IELTS Writing Task 2 namuna: Fikr bildirish — oliy ta'lim bepul bo'lishi kerakmi

It is sometimes argued that higher education should be funded entirely by the state, while others maintain that the individuals who benefit from a degree ought to bear its full cost. In my view, although a completely free system is financially unrealistic, tuition should be heavily subsidised so that ability, rather than family income, determines who studies.

The strongest argument for state funding concerns social mobility. When students are required to pay substantial fees, talented young people from low-income households are effectively priced out of the professions, and society loses the doctors, engineers and researchers they might have become. In several European countries, most notably Germany, the abolition of tuition fees has been accompanied by a marked increase in the proportion of university entrants whose parents did not attend university, which suggests that cost is a genuine barrier rather than merely an inconvenience.

There is also a compelling economic case. Graduates typically earn considerably more than non-graduates and consequently pay significantly higher taxes over the course of their working lives, so public investment in their education is eventually recovered by the treasury. A country that educates its population also attracts industries requiring skilled labour, generating employment far beyond the graduates themselves.

Those who favour full fees, however, correctly point out that universal free provision is extremely expensive and may force governments to reduce spending on healthcare or schools. This concern is best addressed not by charging everyone, but by adopting income-contingent repayment, whereby graduates contribute only once their earnings exceed a defined threshold.

In conclusion, while I do not believe universities can realistically be entirely free, fees should be subsidised and repayment linked to income, ensuring that no capable student is deterred by cost.