Whether or not students should pay for their degrees is a problem which polarises many. In the UK, the average university costs a stifling £9000 a year, rendering it a luxury. For many, this is an issue and students should not be made to pay for their degrees as it disadvantages those from lower income backgrounds as well as capitalised education. However, critics of this argue that this process simply equips a young person for the hardships of the real world.
Education should not be exclusive to those who can afford it. Knowledge and power go hand in hand, and university is a stepping stone of both. Access to high education should not only be to those who can afford the staggering 9000 pound price tag. This stigma means there is a higher proportion of private school students in top Russel group universities when they may not be a better student. If the government were to cover this cost, not only would it allow for a more diverse scope of people to go, but it would also benefit the economy in the long run. If the UK has a more skilled workforce, they become more productive and thus More internationally competitive, increasing economic growth. Taking the example of nurses, in which the UK has a deficit of, if we’re were to subsidise their degrees, many more individuals would choose to go to nursing school and participate in the NHS. This affirms the fact that students should not pay for their degrees, not only because it is the fair thing to do, but also because it benefits the wider economy.
However, working for everything an individual has rather than having it handed to them is essential to life, paying for people’s degrees does not help them in the future. Budgeting and debt are cornerstones of adulthood, why should university be any different? Moreover, is someone really does not want to indulge in the experiences of adulthood, there are plenty of alternatives - of the same calibre - that are readily available. One example of this are law apprenticeship schemes in magic circle firms. Here there is an equal opportunity based entirely in meritocracy, eliminating the need to pay for one’s own degree whilst simultaneously gaining money. The truth is, with so many other solutions the state should not focus on paying university degrees, and instead should perhaps allocate their resources towards enhancing the NHS or education from 4-18. Thus outlining that students should take the burden of paying for their own degrees.
In short, the subject of whether or not students should pay for their educations comes down to striking a balance between justice and individual accountability. While opponents of free education contend that funding education better equips kids for the challenges of adulthood and encourages alternative, merit-based options, proponents of free education emphasise equal opportunities and the long-term economic benefits of a trained workforce. In the end, the choice will determine the direction of higher education policy by balancing the value of accessible education for society with the concepts of independence and distribution of resources.
Written by Aurore Lebrun
Best article so far - loved this so much!
Thought Provoking and Interesting