Good facilities can be found in cities but not in the countryside. Therefore, new doctors and teachers should be sent to the countryside. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The issue of whether allocating well-trained facilities such as doctors or teachers to rural areas is a controversial one in society nowadays. The transfer is welcomed, albeit with reservations, despite the need to transfer doctors and teachers voluntarily.
The transfer of the good facilities to rural areas is to improve the detrimental conditions of lacking of well qualified workforces. As the result of being understaffed, the countryside suffers the negative chronic effects on the well-being of rural people. Distributing doctors and teachers to those sites helps the residents there enhance their living standard and life prospect. An illustration of this is that if the rural people are well educated, they have the ability to gain more opportunities to change their life. That also assists government in dealing with the problem of improving rural people's life.
It is obviously recognized that the doctors or teachers, who graduate freshly with a degree only, have potential to gain experience in the rural areas. In the city, the opportunity to apply successfully to a job is relatively scarce because of the fact that there are numerous people are in the race for a single position. Ideally, the new doctors and teachers take advantage of chance to serve people in rural areas to gain experience and then, when they return to city, they have more potential to find a job.
Despite these benefits, the place of working should be chose voluntarily by the doctors and teachers. It is not ethical to stop individuals' desire to have more satisfying quality of life. When moving to rural areas, there are increasing problems such as housing, transport, salary. As the result of this, the employees who volunteer to work in rural areas deserve to have a better pay as well as the recognition of their contribution to society