Should university be free?

No, because you live at university and accommodation is too big a deal to ever be free.

I think uni should be free for students studying subjects like science, economics , technology , maths , medicine as these are very important subjects that move forward our economy. Subjects like history are great but wont be very beneficial to our society so they should pay £3000. Also if you disagree remember that people without children would be partly paying for your uni education and its not fair for them to have to pay for someones interest that wont ever affect them or the future.

It should be, not everyone can afford it.

Please be 100% honest. Yes I am guessing we would all love it to be free, but would like to hear people's opinions on this subject!

You also mention that too many people are studying **** subjects yet you say if you've only done BTECs then university shouldn't be an option, BTECs offer a solid vocational education in Computer Science, Engineering and many other subjects, these are 2 very strong and employable degree subjects. So I really don't agree with that.

I did my Computing BTEC back in 2012 and it provided me with a good grounding to get my Computer Science degree (top 30 uni) and get onto my MSc (top 10 uni). As well as this I work as a Software Engineer and have over 1 years experience through internships, of which 2 of my employers stated they preferred employees with vocational qualifications like BTEC instead of all academic. Vocational qualifications are just as strong.

In response to the actual thread, I agree university should be free but it does need to be more selective, pretty much anyone can go to uni now even with straight D grades (and lower!) it is possible to get into low ranked universities still costing 9k per year, if it was more selective then 'subjects that do not lead to any career path would be less subscribed to, allowing people who achieve highly to go to university for free and study something that will actually lead them to a good career.

I think that university should be free as it isn’t fair that a person from a wealthier family could go to university whereas someone from a working class background would struggle or not be able to go at all.

Categorically no. I remember in my overwhelmingly Labour-voting department, I asked some students if they were willing to have tuition fees kept in order to help more disadvantaged students get some financial boost so that they would be able to go to university. Say, keep fees for every student coming from a household with an average income above 45k/pa, and either reduce/scrap and/or offer free maintenance grants for those less advantaged, depending on how low they fall beneath that sum. Many, who I know have nothing to worry about financially, but they still cashed in on loans and grants regardless (to waste that money in the most counter-productive way possible), needed some time to think. But I thought kids found socialism trendy nowadays?

Some reasons why not :
- First one: too many people; too many current & prospective students, national and foreign (EU/EEA)

- An inflation of meagre universities and degrees (that should really be transformed into professional schools/ polytechnics) that all charge the same sum for less advantageous courses.

- An idiotic societal consensus of our day and age that you need a degree to do anything in life, which injects more students in universities; students that would have probably been better off in the abovementioned institutions.

- Giving off free tuition fees will only help the middle and upper classes most. The working class families, unable to cope with the ridiculous living expenses of moving their child to a good university in a costlier area, will either have to send their child to the closest university (which might not be the best one), or not send their child to a university at all.

You can't give free tuition fees and maintenance grants or loans at the same time. It is simply too much money. What, tax the taxpayer more?

So people like my partner, who is older than your average kid about to go to university, because he couldn't go to university immediately and had to wait and work more years to save up money, should have to wait even more because he'll pay more in tax to help that kid whose parents can move him off to a better university get free tuition. So the working class parents who'd want to send their child to university, to perhaps do something they were not able to do during their youth (physics, medicine, languages), should be burdened more for the same underlined reason?

Universities are not for everyone, and this shouldn't be something to spark controversy. Heck, I'm someone who was immediately forced into university "because this is what all the other kids do", and I am miserable. I would have been happier going to a professional school, become good in a trade and earn a safe living out of it.

Also, states should only help children with free education up to the age when they become adults. I'm sorry, but you'll likely be 18 when you'll get into university. You're a mature person who cannot hide behind your parents' back when decisions concering your future begin to appear. Universities, as they are now, are the first 'social contract' many of us get.

The fees have inflated to a ridiculous degree, but that's already because of some of the issues I've mentioned above. If there are too many people going to university, and too many people still not earning enough after graduation to pay the loan off, where do you want that money to come from?
Back in Romania, I had a chuckle when a minister was asked by the opposition for more free shite. He simply said: "there is not enough money". People like hearing vacuous promises, but they don't like hearing the hard truth if it's not to their immediate advantage.