If you want to talk about a moral case, then why should someone who left school at 16 subsidise the education of sixth formers? A civilised society should offer free education to all our young people. If they're brainy enough for higher education, so be it.
This business pains me, because through the years, it is the only topic (university tuition fees) on which I have ever disagreed with the splendid Peter Wilby.

I agree with Douglas. The arguement shouldn't be about how a student pays for education. The arguement should be that they shouldn't pay.

Laurie Penny blogged about her 'spineless generation' I fear James, that though you look slightly older, you might fall into that category.

Is anyone truly questioning whether student should pay to go to university though? After all, don't most of us pay for our primary and secondary education in taxes owed? Why should this not also be the case when it comes to tertiary education? A fair enough answer would be that those who are forced, due to financial circumstances, to undertake immediate post-secondary full-time education should not be forced to pay for their more fortunate peers higher education.

However, such an argument reinforces the need to make HE truly accessible to all, rather than being a case for unfairly penalising those who are currently able to become students.

Thing is, the Hoorays studying Art History cost far less to teach than those studying engineering. Arts students aren't a drain, they subsidize other subjects.

I SO TOTALLY disagree with the premise of the article.
Just like the necessity for the poor to pay for the economic downturn caused by bankers, it seems that the idea that students should pay for studying has become self evident. The notion that higher education benefits the individual is the common argument , therefore individuals should pay for..what exactly?. the privilege of wanting to improve themselves and working hard for no money for years.
The loss of revenue alone is a terrible burden and now they start their working lives, much later than those who did not bother to get educated, with a crippling debt around their necks or now with the punishing Graduate tax suggested by Cable . If that is not a tax on brains and hard work, what is it? My question is: those who choose not to send their kids to University but have to pay for the others through their taxes, could they do without the services of the people who could be bothered to educate themselves???
It infuriates me all these people who resent paying for the education of the young. Can these stupid people manage their lives without teachers, doctors, dentists, surgeons, lawyers, writers,social workers ..do they want to live in a cultural desert, in a society devoid of skills and industry, in an ignorant society?
Also the idea that graduates will make so much more money than those who didn't go to University is no longer true. With so many graduates,many degrees have lost their earning power and to ask teachers or social workers to pay an extra tax just because they went to University is perverse, while the self made millionaire does not have to pay an extra tax for using their services.
EVERYBODY must pay for the formation of the next generation of professionals for the society to run.
THAT is self evident to me. Why not to you MacIntyre?

Hi Daniele.

I agree totally. However, people would still moan, saying fewer places would further widen the gulf between rich and poor - but you can't please everyone!

Philosopher's haven't solved the problem of 'fair' compensation for lack of ability/talents, and it will never be solved.

Coventrian this is not the same logic, as you never know if you will require the services of the NHS. Any healthy person could be involved in an accident. Going to university is a choice for the individual.

Education is there to provide docile and debt-ridden future employees. Any benefits to society or indeed to the recipients of education no longer enter into consideration. All this tax would do is ensure the poor stay poor by robbing them of any chance of building up some savings. What is progressive in that? Listening to Cable waffle about this today was a miserable experience. The man is completely ignorant of reality for so many young people. If graduates end up £100k better off, let them pay in 30 years when they can afford it. Cutting them off at the legs when they graduate will guarantee the benefits of education (to them, though not of course their employers) will be limited at best.

having come from a poor background and read nursing, criminal justice and computer science I have benefited substantially from education - and not only the freedom (or slavery) to think. Jim Davidson once said "the worst thing about being poor is having to drink cheap wine and shag ugly women". whilst wealth and education are separate but inextricably linked, Davidson makes a valid (if vulgar/Realistic?) point.

Are we really saying that everyone (including bin-men) need degrees? I think not, becasue then they would not want to empty bins! However, we cannot rely on immigrants to permanently plug the gaps. This is because most of them work hard and then go to university, like my good friend magna. However, my argument has a obvious flaw- perhaps the unemployed should be made to empty bins in exchange for benefits. perhaps going to uni should be for the most gifted (but not solely on the basis of my parents wealth) ! rant over !!

"I would suggest that those who would never consider sending their offspring to university are unlikely to be paying much in the form of taxes"
Even if the above statement is currently factually accurate, as I understand it from reading the NS/Guardian "analyses" of coalition fiscal plans, this is all going to change fairly shortly, what with the new class war being declared, etc.

''after all, there is nothing social democratic about making those people who would never consider *claiming benefits* pay through the tax system for those who do.''

Why different on university? I thought we're meant to be one nation; everyone benefits from having graduates in the country, so why should everyone not pay? By the same logic, everyone benefits from having trained vocational employees, so let's pay for those to be trained as well.

Your trouble, is that you're thinking too much like a neoliberal; we are not an atomised society - stop thinking like that!