Whether the government should increase the availability of tertiary education for the majority of young people has long been a matter of debate. In my opinion, it is feasible to execute such a policy, but its benefits are doubtful.
On the one hand, the government could apply several measures to increase enrolment rates among the youth. In the current economic crisis, the high university tuition fee has priced out many poor young people. Therefore, if the government subsidizes state universities in order to slash tuition fees by at least three quarters, there is no doubt that enrolment rate among the youth will rise dramatically. Moreover, the authorities could improve the quality of education in remote and impoverished regions so that students in these areas have a better chance to compete in the university entrance exams.
On the other hand, there is not much value in providing university education for a large proportion of young people. One strong argument against such a policy is the high rate of unemployment among graduates. The situation in several countries, for example Vietnam, has been particularly alarming when millions of fresh graduates cannot find a job that match their university training and therefore have to turn to low-paid jobs to earn a living. Another counterargument is that when university education becomes too commonplace, it often creates an imbalance the workforce to the detriment of the whole economy. One can point to the fact that there has been a severe shortage of carpenters, electricians and other skilled manual workers as opposed to a surplus of people trained for office jobs. Consequently, an emphasis on vocational training instead of university education would be much more beneficial.
In conclusion, it is not advisable to increase the rate of young university undergraduates even though this policy is entirely possible.
Whether the
government
should increase the availability of tertiary
education
for the majority of
young
people
has long been a matter of debate. In my opinion, it is feasible to execute such a policy,
but
its benefits are doubtful.
On the one hand, the
government
could apply several measures to increase
enrolment
rates
among the youth. In the
current
economic crisis, the high
university
tuition fee has priced out
many
poor
young
people
.
Therefore
, if the
government
subsidizes state
universities
in order to slash tuition fees by at least three quarters, there is no doubt that
enrolment
rate
among the youth will rise
dramatically
.
Moreover
, the authorities could
improve
the quality of
education
in remote and impoverished regions
so
that students in these areas have a better chance to compete in the
university
entrance exams.
On the other hand
, there is not much value in providing
university
education
for a large proportion of
young
people
. One strong argument against such a policy is the high
rate
of unemployment among graduates. The situation in several countries,
for example
Vietnam, has been
particularly
alarming when millions of fresh graduates cannot find a job that match their
university
training and
therefore
have to
turn to low-paid jobs to earn a living. Another counterargument is that when
university
education
becomes too commonplace, it
often
creates an imbalance the workforce to the detriment of the whole economy. One can point to the fact that there has been a severe shortage of carpenters, electricians and other skilled manual workers as opposed to a surplus of
people
trained for office jobs.
Consequently
, an emphasis on vocational training
instead
of
university
education
would be much more beneficial.
In conclusion
, it is not advisable to increase the
rate
of
young
university
undergraduates
even though
this policy is
entirely
possible.