top of page

Professionals, such as Doctors and Engineers, to be Restricted or Free to Work - Task 2 Band 9 Essay

Updated: Mar 18

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.


Write about the following topic:


Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they did their training. Others believe they should be free to work in another country if they wish.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.


Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experiences.


You should write at least 250 words.


Task 2 Band 9 Essay Sample - Some people believe that professionals, such as doctors and engineers, should be required to work in the country where they did their training. Others believe they should be free to work in another country if they wish.

Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score



Sample Essay 1

The debate over whether professionals like doctors and engineers should serve in their training country or have the liberty to work abroad encapsulates concerns about brain drain versus global talent exchange. On one hand, obliging professionals to work within their training territory ensures investment in education pays dividends to the local society, nurturing a sustainable ecosystem of expertise. Conversely, allowing professionals the freedom to work internationally fosters cross-cultural knowledge transfer and global development.


Advocates for the restriction contend that countries, especially those in development, pour substantial resources into the education of professionals, expecting them to contribute locally post-graduation. This investment aims not only at personal enrichment but also at societal advancement. When nations finance the training of doctors, for instance, they anticipate these individuals will bolster the local healthcare system, addressing critical shortages and enhancing public health outcomes. This stance is rooted in a belief in professionals' moral duty to reciprocate the community's investment, thus ensuring a tangible return that benefits societal progress and sustains the local expertise pool.


Conversely, proponents of global mobility argue that allowing professionals the autonomy to work across borders significantly enhances global intellectual and practical exchanges. This freedom not only enriches the individual's career through diverse experiences but also stimulates innovation by introducing varied challenges and solutions across contexts. This global perspective can be particularly effective in redistributing skills to regions experiencing acute shortages in specific fields, thereby addressing global inequalities. Moreover, such mobility can catalyze the development of a more interconnected and empathetic world, where knowledge and expertise flow freely, tackling global challenges more effectively.


In conclusion, the debate balances local investment protection and global knowledge exchange. Finding a middle ground that enables professionals to serve both their home country and the world may be the optimal approach to this intricate issue.


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score



Sample Essay 2

While some people insist it is mandatory for professionals to serve for the nations where they received training programs, others contend that individuals should feel free to work in any other countries wherever they want. Though the onus is on the skilled people to give back to their nations where they were trained, in my opinion, freedom of choosing workplace beyond of geographical boundary should be warranted for all professionals for further development of science and technology and better human lifestyle.


After finishing the training courses, working in a country that provided such programs is professionals’ obligation because the nation supported with their education using its all-out resources in the forms of funding student loans, training equipment, dorms and so on. To be more specific, a nation generously provides its universities with high tech lab space, knowledgeable instructors, safe housing, insurance, prompt medical response, food and nutrition, and other associated requirements. For instance, it takes incredible sum of resources for a nation to train a medical professional in Korea, because the experience in hospitals cannot be gained without the support from the country’s field-wise specific laws and regulations. Once all of these supports have been made available for the students to grow groomed, it is time for the educated individuals to give back to the nation and use their knowledge to further its development.


Nevertheless, freedom to choose the place to work allows greater chance of success in scientific development, which can lead to much more welfare for the more people worldwide. The professionals are able to grab potential chances in another country with advanced skills and knowledge compared to a country where they received training programs. For instance, ten years ago, the knowledge called ‘Artificial neural network’, which is a fundamental theory for AI products popular in recent days, was less developed in Korea, compared to Canada and the USA. Therefore, a large number of scientists went abroad to work in this field, and greater improvement they made in the field enabled further development of AI products.


To sum up, since allowing freedom to work wherever the professionals want makes the scientific and technological development possible which leads to better human lifestyle, they should not be restricted to work in a particular country.


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score



Sample Essay 3

There is an ongoing debate over whether professionals, particularly in fields such as medicine and engineering, who receive their education domestically, should be required to work in their home country or have the freedom to choose an overseas position. This essay will examine both sides of the argument before explaining why I support the latter position.


Supporters of mandatory employment in the country of education for in-demand professions have several reasons for their stance. The first is that tertiary education is often funded by taxpayers, and the cost of education is prohibitively expensive. If students do not receive government support, only the wealthy will be able to afford to graduate, limiting opportunities for potentially exceptional talent. As a result, alumni have a responsibility to give back to the society that helped them. Furthermore, these professionals are likely to be more familiar with the cultural norms of their country, enabling them to achieve better outcomes for citizens.


However, many believe that professionals should be free to choose where they work. The most important factor is the amount of time professionals devote to their education, sacrificing relationships and incurring debt. Allowing them to move overseas for better pay or a better lifestyle should be seen as a reward for their sacrifices. For example, Indian doctors often move to Western countries because not only are the salaries higher, but the natural environment is healthier for their families. Additionally, it could be argued that all taxpayers benefit from some form of government assistance and, as such, have a duty to their country, creating a potential barrier to migration.


In conclusion, I believe that both sides of the debate present compelling arguments. However, if a country provides equal opportunities for all citizens to receive an education, there is no reason to limit anyone's ability to choose their career location freely. Moreover, I believe that migrants often contribute significantly to their home country through financial remittances. Therefore, governments should focus on creating economic conditions that encourage in-demand professionals to seek employment locally, rather than imposing restrictions on their movement.



Sample Essay 4

The debate surrounding the obligation of skilled professionals like doctors and engineers to contribute their services to their home countries after training is a provocative topic. Some people posit that this requirement is essential due to these professionals' critical role in national development, whereas others advocate for the freedom to capitalize on global job opportunities. Although both viewpoints hold merit, my stance leans towards endorsing the freedom of employment choice for these professionals, considering the multifaceted benefits this flexibility can offer on an individual as well as a global level.


On the one hand, proponents of the idea that these highly trained professionals should serve their home countries primarily rely on the premise of reciprocity. It is often the case that in many nations, government subsidies and investments are pivotal in providing state-of-the-art facilities and top-notch educators in medical and engineering institutes. These investments aim to nurture a skilled workforce that would subsequently contribute to the nation's socioeconomic progress. Moreover, the emigration of such skilled professionals can lead to 'brain drain', depriving the country of potential innovations and advancements.


However, I am of the opinion that these professionals should not be restricted in their choice of employment location. One fundamental reason lies in the pursuit of improved living standards and career advancement. For instance, a doctor trained in India might receive a significantly higher salary and access better medical facilities if employed in the USA. Such an international experience can not only help enhance their professional skills but also provide them with the means to support their families back home. Furthermore, the movement of professionals across borders fosters the exchange of knowledge and ideas, catalysing global scientific and technological advancement. A case in point is the collaborative research among scientists from different nations that expedited the development of the COVID-19 vaccine.


In conclusion, while the argument for professionals serving their home countries post-training has merit, I believe the liberty to seek employment opportunities internationally brings about broader benefits. This freedom not only enhances individual professionals' career prospects and living standards but also contributes significantly to global scientific and technological progress.


Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner


Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

0 comments

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page