NamLeHanoi
Feb 12, 2023
Writing Feedback / Essay about educational policy which favor certain subjects [2]
Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not others. Some people therefore think that governments should pay university fees for students who study subject that are needed by society. Those who choose to study less relevant subjects should not receive government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?
MY ESSAY:
It is sometimes argued that government should provide free education for certain university subjects that meet the social demands, while ignoring less popular ones. I firmly believe that despite some short-term benefits it might bring, this funding scheme will bring many more negative impacts on the development of the country as a whole.
Focusing resources on training high level workers in certain fields may often help a country reach its temporary goal. Japan after World War 2, for example, was in a surge of demand for building back their ruined infrastructures, which certainly requires a large number of engineers, architects and other experts in heavy industry sector. Such giant task can only be achieved by training more experts in the desired areas, possibly through a government-funded program. By doing this, the country can secure a sufficient labor force for national key projects, and many students will also benefit from not having to worry about any financial issue while studying as well as employment output after graduation.
However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by many adverse consequences, first and foremost of which is the great unbalance in workforce allocation. Covering tuition fees for students who study in areas relevant to society's interest only will make most students enroll in the corresponding subjects, which therefore will cause a lack of specialists in other important but not as trendy areas such as education and healthcare. During Covid 19 pandemic, countries that once put too much stress on natural resources exploration, like Venezuela and Argentina, have been forced to exchange valuable gold and oil for bread to feed people. Such unfavorable trade and food security crisis wouldn't have happened if those countries had focused on building more sustainable and balanced economy, part of which could be achieved by training more experts in agriculture. From students' perspective, a biased funding program also limits the accessibility to college education of poor but talented students, who should normally be the first on any sponsoring list.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential drawbacks of this plan are more significant than any possible benefits.
Ielts Writing task 2 question
Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not others. Some people therefore think that governments should pay university fees for students who study subject that are needed by society. Those who choose to study less relevant subjects should not receive government funding. Would the advantages of such an educational policy outweigh the disadvantages?
MY ESSAY:
It is sometimes argued that government should provide free education for certain university subjects that meet the social demands, while ignoring less popular ones. I firmly believe that despite some short-term benefits it might bring, this funding scheme will bring many more negative impacts on the development of the country as a whole.
Focusing resources on training high level workers in certain fields may often help a country reach its temporary goal. Japan after World War 2, for example, was in a surge of demand for building back their ruined infrastructures, which certainly requires a large number of engineers, architects and other experts in heavy industry sector. Such giant task can only be achieved by training more experts in the desired areas, possibly through a government-funded program. By doing this, the country can secure a sufficient labor force for national key projects, and many students will also benefit from not having to worry about any financial issue while studying as well as employment output after graduation.
However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by many adverse consequences, first and foremost of which is the great unbalance in workforce allocation. Covering tuition fees for students who study in areas relevant to society's interest only will make most students enroll in the corresponding subjects, which therefore will cause a lack of specialists in other important but not as trendy areas such as education and healthcare. During Covid 19 pandemic, countries that once put too much stress on natural resources exploration, like Venezuela and Argentina, have been forced to exchange valuable gold and oil for bread to feed people. Such unfavorable trade and food security crisis wouldn't have happened if those countries had focused on building more sustainable and balanced economy, part of which could be achieved by training more experts in agriculture. From students' perspective, a biased funding program also limits the accessibility to college education of poor but talented students, who should normally be the first on any sponsoring list.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential drawbacks of this plan are more significant than any possible benefits.
