University should be free...

...but we really need to reconsider what counts as a university and what counts as a degree.

With another round of protests over university fees, from the National Union of Students, this weekend, it is clear that the issue of tuition fees is far from over. Whilst students want free eduction, the costs of university must be payed by someone - and if university education is indeed of benefit to wider society it seems reasonable that this be covered by the taxpayer. Unfortunately, with many graduates failing to find skilled or well paid employment, it seems that much university education has no benefit to wider society.

When Tony Blair said that 50% of school leavers should go onto university, he neglected to consider the fact that far fewer than 50% of available jobs are for graduates. This has led to a proliferation of soft degrees, in subjects that would have had no place in education 15 years ago, accepting students with low academic ability - resulting in graduates who may have paper qualifications (along with a mountain of debt) but still fail to find meaningful employment. Surely these young people would be better served by schemes to help them into employment and in-work training at 18, allowing them to start earning a wage (rather than accumulating debt) and gain demonstrable skills valuable to employers and industry (instead of a piece of paper providing limited assurances of subject knowledge).

I don't think the taxpayer should cover the cost of someone with two C-grade A-levels to study Event Management for 3 years - when it seems obvious that one could gain better knowledge of managing events by working in the industry for 3 years. Indeed, it appears that many of these vocational degrees simply take the cost of staff training away from companies, and push it onto future employees - if all current undergraduate degrees were 'free', this cost would be pushed onto the taxpayer instead.

Some high-skilled vocational subjects - such as law, medicine or dentistry - cannot be taught entirely on the job. With healthcare graduates providing a clear, long-term, benefit to wider society - and fierce competition for places, ensuring only the best can study - it makes sense to subsidise medical education. For law, this is broadly similar as lawyers work partly in the public, and partly in the private interest - due to the huge profits made by private law firms, it seems reasonable for private industry to contribute to the education of future lawyers, as they currently do through post-graduate education in the form of bar schools - although the costs could be better split between government and industry.

Traditional university subject study, reserved for the most academically qualified, has never served solely to provide an in-depth knowledge of the subject - university education more importantly develops critical thinking skills that prove invaluable outside of academic study in high-skilled and managerial roles. The uncomfortable truth is that only a minority of school-leavers possess the aptitude to develop such skills - at least through the blunt instruments of essays and exams in university education. Lowering the quality of undergraduate education, to accommodate the less academically able, only devalues the achievements of the few who are - and forces them to further study, and further debt, to distinguish themselves from the rabble.

If university education returned to the preserve of only the best and the brightest - with most school leavers helped by in-work training and apprenticeships - I'd be more than happy for university to be free for students.