Prompt
Discuss both views – University education
Some people think university education should be free for everyone, while others believe students should pay tuition fees. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Band 9 sample answer
Band 9 sample answer
Sentence-by-sentence analysis
Anatomy of a Band 9 Essay
Read the model answer normally, or switch on the examiner breakdown to see how each sentence contributes to the response.
Analysed against the four IELTS Writing assessment criteria. Each note explains how this specific sentence supports the essay.
Paragraph 1: Introduction — presents both funding positions and states a mixed-model judgement
Whether university should be free is widely debated. Some argue that higher education is a public good and ought to be funded by the state, whereas others contend that students should contribute through tuition fees. This essay discusses both perspectives and argues for a mixed model with targeted support.
The opening compresses the issue into a natural academic proposition rather than mechanically repeating the full wording of the prompt.
The two positions are presented in parallel and with comparable seriousness, which is essential in a discuss-both-views task before the writer evaluates them.
The writer’s own position is explicit: neither completely free provision nor unrestricted student funding is preferred; the proposed solution combines contributions with targeted assistance.
Paragraph 2: Body 1 — develops the case for publicly funded university education
Those in favour of free university emphasise equality of opportunity. If fees are removed, capable students from low-income families are less likely to be deterred by debt, which can broaden participation and improve social mobility. In addition, societies benefit when more people gain advanced skills: doctors, engineers and teachers raise productivity and strengthen public services. From this angle, taxpayer funding is justified because graduates’ expertise ultimately serves the whole community.
The paragraph begins with the strongest principle behind the first view: access should depend on ability rather than a student’s financial circumstances.
The conditional and relative clause form a clear causal chain from fee removal to lower debt deterrence, wider participation and ultimately greater social mobility.
The argument broadens from private access to public benefit, using familiar professions to show why taxpayer support can generate gains beyond the individual graduate.
“From this angle” explicitly draws the paragraph’s reasoning together: public funding is presented as justified because the benefits of higher education are partly collective.
Paragraph 3: Body 2 — develops the case for tuition fees
However, charging tuition is often seen as fair and financially realistic. Universities are expensive to run, and relying solely on public budgets can lead to overcrowding, outdated facilities and underpaid staff. Fees can provide institutions with stable income and create competition that encourages better teaching and research. Moreover, individuals typically enjoy substantial private returns from degrees through higher lifetime earnings, so it seems reasonable that they share the cost rather than placing the entire burden on taxpayers, including those who never attend university.
The contrasting topic sentence introduces two distinct foundations for the opposing view: fairness and the practical cost of maintaining universities.
The sentence explains the financial-realism argument through specific consequences of inadequate funding rather than simply claiming that free university would cost too much.
This develops the positive case for fees: they are not presented only as a source of money, but as a mechanism that may support quality and institutional responsiveness.
A controlled cause-and-judgement structure connects graduates’ private financial benefit to the fairness argument, while the final clause explains why universal taxpayer funding can be contested.
Paragraph 4: Conclusion — rejects both extremes and specifies the preferred mixed funding model
In my view, neither extreme is ideal. Governments should guarantee access by subsidising tuition heavily, offering means-tested grants and income-contingent loans, while still requiring many students to pay a portion when they can afford it. This approach protects disadvantaged learners without undermining university quality or diverting excessive public funds from schools, healthcare and other priorities.
The writer restates the exact boundary of the position: both completely free provision and full reliance on student fees are rejected.
The preferred compromise is made concrete through three targeted mechanisms and a contribution principle based on ability to pay, rather than remaining a vague call for balance.
The final sentence synthesises the two body paragraphs by showing how the mixed model responds simultaneously to access, university funding and competing demands on public money.
Verified word count: 260
Analysis by IELTS Master editorial review. How this analysis is created and reviewed
Useful vocabulary and phrases
equality of opportunity
Common academic collocation for education and social policy topics.
Removing fees can promote equality of opportunity for disadvantaged students.
deterred by debt
Natural phrasing that clearly explains a key mechanism.
Many applicants are deterred by debt even if they are academically capable.
public good
Helps justify government funding with formal economic language.
Higher education can be viewed as a public good that merits state support.
private returns
Adds analytical depth and balances the argument.
Graduates often receive large private returns in the form of higher salaries.
means-tested grants
Specific policy vocabulary signals precision and sophistication.
Means-tested grants can ensure low-income students are not excluded.
income-contingent loans
Shows nuanced understanding and avoids simplistic solutions.
Income-contingent loans reduce risk for graduates who earn less than expected.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Discussing only one view or forgetting to state your opinion clearly.
- Giving an opinion in the introduction but contradicting it later.
- Using vague examples (e.g., “many people”) without explaining mechanisms like access, quality or funding.
- Overgeneralising that “free education is always better” without addressing costs and trade-offs.
- Writing a conclusion that merely repeats earlier sentences instead of finalising your position.
Now apply what you have learned
Check your essay for Task Response, Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy.
Check my essay now