Student fees to hit £7000

[Francesca R]

Why is tertiary education to be treated differently from other services. After all, I pay for (and am happy to pay for) the NHS, policing, urban regeneration even though I personally receive proportionally less benefit than others.

Private health care suffers from market failure in the form of adverse selection, (even with a redistributive state that helps the poor). Privately funded police services and infrastructure building suffer from the "free rider" (public goods) problem, which is another market failure. The evidence is that higher education doesn't (bear in mind it is not, and will not be completely privately financed, and that state up-front payment plus low income underwriting are necessary features of this in order to preserve the aspects which are generally seen as socially desirable)

if we view the purpose of tertiary education as being a life expanding experience then we should continue to provide it.

That doesn't follow. Society draws the line where it feels it is not appropriate (or necessary) for it to fund life expanding experiences, because society can't pay for all of them (like gap years, for example), nor is it necessarily moral that it should.

But the poorest take the largest risk.

I have agreed with that. But the risk is underwritten to a significant--and IMO sufficient--extent by the government that is socially just and economically efficient, and I have outlined why I believe this to be the case. Again, the state cannot completely cover (equalise) all the risks the poor face. Well it could in theory, but that's the stuff of Kurt Vonnegut stories.

Why massive ? Even a small leak of graduates abroad would be a problem, not least because of the sums involved

Not really. Some graduates emigrate already. Others who qualified overseas come here. Small leakage is not a problem that matters.

Another problem - Institutions will be asked to underwrite the cost of loans above the government guaranteed level.

Which is an incentive not to charge such high fees.

If I'm a "premium priced institution" looking at candidates would I choose the middle class candidate whose parents can underwrite the risk in full or in part or the poor candidate who could leave the country (and me in the lurch)

The government still provides all the upfront finance (and thus underwrites it), so your claim that the credit risk of the student is an issue for the institution is wrong. Of course the "academic risk"--the probability that the student will fail or drop out and impair the department's reputation--remains an issue as it rightly should. But even in that case, the institution gets paid (probably not after a student drops out)

But if I was earning minimum wage I wouldn't be required to make payments but interest would be accruing on my debt. I've be better off not earning and not having my debt growing than I would be earning minimum wage

This argument seems illogical. At what level of loan do you think that the debt service exceeds minimum wage employment? I think that with this, and the previous claim above, you seem to be searching as hard as you can for perverse incentives. There are probably some somewhere, and they might even be fixable, but they don't amount to an argument to scrap the ideas wholesale.

You're right, if we take the decision that we're no longer prepared to invest in our own future as a nation by keeping the barriers to tertiary education as low as possible

"As low as possible" is a judgement of pragmatism, since lowering barriers comes at a public cost, so the public needs to be OK with it.

It's my contention that the barrier is largest for the poor

I have not disagreed with that, but it is a big climb down from your first post (that I did disagree with) in which you suggested this would :"Pric[e] all but the richest out of the best universities and most popular courses". Maybe you have softened your position on that.

 

[The Don]

I have not disagreed with that, but it is a big climb down from your first post (that I did disagree with) in which you suggested this would :"Pric[e] all but the richest out of the best universities and most popular courses". Maybe you have softened your position on that.

Absolutely not.....

The most prestigious universities with the best courses will, I'm sure, seek to maximise their income and minimise their risk. They will do this by increasing their fees and selecting students who are best able to pay those fees (so as to minimise the non-underwritten risk) - i.e. those whose parents can pay on their behalf.

From an economic standpoint it'd be madness for the university to gamble thousands in the hope and expectation that a poor candidate might be able to pay back the fees when there's "Tim Nice but Dim" whose parents can underwrite the whole shebang.

This'll ensure that the most popular courses at the most prestigious universities will be filled with the rich.

[Anecdote]Back in the day in Bristol there was one such course, Ancient Mediterranean Studies. Although the tuition was paid for, the cost of the field trips (one of which was a term-long grand tour of the ancient world) ensured that the course was in my time exclusively populated by the very well off.
[/Anecdote]

 

[Francesca R]

"I don't care about arguments, it's just true dammit!"

 

[The Don]

Evasion noted

 

[Francesca R]

Nothing to evade as all your points have either been countered or agreed with. It seems that under scrutiny your position waters down substantially to your last sentence five posts up. That that is not nearly so reactionary as what you started with (and apparently want to insist on doggedly) is a matter for you alone.

 

[stokes234]

The point is that a university qualification is not a public service as these are economically defined, so there is no case along those lines for government to finance it.

As defined by whom? The whole of britain benefits from university educations. Everyone benefits from the NHS, employing doctors trained in universities. Everyone benefits from the infrastructure and architecture constructed by engineers trained in universities. Everyone benefits from the primary and secondary education taught by teachers trained in universities. The list goes on. It's not like britain could survive economically without universities and university education, and based on that you could consider it a public service.

Agreed, at least some will. But (i) not enough to reverse increasing take-up of HE from diverse backgrounds IMO, and (ii) the reasons why they may do this are IMO beyond the scope or reponsibility of the taxpayer.

The main reason is that people from poorer backgrounds are more debt-adverse than people from richer backgrounds. Ignoring this fact and hiking up costs will inevitably result in a backwards trend towards elitism, especially if universities are allowed to set their own costs. People from poorer backgrounds will elect to stay living at home and go to their local university to save money, while the rich will carry on getting better private education and going to oxford and cambridge.

 

[Architect]

"I don't care about arguments, it's just true dammit!"

Seems to sumrise your position very effectively, yes.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm sorry, caller, all our cheerleading lines are a bit tied up at the moment. Please try later or alternatively respond to your outstanding open challenges.

 

[stokes234]

or alternatively respond to your outstanding open challenges.

I believe I could say the same thing to you.

 

[Architect]

Francesca doesn't like responding to, say, figures or opinions that don't suit. Apparently people like the heads of the UK schools of architecture aren't to be trusted, likewise the students. She also likes to use the phrase "regressive tax" a lot, presumably because Iain Crawford and Nick Barr used it too.....

 

[Francesca R]

Anytime you're ready to pull your head down out of the tall buildings where you apparently believe you're championing a progressive view, posts 24, 44, 48 and 65 await your attention.

Phone a friend first, mind

 

[stokes234]

Oh it isn't that they don't know anything about education. Of course they do. But they don't have an encompassing interest. If you think they do, then you would probably buy Bob Crow's claims that London underground staff go on strike several times a year in the interest of the travelling public.

That's a reasonable claim. The less the transport workers are paid, the less incentive they have to do a good job. Considering the millions spent on executive bonuses since the privatisation of the national rail service, I think he is fully justified to argue his corner.

Teaching institutions lose most of their blanket state funding under this model, and they have to compete for it in the student market. You admitted yourself that: "six architecture schools thus equals 600 graduates each year against a total number of architects of only 3,000 in my country. We simply don't need that many - the industry can't support it, even in boom times." (post 27). Therefore you already believe that the qualification is oversupplied.

Kindly tell the forum why the state should fork out to keep that distortion going please? (And see if you can work out why those who teach the subject are concerned as they are).

Because you don't need to implement measures that will further segregate the rich and poor to fix this issue. This could quite easily be solved by central planning without resorting to unfeeling free market forces. The state shouldn't have to fork out to keep that distortion going, but the real issue is that it should simply fix the distortion, not that the whole system is broken.

 

[Francesca R]

That's a reasonable claim. The less the transport workers are paid, the less incentive they have to do a good job.

What you are saying is that it is in their (RMT members) interest to maximise their compensation. So not in the interest of the public then, except to the extent that those interests are aligned, which is partial and not total.

Considering the millions spent on executive bonuses since the privatisation of the national rail service, I think he is fully justified to argue his corner.

Which is another argument representing the narrow interest of RMT members, not the interests of the public, except to the extent that they are aligned, which is partial.

So far you have demonstrated how it is not a reasonable claim. If it was, then Bob Crow should take overall control of London Underground (including setting ticket prices) because nobody could make a case that he was not representing everybody's interest. But nobody would regard that as sensible (unless you do . . .)

Because you don't need to implement measures that will further segregate the rich and poor to fix this issue.

Indeed, as the policy recommendations don't. Whether they fix the issue of oversubscription is another matter of course, but they at least relieve taxpayers (including those who never get a degree, recall) of the burden of financing the potentially redundant graduates.

And by transferring the future financial liability to each would-be graduate individually, perhaps the incentives are better rigged to result in a smarter outcome.

This could quite easily be solved by central planning without resorting to unfeeling free market forces

I think you are advocating the state taking responsibility to decide how many architecture grads the country needs (presumably in what region as well), and rationing course numbers on the back of that. And then, I assume, paying the costs of the students. That's your recommendation?

 

[stokes234]

What you are saying is that it is in their (RMT members) interest to maximise their compensation. So not in the interest of the public then, except to the extent that those interests are aligned, which is partial and not total.

Yes, partial alignment. You havn't quoted Bob Crow as saying "total interest of the public" anyway, so i'm not following your point. If it is in the partial interest of the public, then it is in the interest of the public.

Which is another argument representing the narrow interest of RMT members, not the interests of the public, except to the extent that they are aligned, which is partial.

Yes. As above.

So far you have demonstrated how it is not a reasonable claim. If it was, then Bob Crow should take overall control of London Underground (including setting ticket prices) because nobody could make a case that he was not representing everybody's interest. But nobody would regard that as sensible (unless you do . . .)

No, I havn't demonstrated that. You've jumped straight from the reply button to claiming a result, without actually forming an arguement in between. I've demonstrated that the two interests coincide, and therefore it is in the publics interest to pay the RMT workers a decent wage, and therefore Bob Crow is right. I've also pointed out one area the money could come from, showing his fight to be a valid one. I don't think he should be setting the prices himself and I havn't said as such, but I have no problem with him arguing the case for his union members. I think the whole thing should be nationalised anyway.

Indeed, as the policy recommendations don't.

Actually, they do. People from poorer backgrounds are more debt adverse than rich people, and therefore if you lump more potential debt onto the better university courses, you are going to see more rich people going to them and fewer poorer people.

Whether they fix the issue of oversubscription is another matter of course, but they at least relieve taxpayers (including those who never get a degree, recall) of the burden of financing the potentially redundant graduates.

Yes, it would. But so would better central planning, which would also avoid the above problem. Since the taxpayers benefit hugely from the university system as a whole even if they don't attend themselves, I have no problem with the taxpayers having to pay for a few thousand architecture students until that kink is ironed out, if the bonus is a less elitist system of higher education.

And by transferring the future financial liability to each would-be graduate individually, perhaps the incentives are better rigged to result in a smarter outcome.

Yes, probably. But as above, I don't think the benefit of this efficiency is worth the side-order of elitism.

I think you are advocating the state taking responsibility to decide how many architecture grads the country needs (presumably in what region as well), and rationing course numbers on the back of that. And then, I assume, paying the costs of the students. That's your recommendation?

Paying the costs of students, yes, that's my recommendation. I believe the state should pay the majority of university fees, leaving students saddled only with the debt of maintenance and accomodation costs, and perhaps reasonable fees for less important degrees such as art, music, fashion etc. Fees can also be imposed for courses like architecture after a certain point, where no more students are needed, with the awarded students being decided by their grades and intellect, not background.

And I believe it should be paid for by higher taxes for the highest earners, and higher taxes on the banks.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes, partial alignment.

[ . . . ]

Yes. As above.

Thank you.

[ . . . ] i'm not following your point. If it is in the partial interest of the public, then it is in the interest of the public.

It is not an encompassing interest. See post 48. See post 65. In the domain of public transport, the RMT union is a special interest group. They would not attempt to deny this. And in the domain of higher education, the UCU and the SCHOSA are special interest groups. This does not mean they don't know about education or that they don't represent any legitimate interest. But they assuredly do not represent all interests. IN particular they don't represent taxpayers, students and employers. Their interests may be partially aligned (one would hope so) but they will never be fully aligned. Failure to agree with this is to dismiss public choice theory out of hand.

No, I havn't demonstrated that.

You have admitted that in that example, the trade union does not have an encompassing interest. It is not in contention that the interests of trade unions and passengers (in the domain of transport) are aligned to at least some extent.

Actually, they do. People from poorer backgrounds are more debt adverse than rich people, and therefore if you lump more potential debt onto the better university courses, you are going to see more rich people going to them and fewer poorer people.

Re-hash of covered ground, please see posts 73, 74 and 77. My position is that "debt aversion" is both of (i) not a rational response when the state underwrites the risk as it would, and (ii) beyond the scope of the taxpayer to alleviate.

Yes, it would. But so would better central planning, which would also avoid the above problem.

Disagreed. Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but IMO there is incredibly overwhelming evidence that central planning is rubbish at what amounts to a proto-industrial policy.

Since the taxpayers benefit hugely from the university system as a whole even if they don't attend themselves

Re-hash of covered ground. See posts 13, 15, 51 and 73. Taxpayers may benefit but students benefit sunstantially more, and this is quantified by the OECD.

Please note I do not intent to re-argue items already discussed if you bring no new arguments.

I have no problem with the taxpayers having to pay for a few thousand architecture students until that kink is ironed out, if the bonus is a less elitist system of higher education.

When higher education was fully state funded, the system was much more elitist.

 

[stokes234]

Thank you.

It is not an encompassing interest. See post 48. See post 65. In the domain of public transport, the RMT union is a special interest group. They would not attempt to deny this. And in the domain of higher education, the UCU and the SCHOSA are special interest groups. This does not mean they don't know about education or that they don't represent any legitimate interest. But they assuredly do not represent all interests. IN particular they don't represent taxpayers, students and employers. Their interests may be partially aligned (one would hope so) but they will never be fully aligned. Failure to agree with this is to dismiss public choice theory out of hand.


You have admitted that in that example, the trade union does not have an encompassing interest. It is not in contention that the interests of trade unions and passengers (in the domain of transport) are aligned to at least some extent.

Better wages for transport workers will result in better transport services. Better transport services are in the interest of the general public. Bob Crow is arguing for something that is in the interest of the general public, while claiming to be arguing for something that is in the interest of the general public. I'm honestly not seeing where i'm losing you with this arguement. His quote said nothing about arguing only in the interest of the general public.

You're bringing up of public choice theory implies that you think money would be better spent on other areas. Where, for example? Perhaps we need more aircraft carriers to defend ourselves from the the darned terrorists? Or maybe we're just not spending enough on creationist schools?

I'm of the opinion that there is plenty of waste in the budget, and public sector pay is one of the last places to be cutting, but i'd like to see where you think the money should be spent. Keep in mind that train conductors and track maintainers average wage is already about 20% under the national average (though admittedly, train drivers are above it).

Re-hash of covered ground, please see posts 73, 74 and 77. My position is that "debt aversion" is both of (i) not a rational response when the state underwrites the risk as it would, and (ii) beyond the scope of the taxpayer to alleviate.

Growing up in a family that has to scrape to get by is going to result in your being more careful about your money. Raising the tuition fees will, regardless of whether you think it should, segregate the rich and poor further than they already are. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you think it should happen, it does. And nobody is being asked to "alleviate" it, just to avoid it causing more elitism. It's like saying that people being afraid of heights isn't your fault, and they should just man up and work as crane drivers if that's what's available - psychology just doesn't work that way.

Disagreed. Probably beyond the scope of this topic, but IMO there is incredibly overwhelming evidence that central planning is rubbish at what amounts to a proto-industrial policy.

I'll be honest, i'm not particularly interested in your opinion of what evidence exists. Either cite the evidence, or don't, but I have no reason to believe your personal opinion is any more informed than mine.

Re-hash of covered ground. See posts 13, 15, 51 and 73. Taxpayers may benefit but students benefit sunstantially more, and this is quantified by the OECD.

Taxpayers "may" benefit? You think there "might" be some advantage to the country having available doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, medical researchers, politicians, historians, IT specialists, business managers, architects, teachers, physicists, etc? Maybe, perhaps a tiny chance that the general public benefit from their existence in some way?

Personally, I think they're indispensable. Since we absolutely require university education, I see it as a public service. And I believe neccessary public services should be funded by the government, through tax. I'm all in favour of the high earning graduates paying high taxes through virtue of being high earners, though.

Please note I do not intent to re-argue items already discussed if you bring no new arguments.

Funny you should say that, while simultaneously linking to your old arguements in this post, but fair enough. Reply or don't, it won't break my heart.

When higher education was fully state funded, the system was much more elitist.

You appear to be implying cause and effect without backing it up. There are plenty of reasons that the system used to be more elitist, including but not limited to less encouragement of people from poorer background to go to university, lower quality public education, and the fact that maintenance grants were low enough to discourage college graduates that could get a better short-term lifestyle through an immediate job than they could at university, while richer students were able to augment that with money from their parents.

Why do you think the system used to be more elitist? You seem to be trying to imply that poor people were put off by university being free.

 

[Francesca R]

Better wages [ . . . ]

The derail to rail staff was to illustrate that a trade union represents a special interest and not an encompassing one. You will not find many of the general public agreeing that what the RMT wants is every time going to be the best thing for everyone who uses public transport. Similarly, the opinions of some or other special interest group on higher education reform are not likely to be balanced and encompassing. And it is appropriate to view those opinions as such. Ask a group of non-graduate taxpayers whether they think the Browne reforms are a good idea, most are likely to say yes. As a group of undergrads and you'll certainly get the opposite.

Who's right? The one you agree with?

You're bringing up of public choice theory implies that you think money would be better spent on other areas.

No it doesn't imply anything about that.

Growing up in a family that has to scrape to get by is going to result in your being more careful about your money. Raising the tuition fees will, regardless of whether you think it should, segregate the rich and poor further than they already are. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you think it should happen, it does.

It doesn't matter what I think at all. It does matter if society thinks that society should not compensate for that phenomenon until it is completely eradicated--which seems to be what you're asking it to do. We are not arguing about whether someone may be debt averse or not--only about whether it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to give them sufficiently iron-clad guarantees so as to make all the aversion go away. So far you have not made a case about that.

And nobody is being asked to "alleviate" it

If you are saying that the state should fund undergraduates sufficiently to take "debt aversion" fully off the table as an issue, then you are asking taxpayers to alleviate it, aren't you? If you are not asking that, you're not disagreeing with my position--which is that the reform proposals already do plenty to take the downside financial risk to poor graduates off the table.

Personally, I think they're indispensable.

That's a hyperbolic and unuseful sound bite. At some level of cost (say--if it meant people wer starving), you would dispense with them.

I'll just add that there is zero evidence that universities will be dispensed with via the Browne proposals.

Funny you should say that, while simultaneously linking to your old arguements in this post, but fair enough. Reply or don't, it won't break my heart.

Yes, because you're bringing up arguments that I have already countered. So referring you to my prior responses seems correct.

Why do you think the system used to be more elitist? You seem to be trying to imply that poor people were put off by university being free.

Free and rationed. If it was made free again, the most likely outcome would be that the supply of university degree courses would tumble, and selection would not be on merit alone, nor even on economic need. Of course you may say that if taxes were raised enough, or other public spending was cut enough, then access could be maintained. But that is in pragmatic terms, not a serious suggestion. Which is why makinguni free also isn't. I see this debate as more functional if it discusses the present system relative to the Browne proposals. You're free to hypothesise about other outcomes--but you have my response to that one in this paragraph.

 

[stokes234]

The derail to rail staff was to illustrate that a trade union represents a special interest and not an encompassing one. You will not find many of the general public agreeing that what the RMT wants is every time going to be the best thing for everyone who uses public transport. Similarly, the opinions of some or other special interest group on higher education reform are not likely to be balanced and encompassing. And it is appropriate to view those opinions as such. Ask a group of non-graduate taxpayers whether they think the Browne reforms are a good idea, most are likely to say yes. As a group of undergrads and you'll certainly get the opposite.

Who's right? The one you agree with?

Could you link me to the polls you got this data from?

No it doesn't imply anything about that.

Yes it does. The relevant part of public interest theory is the idea that specialist groups request money that is in their own interest, while not being at the interest of society at large. For you to claim that public interest theory is relevant implies that you think current amounts of money spent on rail workers salaries is not in the interest of the public at large, and that it would be more useful elsewhere.

It doesn't matter what I think at all. It does matter if society thinks that society should not compensate for that phenomenon until it is completely eradicated--which seems to be what you're asking it to do. We are not arguing about whether someone may be debt averse or not--only about whether it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to give them sufficiently iron-clad guarantees so as to make all the aversion go away. So far you have not made a case about that.

Yes I have. My case is that since british society as we know it requires university graduates, university education is a public service. And I believe public services should be provided by the government.

At the end of the day, we have to spend a certain amount of money on university education anyway to keep society running. The question is whether or not society as a whole should pay, or just the individuals getting the education. I would argue that since they are spending 3-4 years unpaid study in order to get a job that society needs to function, while other members of society are earning money in that time, I believe society should pay for the education itself, though not the maintenance costs.

If you are saying that the state should fund undergraduates sufficiently to take "debt aversion" fully off the table as an issue, then you are asking taxpayers to alleviate it, aren't you? If you are not asking that, you're not disagreeing with my position--which is that the reform proposals already do plenty to take the downside financial risk to poor graduates off the table.

You phrased your last post as if tax payers were being asked to "alleviate" the debt adversion itself, rather than the resultant elitism. I believe the state should fund undergraduates to avoid economic background being a factor in university choice.

That's a hyperbolic and unuseful sound bite. At some level of cost (say--if it meant people wer starving), you would dispense with them.

If you'd like to argue semantics, you've made a good point. I'll modify it to "if society wants to retain anywhere near the living standards it currently has, which is in the best interest of the general public, then university education is indispensable".

I'll just add that there is zero evidence that universities will be dispensed with via the Browne proposals.

You're taking my quotes out of context. University education is (with the above modification) indispensable, therefore I consider it a national service, therefore I believe the state should fund it. I at no point implied brownes proposals would dispense with university, you're just deliberately misreading my points in a petty attempt at point scoring.

Free and rationed. If it was made free again, the most likely outcome would be that the supply of university degree courses would tumble, and selection would not be on merit alone, nor even on economic need. Of course you may say that if taxes were raised enough, or other public spending was cut enough, then access could be maintained. But that is in pragmatic terms, not a serious suggestion. Which is why makinguni free also isn't.

In pragmatic terms it is a serious suggestion, if we stop spending money on the redundant parts of the armed forces, and raise taxes on higher earners and the banks. I believe we should take those steps, and then make university free.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ]

Do you agree that trade unions and professional associations are special interest groups that do not have an encompassing interest?

If so do you agree that their policy preferences should be qualified with this knowledge?

If you decline to answer, I will conclude that you do agree. Or at least that you have no challenge.

The relevant part of public interest theory is the idea that specialist groups request money that is in their own interest, while not being at the interest of society at large.

Mostly correct. Concentrated special interests can better organise collectively to extract concessions from central authorities at the expense of the more diffuse whole-group, or encompassing interest.

For you to claim that public interest theory is relevant implies that you think current amounts of money spent on rail workers salaries is not in the interest of the public at large, and that it would be more useful elsewhere.

No it doesn't imply anything about that.

Yes I have. My case is that since british society as we know it requires university graduates, university education is a public service.

The latter does not follow from the former. British society as we know it requires housing and private motor vehicles. These are not universally provided by the government and neither should they be.

I would argue that since they are spending 3-4 years unpaid study in order to get a job that society needs to function

Rejected and a re-hash of covered ground. That is not "why" they are doing it; in the sense that their individual expected benefit fully covers their individual investment.

You phrased your last post as if tax payers were being asked to "alleviate" the debt adversion itself

You are asking taxpayers to do that, as argued above.

You're taking my quotes out of context. University education is (with the above modification) indispensable, therefore I consider it a national service, therefore I believe the state should fund it. I at no point implied brownes proposals would dispense with university

Then the comment about them being "indispensable" does not really have any relevance to an argument against Browne.

In pragmatic terms it is a serious suggestion, if we stop spending money on the redundant parts of the armed forces, and raise taxes on higher earners and the banks. I believe we should take those steps, and then make university free.

As above, your "if" clauses render the solution non-serious. For that reason, I think this thread is more functional if it compares Browne to the existing system and near alternatives.

 

[richardm]

Taxpayers "may" benefit? You think there "might" be some advantage to the country having available doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, medical researchers, politicians, historians, IT specialists, business managers, architects, teachers, physicists, etc? Maybe, perhaps a tiny chance that the general public benefit from their existence in some way?

Steady on old lad, you don't want to torpedo your own argument

Free and rationed. If it was made free again, the most likely outcome would be that the supply of university degree courses would tumble

... because the universities would find the amount they were able to lay on restricted by the Government's budget, presumably?

and selection would not be on merit alone, nor even on economic need.

I'm not sure I follow this bit though. If education was provided for free, what other criteria than merit would they want to use? If education was entirely not-free then I could see that universities would want to take on the more wealthy students rather than trying to fund poor students through scholarships or bursaries, but I don't quite see the problem if the places were paid for by taxpayers.