Our liberty is under attack. Every student and fellow of Cambridge is directly beholden for his or her position, and financial future, to the British Government. Around one third of Cambridge’s revenue comes from government funding for teaching and research: if the government were to cut this financial link the short-term consequences would be disastrous. The University must cut this link and regain its freedom and independence. Cambridge must go private.

By “go private” I do not, of course, mean become a profit-seeking company, but merely that it should rely on non-governmental sources for its funding, on a model similar to that used by most American universities, and by British private schools. This is not a proposition I would extend to all British universities for now: it is only Cambridge and Oxford that have the resources and mindset to make such an experiment work.

It is assumed in Britain that the state should subsidise higher education for all; even the highly limited system of tuition fees recently introduced has caused enormous controversy. Yet this need not be so: we who receive the untold benefits of an Oxbridge education should be prepared to pay for it, through a system of student loans, grants for those less able to pay, and significant upfront fees. The current situation, whereby the Government pays two thirds (including the tuition fee loan) of the costs of undergraduate study, leaving the University with a significant loss on every EU undergraduate it admits, will surely not be viable for much longer.

A good education is an investment

Privatisation along the American lines could only work if we adopted the best feature of that system: its commitment to equality of opportunity in admissions. Each of the “Big Three” - Harvard, Princeton and Yale - have made an absolute commitment to remove financial considerations from university choice: as Yale declares, “Yale College admits students on the basis of academic and personal promise and without regard to their ability to pay… no applicant will ever be denied admission to Yale because of his or her family’s financial situation.” This is a bold statement, but one that if adopted by Cambridge should surely deal with the main objection to privatisation: that it would bar access to Cambridge to those from less well-off families.

The fees currently charged by top American universities (around £17,000 per year) are on a par with the best British day schools, and significantly less than those demanded by top boarding schools. Many Cantabrigian families could afford this outlay without too much difficulty; the rest would qualify for financial support. To take the example of Harvard, support there is available for those with a family income of up to £100,000, with full scholarships for those whose families earn less than £30,000. Two-thirds of undergraduates at Harvard receive some financial help. Some people would think twice about applying to Cambridge following the introduction of fees. Yet a good education is an investment which will surely prove to have been good value for money.

It is all very well to declare that financial independence is possible; yet given the sacrifices entailed, we must prove that it is in fact desirable. There is a gigantic gulf between the basic aims of the state and those of Cambridge. The state is essentially an engineer of social equality, making sure that every citizen is fed and housed, and that none receives abuse at the hands of his fellows. Cambridge (and Oxford), on the other hand, are almost the most elitist institutions in the country, with that elite having rightly changed from aristocratic to meritocratic over the last century. The Government aims to get half of young people into higher education. Cambridge, by contrast, is fixed on quality rather than quantity, raising an academic elite who will direct the intellectual life of the country in the next generation. Both aims are equally valid, but flourish best when separate. This is why nearly all of the country’s best schools (including 28 of the 30 most prolific Oxbridge feeders) are entirely private: freed from restrictions designed to bolster those at risk of educational failure, intelligent and engaged children are able to explore an intellectual world well beyond the bounds of the National Curriculum.

Cambridge and Oxford are the only European universities with large enough endowments (around £4 billion each – one third of the size of Harvard’s, and sixty per cent of Yale’s and Princeton’s) to implement such an ambitious plan in the short-to-medium term; the next-largest endowment in Europe is that of Budapest’s Central European University, with £250 million. Despite this comparative wealth, however, the University recognises the importance of increasing extra-governmental revenue to bring Cambridge closer in line with the American Big Three: the Vice-Chancellor (recruited from Yale) launched a campaign in 2005 to raise £1 billion by 2012, and businessman Nick Cavalla became the University’s first Chief Investment Officer in April. These new initiatives seem like serious steps towards eventual financial independence.

I might end here with a personal note: I agreed to write this article as devil’s advocate, arguing a point of view which I appreciated but did not share; and yet, as the arguments have taken shape, I find myself convinced that Cambridge (and Oxford, although that is none of our concern) must take immediate steps towards privatisation – please ignore the Thatcherite connotations of that word – and full financial independence, which could come within ten years. I have cited the American system because it appears the best in the short term; its openness and freedom seem superior to any other country’s. But however the new order might manifest itself, there is no reason, other than an unwillingness to pay for privileged education, to remain under the control of a state which should be governing rather than educating.