GUEST COMMENT: Bankers' taxes shouldn't support free university education

Students have always been slackers. Ironically, one of the few tried and tested ways to get them out of bed has been to organise a protest. But the recent tuition fees protests are a step too far. By insisting bankers pay even more tax to fund their further education, the beardy weirdies stuck in their ivory towers are just proving how divorced they are from reality.

What have they gained apart from taking the UK's national sport of Camilla-bashing literally? Not much. They're bitter that they were let down by the LibDems whom they all voted for - so what? They had better to get used to Realpolitik early in life.

I can remember feeling gutted that maintenance grants had been phased out just in time for the start of my degree. I had to borrow the extra money to pay my living costs, whereas just the year before, the taxpayer had paid. It sucked, especially when I learnt that once upon a time students had even been able to claim unemployment benefit during their long summer breaks.

All the same, I remember feeling relieved that I didn't have to pay the full cost of tuition that overseas student friends of mine paid. Their parents, families or home governments understood the benefits of a degree from a top UK university and were willing to pay market value for it.

The UK needs to retain a top class educational sector. It'll do so by keeping universities well-funded. Why should students not have to pay for a world-class product such as a UK degree?

Above a certain level (GCSE level reading, writing, arithmetic) education ceases to be a public good and becomes much more beneficial to the individual.

Why then should the taxpayer pay for someone's highly specific PhD which allows them alone to earn a very high income?

The young have always carried the burden of higher taxes. It makes sense: they're healthier and live longer. Graduates earn much more over their careers than those who don't hold degrees so the argument that tuition fee hikes stop lower-income students from getting degrees is specious. Student loans provide an equitable method of repayment which is linked to salary, with interest rates way beneath other forms of borrowing like graduate loans or banks overdrafts.

Moreover, those who don't earn high salaries may never have to repay their loans.

By all means price degree subjects differentially. David Cameron (and, incidentally, both of my bosses) studied Politics Philosophy and Economics (or Pretty Poor Education as one of them calls it). Anthropology, PPE and Modern Languages are hardly going to add to the much-vaunted Knowledge Economy. Let prospective engineers and scientists pay less for their degrees.

The most worrying thing about the X-Factor generation is their "something for nothing" attitude. Unfortunately, this has come at precisely the wrong time. Emerging markets powers don't have to buy from the UK, America or France any more. This generation is going to have to compete in a way we've never done before. We need a new generation which understands market forces.

Why not start by having them pay a realistic rate for their university degree?

The author is a private equity professional who escaped from M&A.