Some people believe that university students should pay all the cost of studies because university education only benefits students themselves, not the society as a whole. To what extent do you agree to disagree?

Sample 1:

The proportion of university students has been rising in almost every country. Many people insist that the educational expense should be borne by students themselves, since they are studying for their own sake not for the community. However, I firmly believe that tertiary education benefits individuals as well as the society as a whole, and a certain proportion of state-sponsored fees should be offered to students.

Evidently, the society reaps benefits from higher education, although the students seem to be the direct beneficiary. University study nurtures the skills of students who would eventually enter the job market, trying to make personal achievement and serving the community at the same time. For example, a medical student would work in health sector, saving thousands of people’s lives; a normal university student would possibly become a teacher, cultivating future generations. In short, higher education fosters talented professionals who can bring prosperity to the nation.

If the cost of higher education is to be paid solely by the students, then there would be many young adults losing out on essential education. Students from financially disadvantaged families would be unable to pay full tuition fees as it is usually expensive, which means they are deprived of the opportunities to go to a university. In the long run, the disparities in the society would become widened, meaning that social stability would suffer from this.

It is also evident that societies that have state sponsored education are more successful than those that do not. Countries that have government allowance or free education for their students have outperformed those that compel students to pay exorbitant fees. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are a few examples of successful and happy societies where students get state sponsored education.

To conclude, the benefits of higher education are enjoyed by the society as well as individuals as all students ultimately contribute to the society. Therefore, the costs of their education should not be borne by themselves only, and government subsidies would be necessary in this respect.

Sample 2:

I disagree with the notion that university students should be solely responsible for paying the full cost of their education since the benefits of higher education are not only enjoyed by the student. Although investing in an education may be beneficial to the individual, society as a whole also stands to benefit from a well-educated population. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the collective responsibility to ensure access to higher education. 

The first argument in favor of shared responsibility for paying the cost of education is that a well-educated population is beneficial to society. Highly educated individuals are more likely to contribute to the economy through their knowledge, creativity, and innovation, which can lead to economic growth, higher wages, and improved standards of living. Furthermore, an educated population is better prepared to tackle complex social issues such as poverty, health care, and environmental sustainability. Consequently, investing in higher education should not be viewed as a private expense, but rather a collective investment in society. 

Another argument in favour of shared responsibility for the cost of education is that access to higher education should be a right, not a privilege. Higher education should not be limited to those who can afford it. Rather, it should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial situation. As such, it is important to ensure that individuals are not deterred from pursuing a university education due to financial concerns. This can be accomplished through various measures such as scholarships, grants, and government subsidies. 

Although it is true that the benefits of higher education accrue mainly to the individual, it is also important to recognize the collective benefits and acknowledge the shared responsibility to ensure access to higher education. By investing in higher education, society stands to benefit from a well-educated population, and access to a university education should be a right, not a privilege. Therefore, university students should not be solely responsible for paying the full cost of their education.

Sample 3:

I do not agree that university students should be responsible for paying the full cost of their education. It is true that higher education benefits the student directly, but there are many indirect benefits that accrue to society as well. Therefore, university students should not be solely responsible for the cost of their education. 

Higher education is an important investment in the future of an individual and of society as a whole. It gives the individual the opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills that will give them a competitive advantage in the job market, allowing them to earn higher wages. This, in turn, contributes to the overall economic health of society. Higher education also gives individuals the opportunity to develop their leadership skills and contribute to the betterment of their communities.

Furthermore, higher education is important for society in terms of innovation and research. Universities are often the source of ground-breaking research that can lead to advances in technology and medicine. This research is often funded by the public, and therefore, the public deserves to reap the benefits of this investment. 

In order to ensure access to higher education and to ensure that the public benefits from this investment, university fees should not be the sole responsibility of the student. Governments should provide financial aid to students who cannot afford the cost of higher education, and universities should consider creative ways to reduce tuition fees. For example, universities can seek out private donors or look for additional sources of funding. Additionally, universities can provide more scholarships and grants to students from low-income backgrounds. 

In conclusion, it is not fair to expect university students to shoulder the full cost of their education. Higher education is an important investment in the future of both the individual and society as a whole, and as such, governments and universities should seek out ways to reduce the cost of higher education.

Sample 4:

The question of whether university students should be responsible for the full cost of their education is one that has been debated for many years. While it is true that the benefits of higher education accrue primarily to the student and not to society, there are other factors to consider when addressing this issue.

First, the cost of higher education has risen dramatically in recent decades, putting it out of reach for many students. This has resulted in a widening gap between the haves and have-nots in our society and has created an unequal playing field for those who lack the financial means to pursue higher education. Therefore, it is important to consider the social implications of making university students solely responsible for the full cost of their education.

Second, it is often the case that university students are not in a position to fully absorb the costs of their education. This is especially true for lower-income students who may not have access to the same financial resources as their more affluent peers. Therefore, it is important for society to provide assistance to these students in order to ensure that they have an equal chance to pursue higher education.

Third, it is important to recognize that the benefits of higher education extend beyond the individual student. Higher education can lead to improved economic outcomes for society as a whole, as graduates often contribute to the economy through their work and research. Therefore, it is important for society to invest in higher education in order to reap the benefits of a more educated population.

 In conclusion, while it is true that the benefits of higher education accrue primarily to the student and not to society, there are other factors to consider when addressing this issue. In particular, it is important to consider the social implications of making university students solely responsible for the full cost of their education, the financial limits of many students, and the potential economic benefits of investing in higher education. Therefore, while university students should take responsibility for their education, society should also provide assistance and support in order to ensure equal access to higher education.

Sample 5:

The debate on whether university students should be responsible for paying the full cost of their education is one that has been long-standing and contentious. Some argue that as the benefits of higher education only accrue to the student and not society, then they should pay the full cost. However, I disagree with this statement and argue that higher education should be accessible to all, regardless of their financial means, as the benefits of higher education do not only accrue to the individual, but to society as well.

Firstly, there are many benefits to society beyond the individual when investing in higher education. It has been found that higher education is correlated with increased economic growth, with university graduates having higher wages and being more productive members of society. Additionally, higher education can lead to increased innovation and investment in research and development, as well as improved social capital and civic engagement. Therefore, it is clear that higher education is not only beneficial to the individual, but to society as a whole.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize the importance of access to higher education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. University fees can be a significant barrier to entry for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds and can prevent them from accessing higher education, despite the potential benefits to their own life and to society. It is therefore important to ensure that university education is accessible to all, regardless of their financial means.

In conclusion, while there are benefits to higher education that accrue to the individual, there are also significant benefits to society as a whole. Therefore, I disagree with the statement that university students should be responsible for paying the full cost of their education, as this could lead to a lack of access to university education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and society as a whole would suffer as a result.

Sample 6:

The debate around whether university students should be responsible for paying the full cost of their education has been ongoing for many years. There are those who argue that since the benefits of higher education only accrue to the student and not society, they should bear the entire cost. On the other hand, there are those who believe that society has a responsibility to support its citizens in their pursuit of higher education since it can bring significant economic, social, and cultural benefits. After weighing the arguments on both sides, I believe that university students should not be solely responsible for covering the full cost of their education.

Firstly, it is important to recognize that the economic benefits of higher education often extend beyond the student to society. For instance, it has been established that higher education can lead to higher wages for graduates, leading to greater economic output for the nation. Moreover, research has also shown that people who hold a degree are more likely to be employed, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy. As such, it is not fair to expect university students to bear the brunt of the financial burden for something that will benefit society in the long run.

Additionally, the cost of higher education has been steadily rising, making it increasingly difficult for students from low-income families to pursue a university degree. If university students are expected to pay the full cost of their education, it may lead to a situation where only those from privileged backgrounds can afford to attend college. This would mean that opportunities for social and economic mobility would be greatly limited, since only a select few would be able to access higher education.

Finally, it is also important to consider the fact that universities are often funded by the government, either directly or indirectly. This means that the taxpayers’ money is already contributing to the cost of higher education, and it would be unfair to expect the students to bear the entire burden. Furthermore, many universities also offer scholarships, grants, and other forms of financial aid to students from low-income families, so it can be argued that the government is already doing its part to make higher education more accessible.

In conclusion, it is clear that university students should not be solely responsible for paying the full cost of their education. It is important to recognize that higher education has numerous benefits for society, and that the cost of university has been steadily rising. Moreover, taxpayers’ money is already contributing to the cost of higher education, and universities offer financial aid to those from lower-income families. For all of these reasons, it is only fair to expect the government and universities to do their part in helping university students with the cost of their education.

Sample 7:

The debate over whether university students should be responsible for the full cost of their education is a complex one. On the one hand, it is argued that the benefits of higher education are enjoyed only by the individual student and not society; thus, these costs should be fully borne by the student. On the other hand, some argue that higher education is a public good that should be supported and funded by society in order to ensure its availability to all, regardless of their financial means.

It is true that the individual student is the primary beneficiary of higher education. Upon completion of a university degree, the student is likely to have a higher earning potential, expanded career opportunities, and the ability to make more informed decisions about their future. Furthermore, it can be argued that the cost of higher education should be seen as an investment rather than an expense, as the benefits of a university degree can last a lifetime. Given this, it could be argued that university students should be responsible for paying the full cost of their education.

However, it is also important to consider the wider societal benefits that result from higher education. By investing in higher education, society can stimulate economic growth, increase social mobility, and develop a more educated and productive workforce. Furthermore, universities are important institutions for research and development, which have the potential to benefit society in countless ways. For these reasons, it could be argued that higher education should not be seen as solely a personal investment, but rather as a public good that should be supported and funded by society.

In conclusion, it is evident that both sides of the argument have merit. While it is true that the individual student is the primary beneficiary of higher education, it is also important to consider the wider societal benefits that result from investment in higher education. For these reasons, it can be argued that university students should not be responsible for the full cost of their education, but rather that society should also contribute to its funding.

Sample 8:

The debate over who should pay for university education is a contentious one, with many people arguing that students should be responsible for the full cost of their education due to the benefits of higher education only accruing to the student and not society. While there is some merit to this argument, I do not agree that students should bear the full cost of their education.

One of the main arguments in favor of students being responsible for the full cost of their education is that the benefits of higher education only accrue to the student and not society. It is true that university education can provide students with the skills and knowledge necessary to secure higher paying jobs and thus improve their own financial circumstances. However, it is also true that society as a whole benefits from a more educated population, as it can lead to a more productive workforce, new innovations, and increased tax revenue. Therefore, it would be unfair to place the full burden of university education on students when society also benefits from it.

Another argument in favor of students paying the full cost of their education is that university education can be expensive and can put a strain on the resources of government and taxpayers. While this is true, it is important to consider the alternatives to having students pay the full cost of their education. For example, governments could provide higher education subsidies or grants to students, or universities could offer merit-based scholarships to help students pay for their tuition. This could help alleviate the burden on taxpayers, while still allowing students to pursue higher education.

In conclusion, while there is some merit to the argument that students should pay for the full cost of their education due to the benefits of higher education only accruing to the student and not society, I do not agree with this assessment. Having students bear the full burden of university education is unfair when society also benefits from it. Furthermore, there are alternative solutions that could help reduce the financial burden on students, such as government subsidies and merit-based scholarships.

Sample 9:

It is believed by some individuals that students acquire degrees for their own profit, therefore they should be solely responsible for paying their education fees, not the whole society. Although I agree that students’ academic expenses should be borne by students themselves, there are some situations when they must be supported by communities or governments.

To begin, there are several arguments why higher education fees should be paid fully by students themselves. The first and foremost argument is that after getting higher education, only candidate gets a better career in that particular field and earn salary. Therefore, education is acquired for personal betterment, and earning is not shared with other people. Hence, society should not be responsible for paying tuition fees of university learners. Another logic behind this notion is that all have their own responsibilities in their life, and it will be extra burden for individuals to pay tuition fees of all students. Last but not least, there are many individuals who are rich enough to afford their education expenses, therefore there is no need to put this additional pressure on other people of society.

On the other hand, there are some reasons why students really need financial help from community during their higher education. Firstly, there are many students who have keen interest in learning and want to pursue their university studies. But unfortunately, their financial situation does not allow them to do so. In this case, for humanity, tuition fees of such students should be shared by society. Secondly, there are some jobs which serve the people around them for their whole life, such as doctors, teachers, and soldiers. Therefore, for candidates who choose these fields, and they are not able to pay their fees, it would be worthwhile if society shares their academic expenses.

In abridgement, I agree that some students should pay their university fees by their own, because they get higher education for own profit, also many are capable for this, and it would be extra burden on society to contribute to others’ fees. Nevertheless, some who are deprived of education due to poor financial conditions, and who join service jobs, such as army, education, and medical field, they must be helped by society.

Sample 10:

Many people claim that college graduates should be responsible for covering their own educational costs. They contend that an individual gains more from attending university than does the community or the country. However, I truly feel that it benefits both people and society, so universities should keep awarding scholarships to deserving applicants rather than to everyone.

First, some narrow-minded people claim that this tendency exclusively benefits students. In actuality, it benefits both society and people individually. Assume, for instance, that a medical school offers a scholarship to a deserving applicant. After graduating, he or she will be a highly qualified doctor or health professional with the ability to save the lives of thousands of people and contribute to society. The same is true for any other occupation, including those of an engineer, educator, or researcher. Universities should develop the capabilities of deserving students who are eager to work hard and succeed, developing skilled professionals who can execute their jobs well and benefit the country.

Additionally, education must never be turned into a business. A significant amount of the budgetary allocations of many governments around the world have been set aside for education. Regardless of their economic status, a candidate should be given the chance to pursue higher education if they are motivated and deserving. That will enable people to land their dream jobs while having poor financial circumstances. On the other hand, if colleges charge a price for each entry, many intelligent individuals from disadvantaged families will be denied opportunities. Additionally, university graduate programmes can only produce talented professionals if the applicants are enthusiastic and driven. If they just apportion seats based on fees, the course will have a mixture of worthy and unworthy students, limiting the opportunity for other possible candidates.

In closing, I once again stress the need for institutions to continue to offer deserving students free education. This will produce highly competent professionals who can help others and enhance our quality of life.

Sample 11:

It is believed that students have to cover all expenses for their education as university courses bring about advantages to the students rather than benefiting society as a whole. I disagree with this view for the following reasons.

Firstly, when student financial aid is provided, more people will have access to tertiary education. As a result, they will have a better chance of securing a job, leading to a lower unemployment rate. This will undoubtedly go some way towards reducing crime as the root cause of crime is a lack of employment and job opportunities. Statistics show that in most cities, the higher the college enrollment rate is, the lower the crime rates are, which is a testament to the positive impact of tuition fee subsidies on making society safer.

Secondly. if the financial burden that undergraduates have to shoulder is eased, they can divert more effort and time to social and community projects that universities are frequently associated with. Such projects have been contributing greatly to helping the underprivileged. For instance, most universities in Vietnam have voluntary clubs to help impoverished families in disaster-prone areas repair and renovate their houses. If grants, bursaries and scholarships were to be dispensed with, students would most likely spend their free time working part-time to cover college costs, rather than partaking in such activities to give back to the society.

To conclude, providing public subsidies for tertiary education studies does not only do students themselves a service but also the public thanks to the decline in criminal activities and increase in students' participation in voluntary work.

Sample 12:

The debate over whether students should bear the full cost of their university education hinges on who benefits more - individuals or society. Although individuals gain substantial personal advantages such as increased earning potential and better career opportunities, it is crucial to acknowledge the extensive societal benefits of an educated populace.

Those who argue that students should finance their education contend that since the primary beneficiaries are the students, it is fair for them to cover the costs. This perspective is rooted in the belief that personal financial investment in education leads to greater responsibility and commitment. For instance, students who fund their education may be more motivated to excel, understanding the financial stakes involved. Furthermore, this approach can relieve the financial burden on governments, allowing public funds to be redirected to other essential services such as healthcare and infrastructure. However, this viewpoint fails to consider the long-term societal benefits of a well-educated workforce, which drives innovation, economic growth, and social stability.

Conversely, I believe that society as a whole significantly benefits from an educated populace, justifying state subsidies for higher education. Government investment in education can develop a skilled workforce capable of addressing complex challenges and fostering progress in various sectors. In Vietnam, for example, government-supported education has led to advancements in technology and medicine, benefiting not only the individuals involved but also the broader community. Additionally, an educated population is better equipped to engage in democratic processes, contributing to a more informed and active citizenry. If students were required to pay the full cost of their education, many talented individuals from lower-income backgrounds might be deterred from pursuing higher education, resulting in a loss of potential and perpetuating social inequality.

In conclusion, while individuals undoubtedly gain personal benefits from a university education, the broader societal advantages are substantial. Education promotes innovation, economic development, and social cohesion, making it a worthy investment for governments. Therefore, it is reasonable for the state to bear part of the financial responsibility to ensure that higher education remains accessible to all, regardless of economic background.

Sample 13:

Somebody asserts that pupils are supposed to spend money on tuition themselves as higher education brings more advantages for individuals personally rather than socially. However, it is my belief that government should be in charge of education fees for students for the postive impacts on both pupils and community.

That students pay the full cost of their university education is supposed to reduce the learning opportunities of students, especially ones have a great capacity but financial burden. If these students are sponsored by the government in terms of financial aids, they will be equipped with knowledge and skills which are obviously essential and pragmatic to the community. For instance, with the aim of meeting the demand of society, students being involved in fields like science, medicine and education need to be trained intensively and extensively so that the funding from the government will be spent effectively for the longterm purposes.

Another reason for government spending on education is financial situation that students may deal with when graduate. It is undeniable that some poor pupils have to do part-time jobs after school and at the weekend in order to save money for the tuition loans. Consequently, these financial pressures tend to lessen their time and efforts on class performance which is undoubtedly worse during the time.

To conclude, I am against the opinion that students should pay for the education fees themselves. The government spending on tuition will not only benefit students individually but also socially for the long-term period.