Some people agree that the government should pay to primary education, while others say that the government should pay also for secondary and university level education.Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

With the increasing fierce competition, whether the government should provide funds to students in primary school or university has become a widely debated topic.

Educationists claim that university students are of utmost importance to the growth of a country. For one thing, in early development of China, talents were sponsored by the central government for studying renowned universities overseas such as Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge University. They thus brought modern technology from western countries to their motherland. Moreover, graduates from college could make use of their knowledge to illuminate the students by teaching at schools. Therefore, the country can further be developed from one generation to the next generation.

Despite the immense benefits that can be generated from sponsoring college students, primary education still plays an indispensable role as it is the preliminary condition. Without the funding from the government, the unfortunate children could never have an opportunity to enter university just because their parents do not own enough money for them to study during their formative years. Economically speaking, an low average education level will put the society in jeopardy as the people are not own the ability which are supposed to be nurture in primary school that makes them fail to meet the requirements of jobs. Overall, the economy will suffer a low productivity.

As an old saying which goes, "Adolescents are the leaders of future." However, if the government solely focus on tertiary education but do not pay for students in primary schools, it would only become an unrealistic will to bring prosperity to the society by saying so.