Because higher education shapes both personal prospects and national prosperity, the question of who should shoulder its cost is far from trivial. Some maintain that university ought to be free for everyone, whereas others insist that students should bear part of the expense. Having weighed both arguments, I favour a shared model that protects access without ignoring financial reality.
The case for free tuition rests on equity and collective return. Removing fees ensures that ability, rather than family wealth, determines who studies, allowing talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to fulfil their potential and society to draw on their skills. A well-educated population, moreover, underpins economic strength, supplying the professionals on whom modern life depends. Seen this way, public funding of universities is less an expenditure than a long-term investment that ultimately pays for itself through higher productivity and tax revenue.
The opposing argument, however, carries considerable practical force. Universities are costly institutions, and financing them entirely from taxation compels even those who never enrolled, often lower earners, to subsidise graduates who tend to enjoy higher lifetime incomes. Asking students to contribute may also sharpen their commitment, since people frequently value what they have paid for more than what is handed to them without charge.
My own position is that these concerns are best reconciled through a graduated system. Those able to pay should contribute a proportion of the cost, while means-tested scholarships and income-contingent loans guarantee that no capable applicant is deterred by poverty. In this way higher education remains genuinely open to all, with its cost fairly divided between the individuals who gain directly and the society that benefits at large.