Sample IELTS Task 2 essay: should professionals stay where trained?

Nowadays, many professionals like doctors and engineers move to other countries to work. Some people think they should be required to stay and work in the country where they studied, while others believe they should be free to go to another country. In this essay I will discuss both views and give my opinion.

On the one hand, some people think professionals should work in their own country after training. The main reason is that the government, or the people through taxes, often pays a lot of money for their education, especially for doctors. So it is fair that these professionals give something back to their country. Also, many countries need doctors and engineers, and if they all leave, there will be a serious shortage of skilled workers, which is bad for the society.

On the other hand, other people believe professionals should be free to choose where to work. We live in a free world and everybody has the right to look for a better life. In another country they can earn more money, get better equipment and have more chances to develop their career. It is not fair to force a person to stay in one place against their will.

In my opinion, I think professionals should be free to work where they want, but I also understand the problem of the home country. So I think a good idea is that they work in their country for a few years first, and after that they can go abroad if they want.

In conclusion, although it is important for countries to keep their skilled workers, I believe that people should have the freedom to choose, maybe after working at home for some years.

The migration of skilled professionals such as doctors and engineers has become a contentious issue. While some maintain that these individuals should be obliged to serve the country that trained them, others champion their right to seek employment abroad. Having considered both positions, I believe freedom of movement should ultimately prevail, albeit with reasonable conditions.

Those who favour mandatory home service advance a compelling argument rooted in fairness and necessity. Professional training, particularly in medicine, is extraordinarily expensive and is frequently subsidised by the state, meaning that taxpayers effectively fund each graduate. It seems only equitable that such investment be repaid through domestic service. This concern is especially acute in developing nations, where the so-called brain drain can leave hospitals dangerously understaffed and critical infrastructure projects without expertise.

Conversely, advocates of unrestricted mobility emphasise individual liberty. In a globalised world, talented people legitimately aspire to higher salaries, superior facilities and broader professional horizons, and compelling them to remain at home infringes upon a basic personal freedom. Furthermore, those who emigrate often remit substantial sums and return with advanced skills, so the exchange is rarely as one-sided as critics suggest.

Weighing these arguments, I am persuaded that coercion is both impractical and ethically dubious; talented people forced to stay are unlikely to perform at their best. A balanced compromise, however, is attractive: graduates might be asked to serve their home country for a fixed period in return for subsidised education, after which they would be entirely free to pursue opportunities elsewhere.

In conclusion, although nations have a legitimate interest in retaining skilled workers, I believe personal freedom should take precedence, ideally tempered by a fair period of initial domestic service.