Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Governments Should Offer A Free University Education - With A Free Essay Review.
Prompt: Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. Implementing this policy will have both positive and negative consequence. It will help the poor students to get quality education but on the other hand it will be imposing burden on the Government, which already has more expenses to face. So, the government can allot some free seats which can be claimed by meritorious students who cannot afford the tuition fees. When the number of students is more, the government cannot support. In those cases, the government can set up some organisation through which people, who are willing to donate for education and who are in need of tuition fees can come into contact. So I would agree partially to the prompt that Government should offer free university education to the eligible but poor students. But when it becomes a burden, Government can only encourage affluent and humanitarian people to help the students.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. – Nelson Mandela
Such a powerful weapon should not be denied to any person since he is poor. Any student once he has got admission in a university shows that he actually possesses the capability. So if such a student cannot take up the course only because he cannot afford the tuition fees then, the institution is losing a good student and the society is losing a great asset. Think of a situation where only wealthy people can study at universities. How will all the deserving but poor students study? There are adverse effects in that situation. On one hand, the student is prevented to advance in his career and on the other if most of the bright students get secluded from universities on this basis, then the society would suffer hunting for intelligent minds.
So providing free education for those students is necessary but the government cannot afford free education for all those students. If it does so then the government cannot meet its other expenses; free education will become a major part of the expense. Then it will turn into a burden. Instead, the government can take few measures which would help those eligible students. Government can allot certain number of seats in each college for qualified but poor students or can introduce new measures for reducing the tuition fees. Government can set up some organizations which actually serve as a bridge between those who are willing to support the education of the poor people and those young aspirants who are in need of help. Apart from setting up its own organization, the government can also encourage more people to help and more private organizations to come up for this motive.
Another great measure in this field is managing the budget surplus. For example, the Australian Government Future Fund is a fund in which Australian Government deposits its budget surplus. Though the main purpose of this is to meet the future liabilities a sum is appropriated for health and education. Education Investment Fund works under this. This fund provides capital investment in higher education. So managing the surplus would be an intelligent measure to provide financial support to students.
So I would like to conclude that the government cannot afford granting totally free university education to all poor students. But, it can take few measures that would help those students to study in the universities because society needs loads of talented educated people.
The introduction is too long, especially so given the fact that much of what you say there is repeated later in the essay. You won't get extra points for saying something twice, and you will be wasting time.
The paragraph that contributes most to elucidation of your argument is the second paragraph, in which you explain ethical and pragmatic reasons for wanting to fund every poor qualified student. The ethical argument is only implicit, however. Presumably you mean to say that it is simply unfair that someone should lose out on an education because of poverty. You ought to make that argument explicit. The pragmatic argument has two parts. The first part is that without funding poor students, society will lose out on an important asset. That's a reasonable and clear enough argument (one could always elaborate, of course, and one could also relate it to the question of government budgets you later raise). The second part of the pragmatic argument, the conclusion of the paragraph, about "hunting for intelligent minds" is vague, but presumably just a repetition of the first argument (losing an important asset). Elaboration is better than repetition!
In several of your essays, you've shown a stronger tendency to try to solve the implicit problem rather than analyse the actual merits of the claim in the prompt. In your next paragraphs here you go about solving the problem of how to educate the poor once the government has done its bit. Generally speaking, it would be better to focus on the argument. In this case, for example, it would be better to argue that the government should directly fund poor students (for reasons you specify), but it should also explore other ways of helping students because doing so would allow it to avoid the funding of education becoming an excessive burden. This is implicitly what you are arguing. Again, you should try to make every argument explicit. Note also that you don't need to claim that "the government cannot afford free education for all." The truth of that claim obviously would depend on the particular government. You can simply say "If the government cannot afford free education for all qualified students without sacrificing other important programs, then it ought to explore other ways etc."