Rich people without particular talent paying for their entry in university do not do it to the detriment of less fortunate people; on the contrary, by subsidizing university, they make it cheaper for other people. Not only don't they take university away from the poor, they create university for the poor, and pull up the whole education system to everyone's benefit.
Yet, static thinkers often criticize liberty in education because it would ``favor the rich to the detriment of the poor''. Once again, they see society as a static zero-sum game of distribution without ever considering the dynamic nature of creation and destruction. They think about a choice they don't have -- switching with a rich man -- which is but plain jealousy, and use it to justify a criminal choice that leads but to more poverty: forceful intervention.
Darn, if education is of any value (to you), then what the hell could money serve to, if not buy you a better education?