Privilege not a right

The argument

This argument rests on a distinction about what kind of thing a university education is: a privilege that some pursue, rather than a right that society owes to everyone. Rights, on this view, are the basic entitlements a person needs and that the state must guarantee to all equally — things like security, the rule of law, and a basic schooling. A university degree is different in kind: it is an advanced, optional good that not everyone wants, needs or is suited to, pursued by those seeking a particular advantage or path. Treating it as a universal right, proponents argue, misclassifies a selective benefit as a basic entitlement. From this premise the funding conclusion follows. Because university is a privilege that confers a private advantage on the individual who obtains it, those who choose to pursue it can reasonably be asked to contribute to its cost, rather than having it provided free at the expense of the whole of society, including the majority who do not attend. To make it free would be to treat an optional, advantageous good as though it were a right owed to all, charging everyone for the benefit of some. Maintaining fees, by contrast, recognises university for what it is — a valuable opportunity that people opt into — and asks those who reap its rewards to share in its cost. The argument does not deny that university is worthwhile or that access matters; it denies that it belongs in the category of universal rights that society must fund for everyone. A privilege earned and chosen is properly paid for by those who take it up. Because university is a privilege and not a right, this argument holds, university fees should remain the same.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the rights-versus-privilege binary is not exhaustive and does much of the argument's work by assertion. Many publicly funded goods — roads, museums, subsidised research, public broadcasting — are neither basic rights nor purely private privileges, yet society funds them because they generate broad benefits. Classifying a degree as a "privilege" therefore does not settle who should pay for it. They add that higher education yields large public returns: a more productive workforce, innovation, and higher lifetime tax revenue that flows back to society, not only to the graduate. On this view the argument's own "those who benefit should contribute" principle cuts toward shared funding, since the public benefits too — and free tuition can widen access in a way fees restrict.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The rights/privilege binary is not exhaustive; many publicly funded goods are neither basic rights nor purely private privileges, so labelling degrees "privilege" does not settle who should pay. [Rejecting P3] A degree yields large public returns — higher tax revenue, a skilled workforce, innovation — so "those who benefit contribute" points toward shared funding, since society benefits too, not the graduate alone.