IELTS:should students who majored in education or medicine work in rural areas first

Topic: in many countries, good schools and medical facilities are available only in cities. Some people think that university graduates who become new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas for a few years. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

The issue of whether students who majored in education or medicine should work in rural areas first is certainly a contentious one. Despite there are valid arguments to the contrary. I personally believe it is better for them work in cities after graduation. While working in rural areas should just be one option among other options.

From my perspective, teachers and doctors should go where there is the greatest demand for them. With the current trend of rural depopulation and uncontrolled growth of cities, countryside is no longer the most urgent place that keen need teachers and doctors. Instead, some regions in cities such as suburban districts and slums (in less affluent countries particular) often have a huge demand for education sources and medical care. Rather than serving the minorities in remote areas, I feel that fresh graduates should devote themselves for the sake of the majority population in urban areas.

Yet, perhaps the strongest argument in favor of young teachers and doctors working in cities is that of human rights. Even if rural dwellers have the same right to obtain high quality education and medical care as some of their counterparts have in cities, new graduates also human beings, they also have the right to determine where to live and work. Given that most young people tend to find job in cities, dispatching new teachers and doctors to work in rural areas would be a violation to their civil liberty.

In conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that fresh graduates should work in cities because they can help more people there. As choosing workplace is a human right, we should only encourage those people who willingly serve in rural areas.

Working in rural areas should just be one of those options.




If people are already willing to serve in rural areas, why "encourage" them? I think it what you are trying to say is we should only encourage people to serve in rural areas, not force them.

This topic really is a hard one. For some of your arguments I would like to share my thoughts.
First, in your first argument, I think that "urgency" should be defined individually, not by gross demand of people, which means that even if only one person is dying in rural area, it's still urgent. Less demand doesn't make those patients in rural areas not urgent. Maybe that's why this topic is so hard to elaborate on.

Second, I think that since the topic is not students who majored in education or medicine "are compelled to " work in rural areas first, your second argument might be a little weak.

Hope this help:)

... "while" should be used as a connector here.


... Give more focus to the real reason. What's the reason here? It is that doctors or teachers should work in the places where there is a demand for their services. So let's put it like this;

First, like in any other profession, doctors and teachers too should be given the opportunity to work in places where there is a high demand for their services.

Your first body paragraph contains a very valid reason. However, the second para fails to keep up with the first one.


... This sentence is too long dear. It disturbs clarity of your ideas and makes it less interesting
to the user.

thanks for your advice, they are all very instructive ;)