent. I made the observation that there had been a significant transfer to social welfare payments, by which I meant dealing with the unemployment crisis, and it was very important that this had been done. As we see a return in employment growth to somewhere near normal levels there will be a dividend and Exchequer resources will be freed up. A commitment needs to be made to invest these resources in higher education. We know education generally and higher education is the best route to a job. We have an opportunity to create a virtuous circle and it should not be missed.
The drop-out issue is slightly related to funding. It is where one sees some of the effects of the financial crisis. The student experience has been worsened by larger class sizes and reductions in services to students because of falling resources in institutions. There must be some causal connection.
Another aspect which is important is transition from second level to higher education, an issue which has been actively examined by the Department and the universities. We are considering simplifying the number of entry routes into higher education. In this regard, Mr. Hannigan made an interesting point. In a system with highly denominated courses people possibly take the wrong course. Perhaps they return to the system later, but there is a cost associated with this. Simpler entry routes will, I hope, lead to some of this problem being addressed.
There is also the fundamental issue that the second level system does not prepare people as well as it could for higher education. The modes of assessment and teaching are different. One goes from the highly structured and prescriptive points system, with its emphasis on rote learning, to higher education where there is a strong emphasis on independent learning. There is a disjuncture between these two tectonic plates. This is an issue for the policy system.