Why tuition fees benefit people from poorer areas One of the greatest ironies of the current political situation is the loud and vociferous support that the party formed to […]

One of the greatest ironies of the current political situation is the loud and vociferous support that the party formed to represent the interests of the working classes is giving to abolishing student university fees.

Of all the false statistics that are routinely thrown around by the supporters of free university education – not least by the Leader of Opposition claiming, incorrectly, that the fewer working class people attend university since the introduction of tuition fees – one of the most pervasive and damaging is that abolishing tuition fees would somehow be ‘progressive’.

We are seeing those from the most deprived areas in Britain become greater, not lesser, proportions of the university population. i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

Tertiary education is indeed a benefit to society. Having doctors and teachers trained and able to serve those who need their help is obviously a great benefit to wider society.

However, we should not forget that these people gain significant benefits as well. Studies indicate that the net benefits of all education past the age of eight accrue more to the individual than to society at large.

The idea that graduates should make no contribution towards the tertiary education they will significantly benefit from it, while expecting the minimum wage hairdresser in Hull, or waiter in Wokingham to pick up the bill by paying higher taxes (or that their unborn children and grandchildren should have to pay them due to higher borrowing) is highly regressive.

And we are not talking about trivial sums. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as much as £10bn would need to be found, and found either through higher taxes or reduced spending elsewhere.

Perhaps if tuition fees were entrenching higher education as the unique preserve of the rich, then there may be a case to answer.

Rise in poorer students

But even here, the statistics simply do not back up these claims. According to UCAS, since 1998 and the advent of tuition fees, the proportion of the richest quintile applying to university has increased by 13%. However, during the same period, the proportion of the poorest quintile increased by 79%. The most deprived quintile in Britain now makes up almost a quarter of applicants.

Although not nearly enough people say it, university is not for everyone

We are seeing those from the most deprived areas in Britain become greater, not lesser, proportions of the university population. These places are dependent on tuition fees, both thanks to the price mechanism and the additional revenue that tuition fees provide.

The price mechanism has seen richer students actually having to make a choice about whether or not they should go to university. Although not nearly enough people say it, university is not for everyone. It is the price mechanism that confronts students, who perhaps would go to university to fulfil an expectation rather than for any wider economic or societal benefit, with a cost as well as a benefit to attending university. There sensible economic decisions to forego an expensive university education that they will get limited benefit from has freed up places to go to those who may not have previously gotten a look in.

Universities need tuition fees

Meanwhile, tuition fees have seen a skyrocketing of higher education spending since their introduction. According to the OECD, the per-student spending on higher education is the third highest of the 39 countries they measured, behind only the United States and Luxembourg.

Tuition fees make up somewhere around £10bn of the total university funding costs in the UK, and have led to the amount spent per student almost doubling in real terms since they were first introduced in 1998.

Without this income, universities will struggle to provide the increased place numbers that we have seen since 1998 – especially for expensive course in the creative arts and technology.

In countries with no tuition fees, such as Germany and Scotland, we either see lower levels of university attainment or greater educational inequality. And there’s nothing inherently progressive in that.

Mark Littlewood is director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs