It is true that some people argue for the universal right to free university education. While I accept that this may suit many people , I believe that it is impractical for governments to implement such a policy.
On the one hand , it is not a practical dream to expect government authorities to fund higher education for those poorer sections of society, with low incomes and no savings. Without such funding, people from poor backgrounds would be unable to attend university. As a result , they would be excluded from many well-paid careers as engineers, doctors or lawyers. Social inequalities would be perpetuated and society as a whole would suffer, since those from low-income backgrounds would have no opportunity to develop their talents. The example of the US , during the struggle for civil rights for blacks and other minorities, shows the folly of denying equal educational opportunities for the poor.
On the other hand , there would be an enormous strain on government budgets if free access to university were a right for everyone. At its simplest , people from rich families can afford to pay tuition fees and for their own maintenance during their studies. Attendance at university is a privilege, not a right, and if students can afford to pay for their studies, they should do so. In practical terms , governments cannot pay for the rich as well as the poor. Governments are faced with practical decisions on how to allocate their finite budgets, and funding free higher education for everyone would mean less money to spend on pressing issues such as health care or the environment.
In conclusion , I disagree with the view that free higher education should be a right for everyone in society, and funding should be limited to those who otherwise could not afford to attend university.