Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take

Should education be declared a fundamental right? It means like other fundamental rights such as right to liberty, right to speech and right to information are protected by the constitution of a country by providing all means necessary free of cost to the citizen but the education which has a bearing on the future of the country and that also depends on the personal preference, does not come under such legal clauses. The prompt presents a case recommending that Government should offer free university education to all who has been admitted. In my view, I strongly disagree with this policy decision and would argue against it by stating that free education should be restricted to those who cannot afford it since others can afford it by any way if they want to get the children educated from a university. The reasons supporting my positions are presented in the following paragraphs.

First, are resources plentiful or in abundance? It means financial resources with any institution, be it Government or educational institution, are limited and scarce. Therefore, optimum utilisation of resources is obligatory on the part of Government. For instance, it may be the case where severe epidemic has occurred in a region such as Ebola and Government requires unprecedented amount of money to stem its proliferation. In such a situation, it is not recommended to invest in free education for all since members of the Government will raise questions asking the elected representatives as to who will go to universities, if none of them is alive or able to attend colleges. Further, in a country like Congo or Uganda, where people are suffering from poverty and are dying because of hunger and people have no permanent shelter, free education does not stand a chance to win merits. In these cases education may be the priority, but after attaining these basic necessities. Therefore, Government must not implement decisions pertaining to free education for all if the health and basic condition of its citizen is at nadir.

Second, Do Government promote equality? It means Government has an inherent obligation to promote and maintain equality among its people. But how do Government ensure it? Can it ensure it by implementing the policy of free education for all? It may not be the case since it is widely believed and research has also shown that God has created us and this universe with unbalanced systems and it left the unfinished task to balance it on the country’s elected representatives. If the Government goes ahead with this policy, it would limit its resources that are required by these poor people for other basic necessities such as health and sanitation and to take care of its citizen in the case of natural disaster such as hurricane or earthquake. Further, only the poor people must be supported by Government for free education since they do not have requisite resources to make the ends and if they get a degree from a college, they would lead to a path to equality in the society and they would add to the gross output of a country and eventually would be able to take care of themselves and therefore, would reduce the burden on financial coffers of the Government in the long run. Therefore, restricting the free education to only those needy would support the Government in the long run to stabilise its financial resources.

Third, Does the continuity of Government is sustainable? It means democratically elected Government is depend on the work or activities it has implemented or completed during its last tenure? And it takes shape by consisting of members from different sections of the society. Therefore, it may be the case that some members of the congress are not willing to support this idea by arguing that wealthy people has enough resources available with them to pursue education, then why not support only these impecunious people. They may also argue that these wealthy people may exploit the free education system since they enjoy existing advantage of going to better schools and therefore, would restrict or limit the path for the poor to pursue higher education given the limited number of seats in a college. Further, these members of the congress may argue that their country is facing severe economic crises or war like situation, therefore, resources should not be spend extravagantly on education, but rather on to promote industry or security. Their reason may be that only underprivileged ones need attention in such cases. Therefore, free education for all may have the potential to put the existence of Government in doubt.

Of course, some would argue that, free education for all may bring in prosperity and may have the potential to make it more competitive since all, be it rich or poor, would be competing for same number of seats. However, the proponents of this idea must consider that this is maintainable only in advanced economies like USA and UK where basic necessities are taking care of by the Government. But they also must realise that more than 150 countries in the world are those that are not having full three time meals and access to health and place to retreat for its citizens. In these countries free education for all is seldom a priority. Therefore, Government must provide free education only for those underprivileged ones in order to have equality, better utilisation of resources and taking care of unforeseen events and disasters.