Some people believe that free education should be extended to all members of society, without considering their income. Due to its potential benefits for society, I firmly agree with this viewpoint.
Those who argue against this perspective have clear reasons for this stance. They generally assert that charging students would improve the quality of education, ultimately leading to highly knowledgeable graduates, as it would increase the budget of schools and universities, thereby providing better financial resources for administrators. Additionally, students would likely value their educational opportunities more highly, as they would be paying tuition fees. Consequently, they may study harder to achieve better grades and avoid failure, which could result in needing to repeat courses or incur additional costs.
On the other hand, in my opinion, the advantages of free education outweigh the non-free approach. Paid education seemingly contradicts prominent principles, such as equal educational opportunity and its wider implications on life. More explicitly, universities should prioritize candidates’ knowledge and skill competency when considering admissions, rather than their ability to pay. By adopting this method, affluent individuals would not displace talented students who may be unable to afford educational expenses. Concurrently, governments must assume the responsibility of funding 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 foster a fair community.