In some countries where the unemployment rate are high, most students should be offered only primary education. There is no point in offering secondary education to those who will have no hope of finding jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.2

It is sometimes argued that in countries which the unemployed phenomenon is prevalent, they should be only offered basic education. While I agree with this point of view, I do not believe that further education is not necessary for them. To embark on, people who have no career prospects should be only received elementary education. On the individual level, they do not need to be consumed with learning because secondary education will not assist them in life. For example, natural subjects or social subjects in secondary school do not relate to those who will have no hope of finding jobs. From the economic perspective, the fee which is paid for studying will reduce and people can use that buck to support a family. Moreover, the government will replace the investment of the basic services in education to other fields. However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be seen as the opposite angle. Firstly, the criminal activities often arise from the increased number in people who dropped out of school. As a result, not only the unemployment rate is increased, but also highly wrong acts. Secondly, countries where the index of educational development is low, they will be obsolete and perhaps leading to the serious consequence that is invaded by other countries. Therefore, this trend is becoming a negative one. In conclusion, the idea of just learning primary education has both positive and detrimental effects on society, individuals and on the economy.