The price of an undergraduate degree - Oxford and Cambridge will charge £9,000

How much should Universities in England and Wales be able to charge in respect of course fees for one year? The Government has set a new limit of £9,000 - up from just over £3,000.

Simultaneously, Government ministers have expressed 'concern' that institutions are planning on charging the maximum possible - internal documents have revealed this is certainly the case at Oxford and Cambridge: High-fee universities warned of sanctions

My initial comment is 'well duh!'. I would be amazed if those two institutions end up charging anything less, though there may be a sop of some kind of bursary scheme for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

It won't just be those two ancient places though - very many others will want to charge as much as they can. Why? Other than the fact that it increases the amount of revenue received per head, charging less can create real problems in respect of how they are perceived. Would you choose a university because it had the cheapest programme in your intended area? I suggest not. Even if you hoped to reduce the cost of your education, you might be concerned how that might look to others - peers and employers for example.

'If you were any good, you'd charge full price'

So, some predictions:

1. Oxbridge will charge full whack as soon as they can
2. Redbrick institutions will follow suit, but have more developed bursary schemes
3. Those doing the teaching won't be seeing much of any increased revenue [drat!]
4. We're going to see a shift in the proportion of UK students in each general area. Humanities to be massacred, arts to shrivel, business schools to inflate. Note this is a prediction, not a desire.
5. Scottish students will be paying upfront in five years. It will start at a lower level, but catch up within the next ten years.

How would I set fees? Thanks for asking. I think that setting them by institution is a bad idea - it creates divisiveness/a class system and it encourages an upward spiral. Some have suggested that price should be a function of cost - that lab based programmes should cost a lot more than those that need only a lecture hall. I don't agree with that.

I suggest that rather than by institution, programme cost should be set by general area. A key problem with the spread of students in the UK HE sector is that we're dreadfully short of language students, engineers, scientists and mathematicians, and have very many students in other area -  case of under/over supply for society and the economy. I would use price to move students from one group to another, based primarily on how useful that person was then likely to be to society. Engineers, chemists etc go nearly free, other subjects pay more. I don't intend to denigrate subjects like history or sociology, but too many students of those subjects are at university as a lifestyle experience rather than because of ability or talent at those subjects - that is, a good proportion of students are flexible about what they study, and price could be a mechanism to change their behaviour. But what about students from a poor background that have considerable ability as a young historian, won't they be prevented from taking up their place by the higher price? With the increased revenue from high subject fees, it would be very easy to make sure that those of obvious talent get their places free.

So where would marketing and business education in general be on that continuum of free-to-expensive? It may surprise you to learn that whilst for obvious reasons I'm in favour of students studying marketing, I think it would be a good idea if the course fees were between the middle and the top of the scale. You study business to move into a well paid professional career, not to benefit society. You are being relatively selfish compared to the student nurse or the biologist and should therefore pay more.