In coutries where there is a high rate of unemployment, most students should be offered only primary education. There is no point in offering secondary education to those who have no hope of finding a job. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

While

access to

education

should be universal and affordable, the reality is that it is often out of reach for many. High unemployment in some countries or regions may even make some feel that it is a waste of time.

While

situations and circumstances may vary, in general, we should do our part to make sure that as many

people

finish high school and university as possible.

First,

we must consider the economics of a proper

education

. With limited

education

, one can perhaps find odd jobs at an earlier age, but their long-term income and opportunities will be limited. Compare that with someone who completes school.

While

graduates may have trouble finding work at

first,

once they do, they have a better chance of keeping their jobs and earning more in the future and

thus

have a better quality of life.

Secondly

, educated

people

do a lot to create jobs. Most entrepreneurs and businessmen,

people

who create employment, themselves receive an

education

. These are the

people

who create growth and opportunity in society;

conversely

, those without

education

can only struggle to look after themselves. Some would say that by not investing in secondary

education

when the outlook is bad, governments can save money.

This

may be true in the short term but it leaves the long-term problem of an undereducated and underdeveloped society. Surely

this

is not a responsible solution. In the final analysis, it often takes short-term sacrifice and investment to achieve long-term prosperity. Governments must not take shortcuts when it comes to ensuring everyone receives a proper secondary

education

.

This

is the surest way to create a better future for everyone.