Opinions are divided on whether new teachers and doctors should work in rural areas for a few years or have the freedom to choose their workplace. Although both views hold merit, the former is a more convincing argument for several reasons.
Admittedly, there is a strong case for allowing employees to choose where they work. First, having some autonomy in deciding can be beneficial to employees’ performance. This is because people tend to work more effectively when they are willing to do so rather than being assigned to a particular workplace. For instance, new teachers can be more creative and energetic when they work in their preferred working environments, thereby providing higher quality education for students. Additionally, having the freedom to choose their workplace enables employees to fulfill their family obligations more effectively. While working in rural areas, employees may have to relocate, leaving their family behind, which can lead to family separation. In fact, those with elderly parents or children requiring proper care may find it difficult to fulfill their family obligations if employees have to relocate to rural areas.
However, I am convinced that requiring new teachers and doctors to work in rural areas for a limited period can bring greater benefits. The most prominent upside is that this can make a greater contribution to societal benefits. This is because requiring a period of rural service can help people living in those areas can gain easier access to education and healthcare services. As a result, this approach can contribute to enhancing people’s knowledge and improving their health, leading to a better society. Another perk is that working in rural areas can provide many valuable experiences. For instance, a newly qualified doctor working with limited resources can learn how to handle emergencies effectively, thereby developing their professional skills and ability to adapt to unexpected situations.
In conclusion, allowing a new teacher or doctor to choose their workplace can have some positive impacts. Nevertheless, I still maintain that requiring them to work in rural areas can be more advantageous. This approach can help people living in remote areas gain access to education and healthcare services, and develop employees’ crucial skills as well.