Last week, David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities, described students as "a burden on the taxpayer", due to the high cost of degrees and the student loan system.

While Willetts is right to be thinking creatively about how to fund higher education, it is disappointing that a politician clever enough to have been nicknamed "two brains" could label students in such an obtuse manner. Frankly, his remarks undervalue the importance of higher and further education to our economy and the contribution of students to our society.

New NUS President, Aaron Porter, led the chorus of outraged students challenging Willetts’ words, stating that students are "the innovators, professionals and public servants that will drive the economic recovery of the UK". Porter is right to assert the economic benefit of higher education to the UK. Taken together, UK universities contribute an estimated £59 billion to the economy each year, after receiving only £10 billion in public funding, which amounts to 10% less public investment as a proportion of GDP than the OECD average.

Furthermore, in a global economy where skills and knowledge acquired at universities are needed to gain access to an increasing number of trades and professions, higher education is a crucial driver of social mobility. We need more, not fewer, people to go to university and the state owes it to our poorest and most deprived communities to continue supporting students through higher education. But while schools, hospitals, and other public services are vehemently defended from all corners of society, tertiary education continues to be deemed an optional indulgence too expensive for the public purse.

This tragic situation relies on a number of misconceptions about universities as remote ivory towers and students as lazy, drunk, privileged kids returning from "gap yahs" in Peru. During the General Election students in many constituencies were inexplicably forced to queue separately from "residents" on polling day. Later they were casually blamed by officials for the fact that hundreds of voters were turned away, unable to vote, at 10pm.

In reality, the debacle had much more to do with the poor planning, lack of resources and incompetence of officials who were quick to blame others. Whether it’s applied to "chavs", immigrants, or bankers, scapegoating and stereotyping of this kind should always be unacceptable. However, with students making up a larger proportion of the UK than the populations of either Wales or Scotland, it is particularly worrying that cheap mischaracterisations abound. The reality differs greatly from the picture painted by Willetts. Most students hold full or part-time jobs alongside their studies. Their generally healthier lifestyles mean they rely less on the NHS than the rest of the population. They make valuable contributions to their communities through academic pursuits, social activities and voluntary work. Their clubs, societies and students’ unions are often standard bearers of community cohesion and support the vulnerable by providing a number of important services. Universities and their students must work together to promote this positive impact.

The challenge in Cambridge is perhaps as great as anywhere in the UK, due to the historical divisions between "town" and "gown" and the physical separations between College and community. However our ability to do this could have a huge impact on how higher education is funded and ultimately, how much students are made to pay. I have represented students for a year and seen their positive contributions to Cambridge. If Willetts disagrees with me, I am happy to introduce him to the amazing work of Cambridge students and convince him otherwise.