The increasing globalisation of professional development has stimulated an upsurge in vocational training overseas. Thus, there exists ongoing debate as to whether these graduates should be obliged to do work where they have studied or be given the right to work wherever they wish to. This essay will elucidate on the underlying arguments of either view before my stance that where one earns their living should be their choice, irrespective of the location in which they have undergone training is further explored.
Proponents of having full control over your working location often focus their attention on the valuable experiences gained from working in different environments. Differing settings entail newfound obstacles to the job-seeker, thus necessitating them to sharpen their skills and acquire new knowledge. Furthermore, meeting with people from all around the world provides one with amusing information about cultures, as well as a chance to practise assimilating oneself into other societies. The common practice of travelling to countries abroad in a gap year – a year in which high school graduates pursue their own interests before going to college – is an excellent example of this. Oftentimes, these young people are globe-trotters, wandering from place to place while doing temporary jobs to provide themselves with basic necessities. It is not unfamiliar to see youths ending up changing university majors after a gap year, as they have matured through real life experience and hard work while travelling enough to focus on attainable and suitable career goals that they genuinely love.
To the contrary, however, those who believe in requiring graduates to work where they have training propose that the knowledge acquired from courses and programs are taught to fit the current climate of economy and society of that particular country, or even of the exact region. Thus, looking for work in another nation would be a waste of time and money, as it does not make good use of their own learning process. Additionally, countries can also utilise this policy to attract a hard-working, bright workforce into their borders, stimulating their own economy. Singapore stands as a prime example of this approach, with the government funding scholarships to students to study in this nation, after which students are often required to remain there to do work. Using this approach, the country initiates a “brain drain” – a situation where talents from abroad seek citizenship in another country that will make use of their expertise – to empower its intelligentsia, further boosting the economic situation and bringing riches to the nation.
Though both viewpoints have reasonable justifications, it is my opinion, however, that every graduate of vocational training has thorough autonomy over their locale of labour. Restricting it would indeed deem this unachievable and downright unacceptable, as freedom of choice is an inalienable right of humans. Each person has their own preferences as to the weather, food, community and cultural values that they found fitting for making a living. Should people be forced to live in a place they do not genuinely take a liking in, they would easily become inflicted with mental illnesses with detrimental impact.
All in all, although there are valid arguments for calling for employment of graduates in the very country they have gone to learn, the nonnegotiable right to choose where one’s roots are should never be overlooked. As such, this essay suggests that professionals should pursue work where they find a liking in, no matter where they receive training. It is indeed necessary that countries implement policies to attract prospective talents, so that those with wisdom can shine where they deserve.