In many under developed countries, the scope for education based employment is extremely poor. Some say it is a wise idea for such countries to ignore higher education, and mobilize the funds saved thereof to meet the expenses of other pressing areas.

How far do you agree or disagree with this view?

Ignoring higher education on the grounds that there is no scope for employment, I feel, is an unwise step. Obviously, the funds generated thereof cannot solve other problems like hunger, shelter, poor health and the like. Let me prove it.

Primarily, purpose education as such is not just getting a paid monthly paid employment in one’s own country. It is one of its purposes. For example, a person with higher education is likely to live a better life than any one who has not got it. The reason for his or being better is nothing but education, not necessarily a paid employment. Second point is a developing country or an under-developed country is not going to be so for ages. One of the purposes of higher education is to make the nation progress. For example, educated people can contribute greatly to a nation by way other contributions than employment.

Third thing that comes to my mind is that today, world is a single whole, and people with education are free to move out and find their fortunes elsewhere. For example, millions of people migrate to greener pastures and make great differences in their life, their immediate family, society and nation at large.

On the other hand, if a poor nation ignores higher education infrastructure and decides to utilize that fund for other areas, there is going to be dual tragedy. Firstly, these funds may not meet other needs and, secondly, the nation will ever remain poor or poorer.

In short, it is proved that poor nations cannot forgo higher education. That there is poor scope for employment is not reason enough to do so. Rather poor nations need to tighten their belts to solve other problems, and promote higher education.


285 words
Ajaypeesdoc. 23.10.011