In any case, the failure of the government to sufficiently fund higher education institutes is one of the causes of this. At Manchester, students on arts degrees have very few hours of contact time with lecturers or tutors a week, and they are facing further cuts. Definitely not a rigorous university education.

Will, you are correct to point out that means-testing discriminates against “middle” class families who have fallen out with their children. However, socialists and communists have rarely fought for the rights of the “middle” class before the “working” class - and means-testing is for the benefit of those from more deprived families who would not be able to cough up for their children even if they wanted to.

A universal grant is not a fair method, for the reason that giving money to those who have parents who do cough up means there is less money for students who don’t have parents who cough up. There is a finite amount of money available for grants, and the more money that goes to those who do not need it means less is available for those who do.

Its debatable whether education itself is a right, although its certainly something that has such large social gains that social funding up to the end of secondary school is a very good thing.

Sending more people to university has already devalued a university education a lot. I saw this in trying to get a job. A degeree no longer signifies a reasonably rigourous acadmenic education, its just a piece of paper you have to get.

To dish out a limited pot of money fairly, the means testing should be on the individual student, not on their parents. But is that then an incentive not to work while at uni (which perhaps should be discouraged), and a disincentive for parents to give their children (declared) funding? Do you then end up with a universal grant being the only fair method? As long as richer people are paying more tax, it’s fair enough that they or their children should receive some of it back.