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 To Any Student Who Has Been Admitted To A University But Who Cannot Afford The Tuition - 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."
The policy of free university education to any student sounds nice where every deserving student has a chance to get quality education. However, this idea is not error free and is fraught with holes and assumptions which might not hold true in the practical world. No doubt every student should be provided with equal opportunities of education but this seems to be an idealistic approach when compared with the reality. It is like running a whole country where everything is free of cost. However, the reality is very different as every organization needs a continuous funding to meet its expenses. Therefore, providing free education to every deserving student seems to be a difficult task.
First of all, quality education demands a quality faculty and infrastructure. A good university always is known for its good faculty and the overall environment it offers. These requirements will eventually result in escalating expenses which are eventually dependent on tuition fee. Almost all the universities in the world follow the same structure for running its operations smoothly. Additionally, different organizations and government also provide support in the form of many incentives. So if every deserving student get a free education it will be impossible for a university to meet its expenses. The inability of the university to meet its costs will result in the compromise on the quality of the education.
Secondly, there must be structure to support the deserving students but only once they have met the minimum requirements. The structures are already in place throughout the world. For example, the World Bank offers scholarships in Harvard University to students who met a certain criteria. The idea here is support the students but they do not offer this to everyone. This is justified in the light of the competition i.e. every student has to go through a certain procedure to get it. Providing everyone with scholarship is not just unfair but it does not make any sense.
A quality education, home and food are the basic requirements of every human being but they need to work hard to earn them. The life is not fair to any one and every needs to be in the competition for their survival. Survival of the fittest may seem to be a harsh statement but it is eventually a reality. Hence, there should be a structure to identify the brightest and deserving students and every effort should be made to help them once they meet the minimum requirements.
I don't think your first argument is very compelling. It assumes an unlikely way of implementing the policy: forcing universities to offer free education to admitted students who cannot afford the tuition. That's a possible scenario, but it is not, as your essay seems to assume, the only scenario (typically, in countries where poor students are given free education, it is the government, not the universities, that cover the cost).
The second argument is also problematic. You say that "providing everyone with a scholarship is not just unfair but it does not make any sense." There are a few problems here. First, you don't justify the claim that providing everyone with a scholarship is unfair. In fact, you go on to justify your position against the policy by citing the fact that life is unfair, apparently suggesting that the policy, in making life more fair, would be interfering with the natural order of things (a rather bizarre argument in itself). Second, you do not justify the claim that the policy "does not make any sense," which is in any case a much too vague criticism. Third, the policy does not propose "providing everyone with a scholarship" but rather only those who have been admitted (which means they will have gone through some kind of selection process, which you suggest is needed) and who cannot afford tuition. Fourth, you are not focussing on what you need to focus on here. The prompt is asking you to think about the consequences of implementing the policy. Your second argument doesn't really do that.
Finally, the essay as a whole is one-sided. You focus only on what you think are the negative aspects of the policy. You do claim "every student should [ideally, if not in reality] be provided with equal opportunities of education" but you don't explain why you think that. And you don't consider any of the possible positive consequences of introducing the policy, which I think you ought to do in order to create an argument with a little more nuance.