People have different views about whether students should pay full cost of their academic process because university education brings many benefits to individuals rather than society. Personally, I completely disagree with this statement.
It is true that students who have access to university education are likely to glean high revenue in work. However, there is an assumption that this only benefits oneself and deprive the benefits of society is flawed. For example, medical care workers in Singapore, such as doctors, not only do they reap immense financial rewards from their profession but they also significantly contribute to the resilient well-being of the community. If they had been denied access to formal education owning to financial constraints, Singapore might not have a robust healthcare system as it does nowadays.
Furthermore, I believe that financial assistance might be tailored based on students’ potential and financial backgrounds. Students from the prospered families are likely to be acquired fully school fees for their academic process, while those from less affluent ones could be received aids as a favor from government if they give it a promise. These supports would alongside the stipulation of a service bond upon graduation, ensuring that authority would have skilled workforces contributing back to the economy. This scheme has successfully implemented in Singapore and has shown widespread accomplishment.
In conclusion, while there are arguments for student should bear full cost of their scholarly performance because the personal benefits they derive, financial aid should be conferred relied on their potential and financial backgrounds to support society post-graduation. This ensures equal access to education and harnesses talent to better society as whole.