Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition

The author contends that governments should offer students who cannot afford the tuition and has been admitted to a university. From my perspective, the government does need to find ways to help those students to go to university, but free education is not an ideal proposal. On the contrary, the government should cooperate with universities to provide suitable off- or on-campus work, based on those students' financial conditions, so that their income can cover their tuition and even partly living expenses.

First, think about the enormous ungraduated students' loan; if this policy comes true, the vast money may transform into the government's financial pressure. It is reasonable that students would like to apply for free education instead of the loan to reduce their stress since they cannot afford tuition indeed. One thing we must take into consideration is that the government itself cannot make money, and all its expenditure relies on every hard-working taxpayer. There are only two ways for the government to implement this policy. One is to collect more tax, which is already very high and is onerous financial pressure for poor people. Conduct this policy would add more stress to them, making them live harder than before. Another way is to cut down other expenditures, but most government revenue is necessary for the country to run smoothly, such as medical coverage and infrastructure investment. If money on theses filed declines, it would render more potential adverse effects.

Moreover, this statement's advocate may assert that students who cannot afford the tuition must cherish the precious opportunity to get a free college education. On the contrary, people are more likely to value what they make efforts to acquire, whatever they spend money or time compared to the free stuff. If we offer free education, the chances are that students may not take lessons and homework seriously, which may lead to a low GPA, a disadvantage for them to find a job in the future. Nevertheless, what if we let students make efforts to earn the tuition and their living expenses; what if the government cooperates with universities to offer enough suitable job positions for students related to their majors and covers their expenditures? Students who earn their tuition by themselves would be motivated to study more demanding because they know what they have paid for this hard-won opportunity exactly.

Admittedly, offering free education for those who cannot afford it can attract more students to university. Although students can apply for a loan in the past, there is no guarantee that everyone could get the lion, since some students are too poor to squeeze into the loan candidate list. However, it does not mean that subsidizing in terms of work has little attraction to those students. In contrast, self-dependent students, who are willing to changing their life by their efforts, would be more likely to get further education in this way. Additionally, equipped with such a strong will, those students are more likely to achieve their success and contribute to society in the future.

In conclusion, providing free education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford it seems an acceptable policy. However, offering them a suitable job to earn tuition may be a better solution since it does not increase the government's financial pressure, and motivated self-dependent students to study harder.