Prompt: A country should spend money on skills training or vocational training for practical work, rather than on university education. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued by some people that national authorities should allocate funding to vocational training instead of tertiary education. I disagree with this view, for however important practical skills may be, education provided in university is also equally indispensable. Ċ On the one hand, vocational training is vital to both individuals and society. For instance, courses that teach students practical knowledge provide them with more opportunities in the future. Mastering this type of skills enable young people to directly put them into practice, which in many cases, can help them easily find a suitable job. Therefore, priotizing resources on vocational training can be one viable solution to the urgent problem of unemployment in many countries. Ċ On the other hand, simply dismissing the importance of university education would be misguided for many reasons. Firstly, by studying in universities, students are equipped with a wide range of professional knowledge, preparing them for a career later in life. A lack of sufficient government funding will not allow universities to improve the quality of their education, hindering the intellectual development of students. Secondly, if the government does not allocate expenditure on universities, teacher wages will not be improved. With underpaid teachers having always been a serious problem, professors in universities will not be able to receive the financial incentives that they deserve if there is a lack of funding. Ċ In conclusion, while vocational training plays an important role in society and indeed should be funded by the states, governments should spend money on university education as well, for it is equally crucial to the development of a country.