YES: Wes Streeting President of the National Union of Students

“Tuition fees must remain capped and I would go even further to suggest that we need a complete rethink about the way in which graduates pay for the cost of their higher education. There is provision for universities to charge variable tuition fees but a market in fees has not emerged with the tuition fee cap at £3,000. However, the NUS examined what might happen if the tuition fee cap should rise to say, £7,000, and we found that a market in fees would open up.

We know which institutions would be able to charge the most – it would be the elite Russell Group universities which already has a competitive edge in the market. Most of the UK’s research funding is concentrated in these institutions, and where there is already a wealthy alumni base which is giving more and more in contributions, plus many of these institutions have substantial endowments. So, they have a significant financial advantage over other institutions already.

If you were to allow those institutions to charge more in tuition fees that would raise the question of how other universities compete and provide an equivalent level of experience in terms of teaching and learning and associated facilities. What makes it even more noxious is those institutions that would be able to charge more are also those with worse records of widening student participation. The danger of a real market in fees is that this would be exacerbated – you will have rich students being taught at rich institutions and students from poorer backgrounds being taught at poorer institutions. Such inequality should make any politician committed to social justice balk.

In terms of social justice if people cash-in on their degrees for financial rewards in the private sector, they should pay more than graduates who earn less in the voluntary or public sectors who are giving something back to society. The danger of the present situation where students are graduating with more debt than ever is increased pressure on them to take a job with the maximum earnings potential rather than taking up their vocation. This has implications for access to postgraduate study and also for people going into lower-paid jobs in the public sector where we do need to attract good graduates.

I think we need to have an increased contribution from the State and from business and to ask graduates who have benefited financially from higher education to pay that little bit more back. That should help to raise additional money for the sector, which if distributed fairly, will ensure that students, wherever and whatever they study, enjoy a high-quality experience.”

NO: Martin Weale Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research

“Universities need more money. Students who go to certain universities do very well out of it, so why should their education be paid for by government grants or by holding down teaching staff salaries? It is now effectively the only industry that we regulate in this way.

The university system is competitive – the institutions are competing with each other, so we should have a national structure for them to charge what it costs to provide a university education. Lifting the cap on tuition fees would improve the quality of academic research in Britain. If we want to have internationally first-class universities they should be allowed to run their businesses as they see best. You do not do that by telling them what to charge their undergraduates.

It is the Government’s job to ensure that everyone who is capable of benefiting can afford to go. It should set up a means-tested system of bursaries for those who cannot afford it. It is not that different from social security. We worry that poor people should have enough to eat but we do not do it by controlling the price of bread. Why are universities any different?

Fees at the top institutions could reach £10,000 or more. Some students would obviously be worse off. Those that go to Imperial College or Cambridge and get a very valuable degree would find that they would pay more for it. It would make them think about whether the degrees were worth doing, so it would mean that time and investment were better focused. With masters degrees, some universities charge very high fees because students know that they are worth having. It should be the same for undergraduate degrees.

You could have differentiation between universities – if Cambridge wanted to maintain a philosophy department then it might not charge as much for a philosophy degree as it would for a law degree. If fees at the top four or five universities are uncapped, the universities would need to think carefully about what they would offer students. They might offer fast-stream teaching so that you could learn in three years what would take a masters degree if you went elsewhere. That would be a way to separate the market and would probably give students more choice.

Yes, some people would be put off university. But research has shown that if your A levels are not very good and you do a history degree, on average, you are no better off than if you had not done a degree at all. Deterring that sort of person from going to university might actually be a good thing. In every other area of life people expect to pay for what they are using and I have not yet seen a coherent argument why universities should be any different.”

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive