Answer
On the one hand, the government in a few countries globally provides free education for students by sponsoring uni courses. On the other hand, students have to themself fund their education.
I believe these two distinct systems can be considered as a double edged sword. The positive reason could be because it can largely increase the literacy rate , assist people who are imporverised and contribute to the overall country’s economy. But , the downfall of the latter would be negative impact on the students mental health and government would want to invest money in some other area.
To state whether government funding students can have a positive development all together. I present three merits . Firstly, by doing so it will automatically lead to an increase in people’s literacy. Secondly , the initiative can be very handy for supporting and educating individuals with financial restrictions. Lastly, these educated citizens can then in return help the government in the country’s economic growth such contributing to improve particular sectors which lack educated manpower such as doctors , lawyers and so on .
However , students who are in a situation where they have to fund their own studies are most likely to face a lot of stress , anxiety and other such mental illness and as a result it can also lead to suciding due to immense pressure of money. Similarly, developing countries would want to lean more towards not providing money for education due to money restrictions. They would be more interested in investing or allocating money in something else which has more benefits like construction of new education institution than sponsoring student’s education.