The proposed Québec HE fees hike analyzed in a way which can and should be generalized

This Montreal Gazette column, among whose authors are friends of the blog Hasana Sharp and William Clare Roberts (see here and here), is an excellent example of concise and insightful analysis of HE privatization issues; as the post title claims, it need not be limited to the Québec case. Among the highlights: 

The second assumption is that increasing tuition reduces a subsidy to students from high-income families. But if tax rates are progressive, where's the subsidy? The bulk of university costs are paid on April 30 [the Canadian income tax day -- though part of the issue is the effect of different provincial tax rates / HE fees], not when the tuition bill comes due, so any concern with the unfair distribution of burdens ought to express itself in shoring up the progressiveness of the income tax, not in hitting students with increased fees....

Most everyone agrees, at some level, that justice involves those who enjoy the benefits of education bearing also the burdens of education. Where we differ is in our identifications of the primary beneficiaries of university education. Those in favour of the hikes, like Principal Munroe-Blum, believe that students are the primary beneficiaries of university education....

First, the more we stress the future economic benefits that will accrue to those with higher degrees, the more university looks like job training that employers are lucky enough to get employees to pay to undertake....

Second, the financial costs are hardly the only costs of education.... the conceit that a university training and degree can be had, like a loaf of bread, by anyone who pays the fees. Of course it can't be - students must work for it.... Education cannot be treated as a consumer good. It can't simply be bought or given away; it must be worked for.

If the proponents of the hikes are serious about improving higher education, then they should focus their efforts on solving the actual problems, including metastasizing administrative costs. Drop the bogus assumptions about who bears the burden of education and it becomes clear that the tuition hikes have no connection to improving higher education and every connection to punishing students for the sins of administrators, bureaucrats, and politicians.