Zoe Williams makes some excellent points about the ill-conceived policy on student fees (The price of tuition fees?, 23 February). Compelling though they are, they are not sufficient to override the Tory philosophy of “user pays”. But even the Tories’ short-sighted philosophy cannot support the sheer inefficiency of the system. How many graduates will see that the rational course of action will be to seek work in another country outside the UK tax jurisdiction to the benefit of their new home? When this was pointed out, the government reaction was that it would send out debt collectors. Can you imagine armies of (private) debt collectors scouring the globe? How daft can they get? We are told that higher taxes for the rich are inefficient because the rich won’t pay or will emigrate. Under the same principle, surely the debt burden for students could be made bearable. Germany has free university tuition for social and economic reasons.

Norman Gowar

London

• Despite students paying £9,000 a year, the current regime is no cheaper for taxpayers than the one the coalition inherited. Zoe Williams is right that we need a proper debate about what value we place on tertiary education. Politicians have the perfect opportunity to make a clear commitment to higher education by easing the debt of students and guaranteeing vital funding for our universities. The time has come for business to start paying some of the bill for the supply of graduates they receive. We can continue to featherbed big business with a corporate tax regime more generous than even America’s, or we can change direction and introduce a “business education tax” to fund access to university for the next generation. Labour, and indeed all parties, need to offer much more than tinkering with a system that is already failing both students and the taxpayer.

Sally Hunt

General secretary, University and College Union

• When I attended university in the 60s I was one of only a fraction of the population that did. No wonder the state could afford to pay for most of us. Now, with nearly half a million students, that cost would be unacceptable to many people (and politicians). In any case, judging by the numbers still prepared to pay the price, charging doesn’t appear to have acted as a deterrent.

We need to rethink how we view higher and further education, with far more emphasis on the end product. With so many graduates failing to find permanent employment in their chosen careers it’s about time that we looked more seriously at courses with a genuine vocational element to them.

My generation probably could afford to be more self-indulgent, especially as employment then was easier to find. Can that really apply to today’s?

John Marriott

Lincoln