Should higher education be free for everyone?

In some countries a university degree costs little or nothing to the student; in others graduates start working life with large debts. The question of who should pay for higher education, the student, the taxpayer or someone else, shapes who can go to university, what they study, and what the state can afford.

Supporters of free higher education argue that it benefits society as well as the individual, through a skilled workforce, research, and more informed citizens. They say fees and debt put off people from poorer families, push students toward the most lucrative courses instead of those they care about, and burden graduates in the early years when they are starting careers and households. Public funding, on this view, is an investment with returns for everyone [check: add a source or example you trust].

Opponents argue that a degree usually raises a person's lifetime income, so it is fair that graduates contribute. They point out that free tuition is paid for by all taxpayers, including those who never went to university and who may earn less than graduates, so it can transfer money from lower earners to higher earners. They also note that capacity is limited, and that without fees institutions may ration places or lose quality.

Between these views are many designs. Some countries charge fees but repay through income-contingent loans, where graduates pay back only if their earnings reach a level. Others offer free tuition but limit places, or free tuition for certain subjects. The details change who gains and who pays.

Another part of the debate is what "higher education" means. Universities, vocational colleges and apprenticeships do different jobs, and a scheme that is free for one may not be for the others.

If you take part in this debate, it helps to say which type of education you mean, how it would be funded, and what you would do about the number of places and the quality of teaching.