Free tertiary education has always spark heated debates all over the world. I, personally, completely disagree that higher education cost should be borne by students because that would prevent the waste of talent resource and also it is a form investment for the government in the long run.
When higher education comes with a cost, it creates an inefficient allocation of the human resource. This is because when there is a financial constraint, some students from the less privileged background are forced to choose the courses that either is not too costly or have good employability prospects and not necessarily courses that the students want most or are best at. As a result, for example, instead of being an excellent artist, the student can only be a mediocre accountant because he cannot utilise all his potential in his chosen field, causing a waste of talent; free higher education can prevent this problem.
The second reason why tertiary education should be free is because if the government chooses not to spend money on free education, they will see rising expenditures in other areas. For example, a less educated workforce bears a higher risk of unemployment in the economic downturn, and thus the government’s coffers for unemployment aid would need to increase. Furthermore, unskilled labour earns much less than college-educated people do, and thus they contribute less income tax i. e. less revenue for the government. Not to mention, the highly skilled population is essential to any country’s economic growth in the long run.
In conclusion, because free education allows students to learn what they enjoy most and are best at, it can ensure better allocation of the human resource. Furthermore, free education can reduce unemployment cost in the economic downturn, increase government’s tax revenue, and increase economic growth in the long run. Thus, I completely disagree that students should pay for their higher education.
Free
tertiary
education
has always
spark
heated debates all over the world. I,
personally
, completely disagree that higher
education
cost should
be borne
by
students
because
that would
prevent
the waste of talent resource and
also
it is a form investment for the
government
in the long run.
When higher
education
comes
with a cost, it creates an inefficient allocation of the human resource. This is
because
when there is a financial constraint,
some
students
from the
less
privileged background
are forced
to choose the courses that either is not too costly or have
good
employability prospects and not
necessarily
courses that the
students
want most or are best at.
As a result
,
for example
,
instead
of being an excellent artist, the
student
can
only
be a mediocre accountant
because
he cannot
utilise
all his potential in his chosen field, causing a waste of talent;
free
higher
education
can
prevent
this problem.
The second reason why tertiary
education
should be
free
is
because
if the
government
chooses not to spend money on
free
education
, they will
see
rising expenditures in other areas.
For example
, a
less
educated workforce bears a higher
risk
of unemployment in the
economic
downturn, and
thus
the
government’s
coffers for unemployment aid would need to increase.
Furthermore
, unskilled
labour
earns much
less
than college-educated
people
do, and
thus
they contribute
less
income tax
i. e.
less
revenue for the
government
. Not to mention, the
highly
skilled population is essential to any country’s
economic
growth in the long run.
In conclusion
,
because
free
education
allows
students
to learn what they enjoy most and are best at, it can ensure better allocation of the human resource.
Furthermore
,
free
education
can
reduce
unemployment cost in the
economic
downturn, increase
government’s
tax revenue, and increase
economic
growth in the long run.
Thus
, I completely disagree that
students
should pay for their higher
education
.