Band 6.5
In today's world, education is very important for everyone. Some people think university should be free for all students. I agree with this idea to some extent, but I also think there are some problems.
Firstly, if university is free, more people can go to university. Many good students cannot study because their family is poor. This is not fair. Education should be for everyone, not only rich people. Also, when more people have degrees, the country will have more doctors, teachers and engineers, and this is good for the economy.
On the other hand, free university costs a lot of money. The government must pay for teachers, buildings and books. This money comes from taxes, so people must pay more tax. Some students also may not study hard because they do not pay anything.
In conclusion, I think university education should be free because it gives chances to poor students, but the government should be careful about the cost. Maybe students can pay a small fee.
Band 7.5
Whether the state should fund university education for everyone is a question that goes to the heart of what a society owes its citizens. On balance, I believe tuition should be abolished, provided that places are allocated on merit rather than on demand alone.
The strongest argument for free tuition is equality of opportunity. At present, able students from low-income families routinely turn down university places, or graduate with debts that shape their choices for a decade. Neither outcome has anything to do with talent. A system in which access depends on parental income wastes ability on a national scale, and it entrenches the very inequalities education is supposed to dissolve. The benefits are not only private: countries with a highly qualified workforce adapt faster to economic change, and graduates repay the investment many times over through higher lifetime taxes.
Critics rightly point out that "free" education is not costless; it is paid for through general taxation, including by people who never attend university. There is also a risk that removing fees devalues the degree in students' eyes. These concerns, however, argue for careful design rather than for fees. Entry can remain competitive, so places go to those most likely to complete; and a graduate contribution, collected only once earnings pass a threshold, preserves a sense of personal stake without deterring the poor.
In conclusion, the fairest and most productive arrangement is free tuition at the point of use, funded progressively and rationed by ability. A society that charges for talent development ends up paying more, in lost potential, than it saves.
