Many today feel that countries should prioritise vocational training over higher education due to changes in the labour market. In my opinion, though there are strong economic reasons to support this idea, university education holds greater value.
Those in favour of more practical skills training point out the financial benefits. Most university graduates are burdened with student debt and face uncertain job prospects. In contrast, training schools are cheap, fast, and ease students into steady employment immediately. The jobs they train for are also most likely recession-proof and durable, including positions as cooks, hotel managers, and skilled technicians. Someone who is firmly established in such a job in their early 20s does not have to deal with the pressures associated with university life and its incumbent debts. Instead, they can begin to set aside money for a house or start a family.
Nonetheless, lacking a university degree limits one’s options. The jobs available will pay well initially and be secure but offer narrow scope for advancement and virtually no opportunity to switch career paths. An individual with a university degree, on the other hand, might begin from a lower position but has a higher ceiling on future earnings. It is also possible for them to explore a variety of fields. Most good jobs require at least a bachelor’s degree even for simple internship vacancies. Lacking such a degree, means restricting oneself to manual labour or service industry jobs. The actual learning that takes place at university, particularly for those with multi-disciplinary majors or studying at liberal arts schools, also encourages students to consider a wide range of possible career options.
In conclusion, increasing funding for vocational training is an attractive yet short-sighted approach that curbs possibilities. Governments ought to continue to support higher education even in dark economic times in order to reap future rewards.
@IELTS_Gulshoda_9
Many
today
feel that countries should
prioritise
vocational
training
over higher education due to
changes
in the
labour
market. In my opinion, though there are strong economic reasons to support this
idea
,
university
education holds greater value.
Those in
favour
of more practical
skills
training
point out the financial benefits. Most
university
graduates
are burdened
with student debt and face uncertain
job
prospects.
In contrast
,
training
schools are
cheap
,
fast
, and
ease
students into steady employment immediately. The
jobs
they train for are
also
most likely recession-proof and durable, including positions as cooks, hotel managers, and skilled technicians. Someone who is
firmly
established in such a
job
in their early 20s does not
have to
deal with the pressures associated with
university
life and its incumbent debts.
Instead
, they can
begin
to set aside money for a
house
or
start
a family.
Nonetheless, lacking a
university
degree
limits one’s options. The
jobs
available will pay well
initially
and be secure
but
offer narrow scope for advancement and
virtually
no opportunity to switch career paths. An individual with a
university
degree
,
on the other hand
, might
begin
from a lower position
but
has a higher ceiling on future earnings. It is
also
possible for them to explore a variety of fields. Most
good
jobs
require at least a bachelor’s
degree
even for simple internship vacancies. Lacking such a
degree
, means restricting oneself to manual
labour
or service industry
jobs
. The actual learning that takes place at
university
,
particularly
for those with multi-disciplinary majors or studying at liberal arts schools,
also
encourages students to consider a wide range of possible career options.
In conclusion
, increasing funding for vocational
training
is an attractive
yet
short-sighted approach that curbs possibilities.
Governments
ought to continue to support higher education even in dark economic times in order to reap future rewards.
@IELTS
_
Gulshoda
_9