Topic :
It is believed that children from countries with a high level of unemployment should be offered only primary education and should not be offered with a secondary education as it is unlikely they will get a job in the future anyway.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement?
Answer :
There is a debate over the appropriate level of education for the students in the country suffering from low employment rate for the purpose of saving opportunity cost of students who are likely to suffer from unemployment. In my opinion, though the situation is tough, giving up the education is same with abandoning the seeds for the future and infringing the pro-rights of students. Thus, there should be a proper support on the secondary education for the students.
First of all, when thinking about the ground of a high level of unemployment, the lack of human resources can be seen as an important reason. To make the industry hire more people in work, the companies must survive in the middle of harsh global competition to make the profit. At this point, the level of human resources they hold is deciding which company will prevail. For instance, when proper management, innovative research and development and rational business strategy are needed at the same time, a company filled with primary school graduates cannot compete with a rival company in a different nation that has MBA, PhD graduates. Thus, a limit in the level of education means placing the nation at the bottom of global business chain forever.
Secondly, withdrawing supports on secondary education violates the right of students. If the country is a meritocratic country that allows their students go as far as their talents allow, the opportunity must be open to the candidates that wish to apply. The most miserable situation that a society can make is closing the door for the future genius that has huge possibilities without proper reason and rational thinking. For example, democratic and meritocratic countries are doing their best to support the right to be educated for saving their students proto-right. Even at the recessions, these countries knew that they should protect the future of next generation and secured educational budget until the last. Thus, when we look at the education as a right not the material, reasoning unemployment rate for limiting secondary education is the shame itself.
To conclude, the limit of educational opportunity based on the calculation of opportunity cost in the low employment rate is clearly a wrong policy. The calculation itself is irrational and no-one has given the right to calculate of the opportunity of students.
