Writing Academic Task 2 Band 6.0 Example

There is a common belief that professionals like doctors and engineers should not be free to work in a different country than the one they did their training at. There is an opposing view that they should be required to work in the same country they studied in. From where I stand, restricting these professionals for a short period after qualification may be reasonable, but a permanent restriction is unfair. The first two positions above both support some form of compulsory service; the contrasting view is that graduates should be free to take jobs wherever they choose.

There are several reasons why a temporary work requirement might benefit the country that provides professional training. Governments and universities may invest considerable resources in preparing doctors and engineers, and these professionals are often needed to provide essential services. If all graduates immediately moved abroad, some communities could face difficulties filling important roles. A limited period of local service could therefore help ensure that training benefits the society that supported it. Such a policy should be clearly explained before students begin their courses and should apply fairly.

However, requiring people to remain in one country indefinitely would restrict their freedom and could harm their careers. Professionals may find better opportunities, specialist training or family support elsewhere. Allowing them to move can also help them develop new skills and gain experience that may be useful if they later return home. Countries can encourage graduates to stay by offering suitable salaries, good working conditions and career development rather than relying only on compulsory rules.

Overall, I believe a reasonable, time-limited service requirement can be justified, especially where public resources have supported training. After completing that commitment, doctors and engineers should be free to work in another country if they wish.