Nowadays, most universities and colleges are accessible only to students with high exam scores or those who can afford to pay for their education. However, the issue of whether higher education should be available to all students has become a point of discussions. This essay will examine the benefits and downsides of both ideas.
First of all, it is worth considering that free education will improve the quality of life of majorities giving an opportunity to become literate and get a good paid job. What is more, this way, financial and social inequality would disappear. As a result, everyone will be equally able to study. For instance, youth from the countryside with a poor bag of money or low knowledge would have an opportunity to change their lives.
On the other hand, high-quality education is a motivation for most school graduates. They have a realization of the importance of education and heat the books to get a high score or scholarship. It is considered that with absolute free education available for all students, the younger generation would put less effort into study. Consequently, literacy and intelligence of the whole society would be worse.
In my opinion, the current system, where higher education is accessible mainly to students with strong academic performance, is preferable. This system fosters competition among students and encourages them to study harder in order to gain admission to university. The only change I would propose is increasing government support for scholarships and grants. With more financial assistance, the chances of admission for many students would increase.
After weighing both sides, I conclude that higher education should be available only to good students. This ensures that students who are motivated and capable are given the opportunity to succeed, while also maintaining high academic standards.