Band 8 model answer

Whether higher education should be funded entirely by the state or paid for by students themselves is a question that divides opinion. Both positions have merit, though I ultimately favour a system in which students contribute.

Those who argue for free university point to fairness and social mobility. When tuition is removed, talented young people from low-income families are no longer deterred by debt, which allows a country to develop the skills of its entire population rather than only the wealthy. Supporters also contend that a highly educated workforce benefits society as a whole, through higher productivity, innovation, and tax revenue, so it is reasonable for the public purse to bear the cost.

On the other side, many believe students should pay because they are the primary beneficiaries. A degree typically leads to higher lifetime earnings, so it seems equitable that graduates, rather than taxpayers who never attended university, shoulder the expense. Charging fees can also raise the quality of education, since institutions competing for fee-paying students have a strong incentive to improve teaching and facilities.

In my opinion, a purely free model places an unsustainable burden on the state and risks lowering standards, while a system funded entirely by upfront fees excludes the poor. The most sensible compromise is one in which students pay reasonable tuition through income-contingent loans, repaying only once they earn above a certain threshold. This preserves access for the disadvantaged while ensuring that those who profit most from their qualifications make a fair contribution.

In conclusion, although free education has clear social appeal, I believe a balanced loan-based system that combines affordability with personal responsibility serves both students and society best.