A government - that does not have the resources to offer employment for the educated - does not need to invest funds on higher education.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view. You may have your own examples taken either from your life or surroundings to prove your point. Jaypeesdoc.19.4.012

As a matter of fact, ensuring higher education is the responsibility of the State. But, if the State is unable to provide employment for the deserving, allocating funds for higher education does not seem worthwhile. Let me prove it.

The primary purpose of higher education is to make a person lead a decent, civilized and meaningful life by making use of his education in terms of employment. This basic requirement gets sabotaged when the educated find themselves jobless thanks to the poor state of affairs existing in many poor economies. For example, when great number of educated people stay jobless, there arises concerns like social evils, deadly habits, apathy and antipathy towards the State and its mechanisms to mention a few. This is dangerous to a greater extent.

Coupled with the above are the other pressing needs of poor societies where food and medicine, roofing and sanitation, regular supplies and security are under great threat. Naturally, the funds allocated for higher education can be directed to these priority segments. This will make great changes in the daily living of people. Let me cite an example. A society that is unable to sustain itself due to resource crunch may not be able to make any sustainable developments, higher education segment included. In such a context, is it fair to invest sizably for higher education? Negative.

In short, there may be lofty ideals governing higher education prospects of a given State.  But these ideals are of no use unless the educated are able to find themselves doing deserving jobs. Higher education sans employment prospects does not need funding.

265 words

Ajaypeesdoc. 12.7.012