Students should pay the full cost for their own study, because university education benefits individuals rather than society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
It is frequently asserted that university students should bear the full cost of their education since the principal benefits accrue to them personally. While higher education undoubtedly enhances individual earning potential, I contend that its broader contributions to societal innovation and equity justify substantial public investment.
Advocates maintain that students ought to shoulder tuition fees because the financial gains of a degree are primarily private. The first possible argument for this is that higher lifetime earnings directly result from degree completion and justify individual payment. This is because university qualifications typically open doors to better-paying professions and career advancement opportunities, which means that as graduates receive a substantial private financial return, it seems equitable for them to assume educational expenses. Another reason is that shifting full tuition onto students relieves pressure on public budgets, allowing governments to allocate resources elsewhere. When universities operate under a full-fee model, state funds can be redirected toward essential services such as healthcare and infrastructure. For instance, after the UK increased tuition fees in 2012, billions in public expenditure were transferred from taxpayers’ shoulders to students themselves.
Nevertheless, I would argue that university education also yields significant social dividends, meaning that shared funding should remain warranted. First, graduates spur productivity and innovation, generating wider economic returns. To specify, degree holders are more likely to engage in research and development, create startups, and enhance workplace efficiency. Through these knowledge spillovers, society ultimately recoups its investment via increased tax revenues and economic growth. Second, higher education promotes social mobility by widening access to disadvantaged students. Need-based scholarship and tuition-waiver schemes enable talented youth from low-income backgrounds to attend university. It is evidenced by need-blind admission policies in several countries that have demonstrably reduced income inequality by elevating social mobility.
In conclusion, although university degrees deliver substantial personal rewards—supporting the argument for student contributions—I maintain that the far-reaching economic and social benefits of higher education necessitate continued public funding. A balanced cost-sharing model best ensures both individual accountability and collective prosperity.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Sharpen the phrasing Original: contributions to societal innovation and equity Suggested revision: contributions to innovation and social equity Why it matters: The revision uses the more natural collocation “social equity” and creates a cleaner parallel pair.
- 2. Use a concise signpost Original: The first possible argument for this is that Suggested revision: First, Why it matters: A short signpost introduces the first reason more efficiently.
- 3. Clarify the meaning Original: payment Suggested revision: contributions Why it matters: “Individual contributions” more precisely describes students paying toward their education.
- 4. Use direct wording Original: shifting full tuition onto students Suggested revision: requiring students to pay full tuition Why it matters: The replacement states the policy more directly and avoids the awkward verb-preposition combination.
- 5. Avoid mixed imagery Original: transferred from taxpayers’ shoulders to students themselves Suggested revision: shifted from taxpayers to students Why it matters: The concise replacement avoids treating public expenditure as a burden physically transferred between groups.
- 6. Use natural phrasing Original: shared funding should remain warranted Suggested revision: shared funding remains justified Why it matters: “Remains justified” expresses the claim more directly and idiomatically.
- 7. Improve the transition Original: To specify Suggested revision: More specifically Why it matters: “More specifically” is the conventional transition for elaborating on the preceding point.
- 8. Correct the preposition Original: to Suggested revision: for Why it matters: Access is widened “for” a group of people, while it is widened “to” an institution or resource.
- 9. Use natural reference Original: talented youth Suggested revision: talented young people Why it matters: “Young people” is more natural here when referring to prospective university students collectively.
- 10. Sentence rewrite Original: This is because university qualifications typically open doors to better-paying professions and career advancement opportunities, which means that as graduates receive a substantial private financial return, it seems equitable for them to assume educational expenses. Suggested revision: University qualifications typically lead to better-paying professions and career advancement, so graduates receive a substantial private financial return that may justify asking them to cover educational expenses. Why it matters: The rewrite removes stacked causal clauses while preserving the link between private returns and student payment.
- 11. Sentence rewrite Original: It is evidenced by need-blind admission policies in several countries that have demonstrably reduced income inequality by elevating social mobility. Suggested revision: Evidence from need-blind admission policies in several countries shows that they have reduced income inequality by increasing social mobility. Why it matters: The rewrite replaces the awkward passive opening with a clear grammatical subject and verb.
Suggested Rewrites
- contributions to societal innovation and equity contributions to innovation and social equity
- The first possible argument for this is that First,
- payment contributions
- shifting full tuition onto students requiring students to pay full tuition
- transferred from taxpayers’ shoulders to students themselves shifted from taxpayers to students
- shared funding should remain warranted shared funding remains justified
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response gives a clear, nuanced position and develops both the private and social returns of higher education through a well-controlled argument. Its main limitation is that a few supporting claims and examples are asserted rather than carefully qualified, alongside occasional awkward phrasing. The highest-priority improvement is to make evidence more exact and integrate transitions more naturally, preserving the essay's strong analytical structure.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The essay directly addresses the claim, evaluates personal and societal benefits, and sustains a clear case for shared funding with well-developed reasons.
Qualify broad factual examples and explain their relevance precisely so that every supporting point is fully convincing.
Coherence and Cohesion
Paragraphing and progression are highly logical, with each stage of the argument clearly connected to the central position.
Make transitions less overtly signposted by allowing the logical relationship between adjacent sentences to carry more of the progression.
Lexical Resource
A wide and precise academic vocabulary is used flexibly, with only occasional awkward combinations such as shared funding should remain warranted.
Replace the few formal but unnatural combinations with simpler idiomatic phrasing while retaining the current precision.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex structures is handled accurately, and the few awkward constructions do not impede communication.
Refine long multi-clause sentences so that logical relationships remain immediately clear and syntactically economical.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Students should pay the full cost for their own study, because university education benefits individuals rather than society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.