IELTS Writing Task 2: Education — Discuss Both Views Sample Answer

Who should bear the cost of university education is a question with significant implications for social mobility, public finances, and the perceived purpose of higher learning. Both the full-cost and state-funded models have principled advocates.

Proponents of full student-funded education argue that graduates capture most of the financial returns from their degrees through substantially higher lifetime earnings — the so-called graduate premium — and should therefore contribute proportionally to costs. This argument carries weight in countries where public finances are constrained, and is the philosophical basis for income-contingent loan schemes in England and Australia, where graduates repay based on earnings above a threshold. Full cost recovery also discourages over-enrolment in programmes with weak labour market returns, potentially improving alignment between graduate supply and economic needs.

The counter-argument is that education generates externalities extending beyond the individual graduate: higher educational attainment correlates with lower crime, better public health outcomes, and greater civic participation, all of which benefit society broadly. On this view, treating education purely as a private consumption decision mischaracterises its nature. Countries such as Germany and the Scandinavian nations fund university places largely from taxation and consistently produce highly skilled workforces without burdening graduates with significant debt at the start of their careers. The social mobility argument is also compelling: when education costs deter academically qualified students from lower-income backgrounds, talent is systematically wasted and inequality is entrenched.

In my view, a hybrid model — with state subsidy for high-demand fields and income-contingent contributions for graduates who benefit financially — best balances these competing considerations.