Please give me some feebacks. Thanks so much.
Topic: Some people believe that people have the right to university education, and government should make it free no matter what their financial background. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued that people are entitled to follow tertiary education, and central authorities should fully pay all tuition fees irrespective of students' social economic status. While there is no denying the benefits, I disagree with this idea because it takes a heavy toll on individuals and society.
On the one hand, the option of waiving tuition fees has some benefits. On the individual levels, poor students can stand a chance to attend higher education. Many underprivileged students, for example, are very hardworking and intelligent, but they can ill afford tuition fees. On a social level, when young generations can be facilitated to have access to university's knowledge, the national leaders may create an educated and civilized workforce contributing to the development of a nation.
Nevertheless, I lean toward the idea that governments shouldn't cover tuition fees. Firstly, students who pursue college without fees can take it for granted and don't have the sense of responsibility for studying. As a result, they are inclined to neglect classes and may drop out of school. Secondly, enacting free college policy can put a strain on the administration. As a huge amount of money is allocated for a host of universities, it can trigger the budgets deficits in state coffers. National officials then need to cut some kinds of costs related to other essential sectors such as health care, transportation which also play a pivotal role in society. If not enough money is invested on fundamental social issues, people's living standards can't be improved.
In conclusion, while the statement of abolishing university education costs is valid to some extent, my own view is that it has more adverse effects on many sides of society.
Topic: Some people believe that people have the right to university education, and government should make it free no matter what their financial background. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is argued that people are entitled to follow tertiary education, and central authorities should fully pay all tuition fees irrespective of students' social economic status. While there is no denying the benefits, I disagree with this idea because it takes a heavy toll on individuals and society.
On the one hand, the option of waiving tuition fees has some benefits. On the individual levels, poor students can stand a chance to attend higher education. Many underprivileged students, for example, are very hardworking and intelligent, but they can ill afford tuition fees. On a social level, when young generations can be facilitated to have access to university's knowledge, the national leaders may create an educated and civilized workforce contributing to the development of a nation.
Nevertheless, I lean toward the idea that governments shouldn't cover tuition fees. Firstly, students who pursue college without fees can take it for granted and don't have the sense of responsibility for studying. As a result, they are inclined to neglect classes and may drop out of school. Secondly, enacting free college policy can put a strain on the administration. As a huge amount of money is allocated for a host of universities, it can trigger the budgets deficits in state coffers. National officials then need to cut some kinds of costs related to other essential sectors such as health care, transportation which also play a pivotal role in society. If not enough money is invested on fundamental social issues, people's living standards can't be improved.
In conclusion, while the statement of abolishing university education costs is valid to some extent, my own view is that it has more adverse effects on many sides of society.