Thank you for your time, your feedbacks are highly appreciated!
Topic: In countries where there is high unemployment, most pupils should be offered only primary education. There is no point in offering secondary education to those who will have no hope of finding a job. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
My essay:
It is argued that in countries with a high unemployment rate, secondary education should only be offered to promising pupils, and those who are not qualified should only complete primary school. In my opinion, I totally disagree with this point of view.
It seems to me that it does not make sense when pushing a large number of children out of school when they are still so nascent. If children do not go to school, there are high chances that they will end up forced to work or maybe even turn to a career of crime, considering the high unemployment rate. This kind of situation may also worsen the economic and social disputes when such children with no steady education background grow up and enter the workforce. Governments should consider that this in the chance to focus on building up human resource, those who will contribute to the development of the country.
In addition, primary school children are still in their age of absurdity and have not fully expressed their potential. It is likely that gifted pupils would be left out and miss the opportunity to fulfill their academic achievement. Only offering secondary schools for the most talented children would also show a lack of encouragement and faith in youngsters. Instead, all children should have a chance to finish high school or be directed to vocational training if they show their talent in those fields.
In conclusion, even though the economy is facing difficulties, governments should never give up on education, especially on children – the shaper of the nation’s tomorrow.
Can anyone have a look at this, please? Thank you for your time.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.