Cambridge 17 Writing Task 2 Test 3 - Sample Answers (Band 9 to 4-5)

There is ongoing debate about whether highly trained professionals such as doctors and engineers should be obligated to work in the country that funded their training, or whether they should be free to pursue opportunities abroad; I will examine both perspectives before giving my own view.

Those who favour requiring professionals to remain in their home country generally argue that public funding, often used to subsidise medical and engineering education, creates an implicit obligation to give back to the society that made that training possible. Many developing countries invest heavily in training doctors, only to see a significant proportion emigrate to wealthier nations shortly after qualifying, a phenomenon often referred to as brain drain, which can leave the training country with a severe shortage of skilled professionals despite its investment.

On the other hand, those who support freedom of movement argue that restricting a qualified professional's right to work wherever they choose is both impractical and arguably unjust, given that people should generally be free to pursue the best opportunities available to them, particularly when higher salaries or better working conditions abroad can substantially improve their own and their family's quality of life. There is also an argument that professionals who work abroad often send remittances home or return later with valuable international experience and expertise that ultimately benefits their home country regardless.

In my opinion, while I sympathise with the argument about fairness to individuals, I believe governments have a legitimate role in mitigating brain drain through incentives rather than legal compulsion, such as offering better pay, career progression, and working conditions domestically, or requiring a limited number of years of domestic service in exchange for subsidised training, rather than an outright, indefinite restriction on where someone may live and work.

In conclusion, both perspectives raise valid concerns, but I believe a balanced approach involving reasonable incentives and limited service commitments, rather than an absolute obligation to remain, best serves both individual freedom and the training country's genuine needs.

There is debate about whether professionals such as doctors and engineers should be required to work in the country where they trained, or whether they should be free to work abroad. I will discuss both views before giving my opinion.

Those who support requiring professionals to stay argue that public money is often used to fund their training, so they have an obligation to give something back to their country. Many developing countries train doctors who then move to wealthier countries after qualifying, which is often called brain drain, and this can leave the training country without enough skilled workers.

On the other hand, those who support freedom of movement argue that it is unfair to stop someone from working wherever they choose, especially since higher pay or better conditions abroad can significantly improve their life. Professionals working abroad may also send money home or bring back useful experience later, which can still benefit their home country.

In my opinion, I believe governments should use incentives rather than force to keep professionals at home, such as better pay and working conditions, or requiring a limited number of years of service in exchange for subsidised training, rather than restricting people indefinitely.

In conclusion, both views raise valid points, but I believe a balanced approach involving incentives and limited service requirements is fairer than forcing professionals to remain in one country permanently. This kind of compromise would allow countries to protect their investment in training without treating skilled professionals as though they have no say over their own careers and futures.

Some people think professionals like doctors and engineers should work in the country where they trained. Others think they should be free to work abroad. I will discuss both views.

People who agree with the first view say that training is often paid for by the government, so professionals should give back to their country by working there. If too many doctors leave for other countries, this is called brain drain, and it can leave the country without enough skilled workers.

People who agree with the second view say that professionals should be free to choose where they work, especially if they can earn more money or have a better life abroad. They also say that professionals who work abroad might send money home or come back later with useful experience.

In my opinion, I think governments should offer better pay and conditions to keep professionals at home, rather than forcing them to stay, because forcing people does not seem fair.

In conclusion, both views have good points, but I believe it is better to give professionals incentives to stay rather than requiring them to by law. Forcing someone to work in a particular country for many years, even after they have finished their training, could also make them feel resentful and less motivated in their job, which may not actually benefit the country in the long run. Instead, if a country makes conditions genuinely attractive, most professionals will likely choose to stay voluntarily, which is a much better outcome than forcing them to remain against their wishes.

Some people think professional like doctor and engineer should work in the country where they train. Others think they should be free to work abroad. I will discuss both view.

People who agree with the first view say that training is often pay for by the government, so professional should give back to their country by working there. If too many doctor leave for other country, this is call brain drain, and it can leave the country without enough skilled worker.

People who agree with the second view say that professional should be free to choose where they work, especially if they can earn more money or have better life abroad. They also say that professional who work abroad might send money home or come back later with useful experience.

In my opinion, I think government should offer better pay and condition to keep professional at home, rather than forcing them to stay, because forcing people does not seem fair.

In conclusion, both view have good point, but I believe it is better to give professional incentive to stay rather than requiring them to by law. Forcing someone to work in a particular country for many year, even after they have finish their training, could also make them feel resentful and less motivated in their job, which may not actually benefit the country in the long run. Instead, if a country make condition genuinely attractive, most professional will likely choose to stay voluntarily, which is a much better outcome than forcing them to remain against their wish.