Band 8.0 answer
Whether degrees should be funded by the state or by students is a question on which reasonable people differ. I largely agree that university education should be free at the point of study, although I accept that a fully free system has real costs that need to be managed.
The strongest argument for free tuition is fairness. When fees are high, a talented student from a poor family may decide that the debt is too risky and never apply, while a less able but wealthier classmate studies without hesitation. A society that wants the best doctors and engineers, not merely the best-funded ones, cannot afford to lose that talent. Several countries, Norway among them, have long treated higher education as a public investment rather than a private purchase, and argue that the cost is repaid through the taxes paid by well-qualified workers.
Free education also benefits people other than the student. Graduates generally earn more, use health services less and are more likely to start businesses, so the public gains alongside the individual. Treating a degree purely as a private purchase ignores these wider returns.
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for caution. Universities need stable funding, and if the state alone pays, quality may suffer when budgets are cut. Free places can also be wasted if students enrol without commitment. A sensible compromise would therefore be to keep tuition free but require students to maintain a minimum standard of progress, and to ask graduates who later earn high salaries to contribute through the tax system.
In conclusion, I agree that higher education should be free, because it widens opportunity and benefits the whole of society. It should, however, be accompanied by safeguards to protect quality and prevent waste.