Some people believe that free education should be extended for all the members of society, without considering their revenue. Due to its potential benefits for society, I firmly agree with this viewpoint.
Those who argue against this perspective have clear reasons. They generally assert that taking money from students would improve the quality of education and consequently leads to highly knowledgeable graduates, because it will heighten the budget of schools and universities, providing a better financial situation for school managers. Additionally, students would treasure their opportunity of studying more significantly, because of tuition fees they are paying. therefore, they would study harder to get favorable grades, and avoid being failed that can lead to repayment of costs.
On the other hand, in my opinion, the advantages of free education outweigh the non-free approach. Paid-education is apparently against some prominent rights and values, such as equal opportunity of individuals in education and other aspects of life. To be more explicit, universities should consider the knowledge and skill competency of candidates when they want to grant admission to them. By implementing this method, affluent people would not occupy the place of talented students, being unable to afford education costs. At the same time, governments must take this responsibility to support the associated costs of free education.
In conclusion, although setting monetary requirements according to students’ incomes for granting school admission has some benefits, free education would yield more positive results and helps fostering a fair community.