Student life.

I recently came across an interesting question. Should all people who obtain higher education while being sponsored by the state (i.e. the state covering the tuition fees) have to work in their home state for at least 3 years after graduating?

Aside from the obvious organizational problems (Do you have to work 3 years after getting a Bachelor's or Master's?; How can the state enforce such a rule?) there are obvious issues with the use of the proposition. The problem that raised such an idea is the fact that many people look for work in foreign countries where the wages are significantly higher, and consequently few specialists remain. In essence, the state subsidizes the training of workforce for other countries, and gains very little in return.

While the 'how?' can be addressed by laying down some ground rules (any degree after which the person does not enroll in a local higher education facility; any emigrates can be prosecuted upon their return home), the idea retains issues that cannot be addressed simply. For example, a person who completes a Bachelor's in his home country and wishes to go to med school in the Unites States, simply cannot. He'd have to find work for 3 years. The problem herein lies in the fact that the person will no longer be financed by his or her home state, and as such, the state is unable to make any demands concerning the education received abroad. And so, the demand has to be made either beforehand (before going abroad) or extended by the duration or the studies (making the person stay in the home country for 3 years after coming back). In the former case, the person will become a fully-fledged specialist when about half of his probable lifetime is over, and retirement is creeping up. This means a relatively short time of employment, even if the person chooses to remain in the home country after graduating. In the latter case, it effectively hinders the person's potential career. He or she could get a job in his or her while studying, and forcing them to come back could mean giving up a great position that might not be open 3 years later. Internships generally want younger people, and besides, the impression made on a potential employer fades with time. Forcing people to come back is just throwing even more hurdles in their faces. Keeping them here is even worse.

There are plenty of specialties where the local work market is extremely limited, or even absent. The workforce needs to move to where the work is, because forcing a person to work 3 years in a place there is actually no work pertaining to the person's education results in cheaper workforce. More people with higher education will be working in blue collar positions, McDonald's (not just the literature majors)... It would be a terrible waste of resources. Why teach and train people to be specialists if we do not allow them to use their knowledge and skills? Why spend our tax money and people's time to produce overeducated cleaning staff? After all, resources are very limited.

The only solution as far as the young, aspiring teens are involved if this were to come to pass as far as I can figure is emigration. Get your higher education in Scotland, France or Germany. This way you will retain the option of choosing whether you wish to return home or remain abroad. But nobody will force you to do either. It may not be possible for everyone, as living and studying abroad is demanding, both financially and intellectually (you need to know the language). And I've heard excess emigration of bright, young, aspiring individuals is not exactly what is in a state's best interest.

All in all, forcing people to remain in the country that funded their higher education after graduation is not only limiting the people's chances of success, personal happiness and spiritual fulfillment, it is also impractical and counterproductive from the country's own perspective. As such, the rule would bring absolutely no perks for anyone, only create an abundance of further problems. In this case, the rule should not ever put into practice.