Model Essay 2: Free University Education
Question type: discussion. Two instructions - discuss both views and give your own opinion - and both are marked.
Unofficial original RCF practice material
Original question and essay written by RCF English. Not endorsed by the British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia or Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
The question
Some people believe that university education should be free for all students. Others argue that students should pay towards the cost of their own studies.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Write at least 250 words.
The plan
| Paragraph | Content |
|---|---|
| Introduction | Frame the real disagreement: not whether education is valuable, but who benefits and therefore who should pay. Position: free at the point of use, funded by later taxation - a third position, which is allowed. |
| Body 1 | The case for free education: access, and the public benefit of an educated population. |
| Body 2 | The case for contribution: graduates earn more, and free provision is regressive because it is funded by everyone. |
| Body 3 | My position, which takes the strongest part of each: no fees at entry, repayment through progressive taxation on graduate earnings. |
| Conclusion | Name the principle that resolves it: the cost should follow the benefit, but not at the moment of choosing. |
The model essay
Question: Some people believe that university education should be free for all students. Others argue that students should pay towards the cost of their own studies. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Arguments about tuition fees are rarely arguments about whether higher education is valuable. They are arguments about who benefits from it, and therefore who ought to pay. Both of the usual positions capture something true, and I believe a sensible policy has to combine them.
Those who favour free provision make two strong points. The first is access. If a degree costs a large sum at the point of entry, the students most likely to be deterred are those from families with no experience of higher education and no savings to fall back on, and they will be deterred by the fear of the debt rather than by its actual terms. The second is that society as a whole gains from an educated population: everyone benefits from competent doctors, engineers and teachers, whether or not they attended university themselves.
The opposing case is also serious, and it is usually misrepresented. Graduates do, on average, earn substantially more over a lifetime than non-graduates, and a system funded entirely from general taxation asks people who did not go to university, and who typically earn less, to pay for those who did. Free provision sounds egalitarian, but its effects are not straightforwardly so.
My own view takes the strongest element of each. Nobody should have to find money in order to begin a degree, because that is the point at which access is lost. But those who go on to earn a great deal because of that degree should contribute more than those who do not - which means repayment through the tax system, tied to income and written off if the income never arrives.
The principle, in short, is that the cost should follow the benefit, but that it should never be presented as a bill to an eighteen-year-old.
Why this answer works
- Both views are given real weight, and the second is defended, not knocked down. The opposing case is also serious, and it is usually misrepresented is the sentence that lifts this essay - it signals a candidate who is thinking rather than reciting.
- The opinion is a genuine third position, not a shrug. Examiners accept a synthesis, provided it is stated clearly and argued for. It depends on the situation would not qualify.
- The introduction reframes the question rather than repeating it. Identifying what the argument is really about - who benefits, therefore who pays - gives the whole essay a spine.
- Each paragraph develops a mechanism, not just a claim. The access point is not left at poor students can't afford it; it explains that the deterrent is the fear of debt rather than the terms of it.
- The counter-intuitive point earns marks: Free provision sounds egalitarian, but its effects are not straightforwardly so. Complexity handled in one sentence.
- The conclusion states a principle, which is more valuable than a summary, and the final clause gives it an image to land on.
- 294 words, four body ideas across three paragraphs, no invented figures - on average, earn substantially more is honest and sufficient.
Language worth borrowing
- Arguments about X are rarely arguments about Y. They are arguments about Z.
- The opposing case is also serious, and it is usually misrepresented
- sounds egalitarian, but its effects are not straightforwardly so
- My own view takes the strongest element of each
- The principle, in short, is that
Check your own attempt
- Did you discuss both views at similar length?
- Did you actually state an opinion, or only imply one?
- Is your opinion consistent with what you wrote in the two body paragraphs?
- Did you explain a mechanism, or only assert a claim?
- Are you between 260 and 300 words?
Now try this variation
Some people think that governments should pay the full cost of healthcare. Others believe that individuals should contribute. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
The structure transfers exactly. The arguments do not: the who benefits framing works far less well for healthcare, because illness is not chosen. Notice where the analogy breaks - that is the thinking the examiner is looking for.
Next
Essay 3: Working from home
Advantages and disadvantages, with a verdict.
All ten essays
The full list by question type.