Should university education be free?

It is often argued that governments should pay for the studies of every university student. I agree with this view to a large extent, although I believe that free education should come with some conditions.

The main reason for supporting free university education is fairness. If tuition fees are high, talented students from poor families may never apply, or they may leave university with large debts. This wastes ability that a country needs. In several European countries where university study is free or very cheap, students from a wide range of backgrounds are able to attend, and the whole economy benefits from having more skilled graduates such as doctors, engineers and teachers.

A second argument is that education brings advantages to society as a whole, not only to the individual. Graduates usually earn more, and so they pay more tax throughout their careers. In this way, the money that a government spends on their studies is repaid over time.

However, there are limits to this argument. Providing free places for everyone is expensive, and a government that cannot afford it may have to reduce quality or the number of places. For that reason, I think free education should be linked to results, so that students who fail repeatedly may be asked to contribute. Support for living costs should also be targeted at those who need it most.

In conclusion, I agree that university education should be free because it is fair and it benefits society, but I believe that governments should set conditions to make sure that public money is used well.

Why it works

• The position is stated in the introduction and repeated in the conclusion.
• Each body paragraph has one main idea, a reason and an example.
• The writer acknowledges the opposite side and still keeps a clear view, which is typical of a high band answer.