Nations should spend more money on skills and vocational training for practical work, rather than on university education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Due to ongoing changes and shortages in the labour market, some contend that the vast majority of funding for tertiary

education

should be put into practical courses rather than academic ones. Despite strong arguments to support

this

, I can only agree with

this

to some extent. The push on a global scale to get more graduates with

university

degrees has led to a lack of manual workers

such

as plumbers and electricians and an excess of white-collar workers.

As a result

of

this

, skilled tradespeople can earn much higher wages than in the past whereas

university

graduates are leaving

university

with huge debts from student loans. Recently, it was reported that 1000 people applied for one job in a restaurant and many of the applicants were graduates. Having a degree,

therefore

, does not necessarily lead to a well-paid, high-flying job.

Nevertheless

, for some fields

such

as medicine or

education

, an academic

university

education

is a prerequisite. Worryingly, the number of doctors in undergraduate training is dropping at an alarming rate and

this

will lead to a scarcity of GPs and surgeons in the near future. To combat

this

, there needs to be more investment in secondary and

further

education

to try to encourage more school leavers to take

this

career path. In conclusion,

although

funding for vocational training is a must,

this

should not be at the expense of academic

education

. Despite the threat of a worldwide economic recession, funding in all aspects of

education

needs to be a priority and it should be allocated to vocational and academic courses on an equal basis.