As the modern world progresses, changes in the education system are unavoidable. One example of possible development is the rise in numbers of students choosing to pursue work-based training instead of the classical approach via university. While for some people the pros of this situation outweigh the cons, I would argue otherwise.
On the one hand, an advantage of this change would be the number of people who finish their education much sooner. In the case of implementing this type of curriculum in my country, people attending work-based high schools only attend school for 3 years, while those attending schools which value theoretical knowledge more are typically left to do 4 years. The rise in the number of people ready to work straight out of high school, and at such a young age means less student debt which would be owed to the university, or, more precisely said, the government.
On the other hand, the drop in the percentage of people pursuing a university degree would mean a rise in unemployment and the closing of many institutions. As is the case in my country, many community colleges have closed due to the quantity of people attending work-based high schools who do not need a further education. That has resulted in the loss of many valuable professors and their research. Another thing to consider would be the stability of, for example, the medical field for which a university degree is crucial. The lack of medical students would result in a lack of medical staff, and that would mean fewer professionals available for helping the ones in critical conditions.
In conclusion, while the switchover to work-based training holds beneficial advantages for a country, for example a more stable government, I would say that the disadvantages, such as the rise in unemployment and drop in numbers of medical staff, would be far more impactful.