Providing funding for accessible university education remains a source of controversy. From my point of view, I believe that it is practical for the government to take responsibility for other crucial fields instead of completely higher education.
On the one hand, depending on subsidies of the government leads to several limitations. Firstly, tertiary education is not only a path of success because with advancement of society, students currently have a variety of career choices. For example, vocational education has become more diverse recently; therefore, the poor or students living in remote areas can engage in such courses that not only are affordable but also bring fast and high job opportunities for them. Secondly, no one can ensure that all students have enough ability to get into college. If they are not suitable for higher education, the government will waste the amount of money for useless funding.
On the other hand, it would be better for the government to make an investment in the key areas such as medical and environment. The fact that health is the most significant factor of humans; thus giving money for medical facilities and health-care quality should be the top priority. Moreover, the more we care about the environment, the more green it is.
For example, environmental activities should be organized freely for young volunteers to raise their awareness about a variety of serious environmental problems nowadays.
In conclusion, it is true that university is one of the easiest ways leading to success for most students; however, it may have some unworthy risk. After all, other kinds of services should be funded more by the government to generate a developed society.