It is suggested that government should put more investment on developing vocational training than colleges or university due to its practical benefits. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

A high unemployment rate of the graduates has raised a concern that goverment should allocate a larger part of national budget for vocational traning rather than academic one. From my viewpoint, I partly support this recommendation for some reasons. On the one hand, it is indeed conceivable to profoundly develop the vocational education system. To begin with, this instructional form paves the way for more people to get a blue-collar job. It means that it can balance the overall demand for white-collar and blue-collar occupations, therefore alleviates the troublesome unemployment. In addition, the teaching of work-related skills will offer an abundant source of practical experience, which is always a key ingredient to any succesful interviews. For example, Finnish vocational education has imbeded many vocational lessons in schooling such as teaching how to manage a coffee store. These materials are proved to be easily absorded and merely applicable to achieve a better performance at future work. On the other hand, there are two main disadvantages of vocational traning. Firstly, this learning sphere ruins the opportunity to deeply explore an aspect. Students are rarely provided with prominent information and therefore cannot gain insight the problem, resulting in a narrowly limited mindset. Secondly, when the authorities put more investment in vocational education, they will be responsible for a lack of specialized forces in complicated domains such as astronomy and cytology. As a consequence, there will be an imbalance in national work distribution, which may undermine the potential of a country. In conclusion, an associative application would be the best strategy at the moment. education. This can help education come to fruition with guaranteed results.