---
Higher education, especially tertiary one, is the aim of most people, but not all obtain easily. Therefore, some believe with government’s free education or allowance for students to pay fee after graduation, mor...e people can make this dream come true while others claim that by paying himself, knowledge will be definitely taken seriously. Each view has its pros and cons, actually.
The first benefit of the policy of emancipating students from financial payment during their learning time is to achieve the ultimate goal of the society i.e. a high-skilled labor. It is undeniable that several countries, say, Germany and Northeastern nations, often free their university education, which partly explains why they have the highest self-awareness and the most knowledgeable citizens. On other hand, others argue that private education in which students are heavily charged offers the best condition for students in learning with the top-notch professors and cutting edge innovations, as reflected in the case of Havard, Yale and Cambridge non state-owned schools. Equally important, let’s take Vietnam as a stark example of an education which frees students from learning in education, and not until they graduate do they move to other fields in search of high-paid salaries, which, again, bespeaks itself the unwise investment by government.
Second, it is contended that free education creates a level-playing field for everyone. It is well known that because of abject poverty, the disadvantaged and impoverished can hardly gain access to advanced education and end up with their big dreams unfinished while other eager adult learners, due to being burdened with numerous responsibilities from taking care of their parents to their own families, are reluctant to short-cut their formal training and become normal blue-workers with lower salaries. Also, no sooner are outstanding students less worried with high fee of tertiary education than their desire for knowledge materializes. However, it is equally necessary to take into consideration other cases. With families whose income is relatively high, as a result of being exempt from education, would it be fair? Another point is that so easily accessible is higher education that people may take it for granted, and hence, drop out for no reason while others who see education as expensive and competitive try their best to do part-time jobs to cover their expense, find it worthy for their effort and nurture other crucial living skills, such as, team-work, pressure dealing, right at the moment of being a students.
The third view, different from two above, is that students should still pay, but only after their graduation. Pros of this are well seen when economic burden is still liberated from poor and distinguished students who, after graduation, are likely to obtain prestigious jobs with high salaries, feel indebted to government and even decide to make big donations in the projects of upgrading infrastructure or setting up scholarship schemes for those in the same boat as them. Obama is a telling example of a person who borrowed money from government to follow advanced education in Havard law school and now becomes a prominent politician. However, when it comes to the issue of management, the question remains as to how government could effectively control the flow of students in and out after graduation, keep exhaustive records of their performance to make sure fee will be paid back in time. Another reason is that to indentify clearly the right target receives to deserve this policy is a head-aching matter, as a result of the fact that some mercenary ones whose income is rather abundant still want to take advantage for their personal gain.
In brief, each method has its own pains and gains, and the most superior solution, I believe, is that fee payment should be mandatory, and for the less lucky ones, scholarships or other kinds of financial aid are available for them to realize their goal through their endeavor
