Some people believe that governments should pay full course fees for students who want to study at universities. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Sample 1:

The government, according to some, should cover the cost of higher education for everyone who wishes to attend. Even while I see the value of making higher education accessible to everyone, I worry about the potential adverse effects on the job market and academic outcomes that would emerge.

Investing in our youth by covering their college costs has several apparent benefits. First, this policy would inspire children from low-income or underprivileged backgrounds to attend college. Because of this, children from less affluent backgrounds may have the same possibilities to further their education as students from wealthier families. Second, investing additional funds into universities may boost the quality of the working population. This is because there would be a rise in the number of people with advanced degrees and well-developed skill sets, both of which are essential for sustained economic expansion.

Nonetheless, I feel the downsides of this approach are far more severe. Because of the high demand for making higher education accessible for all, colleges and their resources would quickly become overwhelmed. Higher education institutions are not yet equipped to handle a dramatic application surge, which would lead to a total collapse of the education system. In addition, increasing the number of people seeking work will likely result from making higher education more accessible. With universal access to higher education at no cost, the number of people who get their degrees will rise dramatically. Consequently, there will be a lack of labor for inferior vocations and a surplus of labor in other fields as university graduates seek employment in their respective fields, such as marketing and not construction.

In conclusion, although I agree that expanding access to higher education is desirable, I am concerned about the negative consequences this may have on campus resources and the labor market.

Sample 2:

It is argued that tuition fees for all students who desire to pursue tertiary education ought to be shouldered by the state. I mostly agree with this notion since it can provide better chances for such education for less well-off individuals and reduce socioeconomic inequality, although it can put pressure on the state budget.

The first justification why I agree that the government should bear the tuition fees for university students is that they can be offered equal opportunities for pursuing further education. More specifically, those who live under the poverty line could afford courses at university without worrying about their financial burden. To illustrate, without being financially supported by the state, most students from remote areas in Vietnam such as Ha Giang Province cannot afford university tuition fees and instead opt to do farming work, losing their chance to acquire a bachelor’s degree which can be beneficial to their future careers.

Another reason for my agreement is that this practice can bridge the gap between different classes in society. This is because families from disadvantaged backgrounds can avoid making sacrifices to save for their children’s education and allocate their budgets to other key matters such as healthcare and entertainment, enabling them to access the same facilities and services as those from better-endowed families. As a result, the socio-economic gap between individuals and families would likely be lessened, paying the way to an equal community.

However, subsidizing tuition fees for all students can trigger monetary burdens on the government. To be more specific, this requires greater spending allocation to education, potentially leading to a budget deficit for other key sectors such as national defense and commerce.

In conclusion, while I admit that fully subsidizing college tuition can pose a pressure on the state budget, I am mostly of the opinion that it is beneficial due to the provision of equal chances for education for future generations and the reduced gap between social classes. It is advisable that the government should give priority to those from families with lower incomes to reduce budget pressure.

Sample 3:

The government we have chosen must comply with all our needs, like paying for our education. There are various opinions on this, a group agrees with such a viewpoint while others have different thinking. If asked, I would take a position with the former group, my stance will be explained further.

To commence with, we have elected the candidates with the purpose and the trust that they will cater to all our needs; education being the most important aspect of our lives must be taken care of by the government. Many families are living below the poverty line, they cannot pay for their children’s tuition fees, and this will not henceforth give their wards equal opportunities. Moreover, even if parents just can provide their children with basic education, then the talent of many people will get wasted and lost.

Moreover, various countries give free education to all the students, if the government does not provide such help with the course fees the students are likely to flee the country. This would cause any country a serious problem which is brain drain. 

On the contrary, if the government pays the fees, the funds for other areas will have a negative impact. Defense is one such area that constantly needs speculation and an upgrade, a weak defense can crumble a country as there will be constant fear of attack and conflicts on the borders of a country.

Overall, we can say that there are two sides to the government providing help for all students in terms of tuition fees. From the above discussion, we can conclude that the authority must aid all the people with education.

Sample 4:

As citizens of a country, we are the responsibility of the elected government. Education being a vital aspect of the growth of the country, I perceive that our government should pay for our course fees. My preference is explained in the ensuing write-ups.

A degree in most countries cost up to 15% of one’s entire savings. With the ever-increasing interest rate, it is unlikely to complete the entire loan in a decade after graduation. The suicides due to student loans in the United States of America are an issue known by us all. This can be eliminated if the governments put in the effort of paying for our course fees.

If the government will be paying for the fees of all students, the institutes will be under close surveillance of the authority. The fee structure and the admission procedure will be regulated by the government. The mal-practice of the unfair admission process will be shut down all at once. Thus, making all the academic institutes completely transparent in terms of process.

On the other side, if the authority pays the school fees, the institutes might not earn enough to keep up with the maintenance of the staff. The academicians will not be paid enough wages, and this in result will reduce their motivation to teach. Other areas such as cleanliness and cultural activities will be neglected to cut down expenses.

Overall, in my perception, the government making education free for all will have humongous benefits, while the drawbacks can be tackled if the government makes some strategic changes.

Sample 5:

The fees of the universities are worrisome for a huge mass of people. There is a group that believes that the government should give services regarding these fee structures. I completely agree with such a viewpoint, my opinion will be explained below with logical reasons.

The world is growing rapidly, in this education has a huge role to play. The advanced education taught by various institutes is inaccessible to a lot of people. Various talents are waiting to be discovered, but they remain hidden due to the hefty fees of colleges and schools. The authorities should take it upon themselves to assist such people by paying their fees, which will help in the progression of the country.

European universities are the best example of such a practice. They have not only advanced their education quotient but also attracted a lot of foreign students which later are likely to stay in that country, serving as an asset to the nation. This highly trained workforce will result in boosting the country's economy to a higher stage. Julia Cage, a French economist, stated that free education has dramatically accelerated the development of France.  

On the contrary, it cannot be disregarded that government interference of the government in the education system might increase corruption and the quality of such degrees will decrease. We have seen that no matter which party is in power there is always the existence of corruption to a certain extent, if the ruling party gets control of the education system in any terms there is a high possibility of misuse of this power.

To conclude, it is evident that government paying students will surely benefit the whole country in various forms. This will boost the literacy rate of a country as well. 

Sample 6:

A common school of thought is that the state should subsidize entire university costs for those who aspire to obtain tertiary qualifications. I completely disagree with this initiative.

Proponents of this reform may argue that free-of-charge higher education can level the playing field for all students irrespective of their financial backgrounds. This is based on the assumption that the open access to tertiary education offers students an equal opportunity to obtain a degree, which can render themselves more employable. Nevertheless, this proposal is not sound since the oversaturation of bachelor’s degrees will lessen the value of a university degree. This scheme, in fact, causes increased competition in the graduate job market, challenging bachelor’s degree holders to seek employment against an overwhelming number of other graduated candidates.

There are firm unfavorable arguments on both societal and personal levels for my opposition against this reformation. In developing countries, offering four-year financial aid packages can be a massive undertaking for many governments. Indeed, in places where impoverishment reigns supreme, it is more imperative that the state coffers are diverted to address more pressing social problems rather than sponsoring higher education. On a personal level, many students who receive full financial assistance for their university studies are likely to suffer from academic setbacks. With free university access, undergraduates may experience a lack of motivation whenever facing difficulties in their studies. For instance, the rate of chronic absenteeism would rise since there would be no financial loss when they fail a course or even drop out of university.

In conclusion, abolishing college tuition fees is not only infeasible to do for underdeveloped nations but also crippling for university students’ academic performance and future employability. I, therefore, strongly contend that university programs should not be free for all students.

Sample 7:

The debate on whether to exempt the expenses for pursuing higher education has been a dilemma among people for a long time. Although many academic institutions are known to provide financial support to meritorious candidates, it is a known fact that pursuing education beyond the school level is an expensive venture. I believe that even though cost-free university education might be a blessing for many, in a broader sense, it will prove to be disadvantageous for both the students and the government. I will elaborate on my views in the following paragraphs.

As we know, the number of aspirants who wish to study further in their field of interest has been skyrocketing lately. That being said, the expenditure on education has also been rising rapidly with better study material, improved classroom technology, and more. Thus, the responsibility of bearing these expenses for every student will put immense strain on government resources that are already meagre.

At the same time, the quality of the academic facilities and services that can be provided with the help of such limited finances is also questionable. Subsequently, a person with qualifications and training from an upmarket private institution will have better prospects than a person who hails from a government-financed institute where the level of schooling is mediocre at best.

However, there is indeed an umpteen number of individuals who have to sacrifice their dreams due to being underprivileged. For these people, the aid regarding their college fees will be a boon. But it is important to understand that not every applicant hails from a financially weak background and requires assistance. Thus, indiscriminate spending on every student is not the most prudent decision as other more crucial areas require monetary support from the government.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that although the idea of costless university courses sounds noble and can be a life-changing opportunity for many, there are many drawbacks to this notion and will prove to be unfavourable in the long run.

Sample 8:

Although the argument about high-level education tuition cost comes in various shapes and forms, one of the most heated debates yet must be whether or not a country’s administration should take full responsibility for these bills. While I believe that the authorities’ investment in students will be profitable, free university education is too excessive and has a high chance of backfiring.

On the one hand, some people argue that the lack of bills for students to pay would be beneficial for society. Because higher education is a public good that ensures a greater quality of the workforce, by making it accessible for everyone regardless of background or income, the government would be able to create a more diverse and inclusive society, where anyone can pursue their talents and interests equally. Moreover, by investing in human capital, the government would enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the workforce, which would generate more tax revenue and reduce social costs in the long run.

On the other hand, it would be unrealistic and inefficient for the government to pay everyone’s tuition fees. Through percentages solely in Vietnam, we can see that one-fifth of the population is at the age to go to university, which means that the funds needed to provide for them all would be immense. Furthermore, by spending more on higher education, the government would have less money to spend on other public services, such as health care, infrastructure, and social welfare, which may have a greater impact on the well-being of society. In addition, people tend to take free things for granted. When students do not have to pay a large sum for a course, there will not be economic consequences for failing, therefore making it highly possible that they will not put their all into the learning process. Thus, this situation creates a paradox where the more the government covers tuition fees, the worse the academic output becomes.

In conclusion, though the notion of free university education is noble, it is not entirely applicable in society. The government should find a balance point, which is to support students where they can through scholarships and policies, and at the same time allow the payment process to proceed naturally as it should.

Sample 9:

It is believed by some that the government should pay for the course fees for all of them who want to achieve a university degree. While I believe that the government should pay for a university degree, I also think that the government should pay half the fees needed. There are many reasons why the government should pay the course fees for students.

Firstly, it benefits the nation. If the government pays fees, individuals from poor families will be able to obtain a university degree. Secondly, it helps to develop various sectors like health, education, transportation, technology, etc. To cite an example, students have enough education then they find new equipment, they improve machinery, they make digital transportation systems. Furthermore, people get an education and then decrease poverty. Sometimes people do have not enough money to get an education at the university. So, the government should help them by giving them course fees. Last but not least, students who do higher studies in a particular field get a chance to study abroad. It helps them to make a career, and they support their family.

However, I believe that some students do not get an education properly and it is a waste of money. While the government pays half fees, they have to manage half fees by themselves and value the significance of money. If the government pays study fees, competition will become increase. To quote an example, more people like to study abroad nowadays but the competition level is very tough compared to the past.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that although paying study fees for everyone by the government is acceptable, the government should pay half amount of the fees.