Y10W42PA - Should University Fees Be Capped?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission about capping university fees. Now you'll read another student's submission and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate formal persuasive writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Persuasive – Submission

A strong persuasive submission takes a clear position, supports it with specific reasoning and evidence, addresses the strongest counterargument, and closes with a practically specific recommendation. Assessors judge whether the argument truly convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — not just asserting a position, but naming the mechanism behind the problem. Evidence that genuinely supports the claim. The precise way the strongest objection fails to undermine the case.

  • Specific reasoning: shows mechanism, evidence and objection handling instead of assertion alone.

Structure & Cohesion

Deliberate movement from position statement to positive case to counterargument to recommendation. Clear transitions between sections. A recommendation that is specific, not vague.

  • Submission pathway: moves from position to case, counterargument and recommendation with purpose.

Audience & Purpose

Framing calibrated for a specific professional audience. Framing that matches what that audience is equipped to evaluate. A recommendation that is actionable for them.

  • Framing in terms: the professional audience is equipped to evaluate is the primary mark of audience strength.

Language Choices

Precise analytical language throughout. Key claims expressed exactly, and the recommendation stated in specific, actionable terms. No vague or informal language that weakens formal credibility.

  • Actionable precision: states claims and recommendations in exact, formal terms.

Conventions

Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation, as expected in formal submissions. Errors reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity show command of formal written expression.

  • Formal control: uses accurate mechanics and controlled sentence complexity to sustain credibility.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write a submission to the higher education funding review arguing for or against introducing a cap on the fees Australian universities can charge domestic undergraduate students.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Language Choices and Conventions. The calibration for a higher education funding review panel decides whether the submission is credible. The precision of language at key moments decides how clearly the case is expressed. The accuracy of conventions decides how professional the submission looks.

Audience & Purpose

Strong writing this week shows Audience & Purpose applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for calibration that serves this task: framing pitched for a funding review panel, with an actionable recommendation.

What markers scan for

  • Audience & Purpose applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Audience & Purpose is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Audience & Purpose is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Audience & Purpose is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Language Choices

Strong writing this week shows Language Choices applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for precision that serves this task: exact phrasing at key argumentative moments, so the case reads clearly.

What markers scan for

  • Language Choices applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language Choices is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Language Choices is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Language Choices is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Conventions

Strong writing this week shows Conventions applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for accuracy that serves this task: spelling, grammar and punctuation controlled enough to keep the submission professionally credible.

What markers scan for

  • Conventions applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The specific task and topic visibly shaping how the strand is demonstrated.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Conventions is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Conventions is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Conventions is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Now read · Student sample

Should University Fees Be Capped?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 10 student in Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.

This submission argues in favour of introducing a cap on the fees Australian universities can charge domestic undergraduate students, on the grounds that uncapped fee structures create access barriers that are inconsistent with the stated goals of equitable participation in higher education. The case for a fee cap rests on a straightforward equity argument. Under the current system, universities can charge significantly different fees for equivalent qualifications, and students from lower-income backgrounds who are considering courses with higher fees face debt burdens that are disproportionate relative to their financial starting position. Research consistently shows that fear of debt is a significant deterrent to higher education enrolment among students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, even when income-contingent loan systems are available. A cap on fees would reduce this deterrent, improve the alignment between stated equity goals and the actual fee environment, and create pressure on universities to compete on educational quality rather than on the basis of fee differentiation. The primary objection to fee caps is that they would reduce university revenue and thereby undermine the quality of Australian higher education. This objection has some merit in the abstract, but it overstates the revenue dependency of teaching quality. Much of the research productivity and reputational strength of Australian universities derives from research funding, international student fees and philanthropic income rather than from domestic undergraduate fees. A fee cap targeted at domestic undergraduates would not eliminate these other revenue streams. Moreover, the experience of systems that have capped domestic fees while allowing differentiated international fees — including Canada and several European countries — suggests that quality and fee caps are not incompatible. This submission invites the review to recommend the introduction of a cap on domestic undergraduate fees at a level that is consistent with reasonable institutional cost recovery, reviewed every three years in line with indexed cost data, and accompanied by a strengthened transparency framework requiring universities to publish detailed cost and fee information annually.