It is often argued that higher education should be fully paid by students because it provides more benefits to individuals rather than to the public. While making university education paid for has some advantages, such as allowing government to allocate public funds to more urgent sectors, I strongly believe that education should remain accessible because high tuition fees can discourage students and negatively affect country’s economy.
From a social perspective, if the government makes higher education fully funded by students, it can lead to a lose of motivation among students and make university education less accessible, which reduces the number of people who pursue higher education, directly affecting a country’s economy and creating social inequality. As a result, talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds may not be able to afford university education may have to give up their academic ambitions, which in turn contributes to higher unemployment rates and tax revenues.
However, fully paid education also has its own advantages. One of them is that the government can fund other urgent sectors, as healthcare and infrastructure. This is because public money is limited, and investing heavily in universities may reduce the amount of funding available for other important areas. For example, governments could use these resources to improve hospitals, public transport or social services, which directly affect people’s quality of life. Therefore, requiring students to contribute to their education could encourage them to value their education more and become more responsible.
In conclusion, some people believe that higher education should be fully funded by students because it benefits individuals rather than community. Although this approach has its own benefits, in my opinion making education paid would cause more serious problems, such as higher unemployment rates and a weaker economy.