There is no doubt that cities provide good conditions for people. While some people believe that new teachers and doctors should be appointed in rural areas mandatorily, others argue that they should not be assigned if they are not willing to go. In this essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument and explain my support for the former view, which is that working for a few years should be a requirement.
On the one hand, those who believe people should work in rural areas voluntarily argue that it may lead to a decrease in their work performance. They think that this is because those people may think that their job is temporary, and they cannot feel like they belong in rural areas. Consequently, many people cannot focus on their work because of those requirements and decide to quit their job. Furthermore, they believe that working in rural areas may be hard for married people. The reason for this is that while one of the spouses cannot move to another place, one of them may have to move to rural locations. For example, in Turkey, although teacher couples are assigned to the same place by the government, doctors do not have the chance to choose a hospital near their wives or husbands.
However, I would argue that temporary duties in some rural areas should be mandatory. Despite affecting workers psychology, there may be a lack of workers in some places if it is not mandatory. This happens because most people want to stay in cities rather than rural areas, and there may be an excessive demand for jobs in cities. To make matters worse, it may cause an increase in the number of unemployed people because the government cannot afford every position.
In conclusion, although some people think that people should work in rural areas willingly, in my opinion, working in rural areas for a number of years should be compulsory.