Body1: Since higher education plays a pivotal role in developing a nation’s advanced science and technology which cannot be done by high school education, every qualified student should be guaranteed to attend universities. To focus on one major in universities makes it possible for students to gain an insight of certain area while they merely learn superficial knowledge of different subjects in secondary schools. This insight may stimulate critical thinking, and thus they may query the exiting theory and discover new ways to tackle the unsolved problems. Take Nicolaus Copernicus as an example. High school did not provide him with classes in astronomy and it was his four years at the University of Krakkw that he got the depth of astronomy and developed his critical faculties. And these faculties initiated his analysis of the logical contradictions in the two most popular systems of astronomy at that time—Aristotle's theory of homocentric spheres, and Ptolemy's mechanism of eccentrics and epicycles—the surmounting and discarding of which constituted the first step toward the creation of Copernicus' own doctrine of the structure of the universe.  Body2: However, to guarantee that any matriculated student will attend universities does not mean that government should render them a free university education. According to College Board in the United States, during 2012 to 2013, the average tuition for a single year in American’s private universities is 30 thousand bucks. So if this policy is to be implemented, governments may be confronted with enormous financial expenditure. As a result ,governments may have to cut down the subsidizing on other aspects of education, such as money for supporting universities’ daily operation, jeopardizing universities’ development as a whole. Besides, in some cases, to provide a tuition waiver may not attain its aim that students can make a better contribution to society after receiving higher education. For example, it is easy to get a diploma in Chinese universities. So, some students do not devote too much to their major and acquire only little knowledge and skills; consequently, there is no significant difference from those who do not attend colleges. Body3: My view is that it is better for governments to provide loans to poor students. For one thing, burdened with financial debt, students are stimulated to study hard so that they can find a well-paid job after graduation instead of loafing around. For another, the fact that students will pay money back alleviates governments’ financial pressure. And it is more practical than depending on schools or private institutions to do so. Universities like Harvard which could receive 6.15 million dollars in a year from generous people are rather few, and their income from schooling and financial aid from governments may not be enough to furnish every students suffering from financial troubles with loans. Also, interest rates of loans provided by private institutions may be much higher than those offered by governments. And this may still prevent poor students from borrowing loans given the huge tuition.