Introduction: It is believed that minors under the age of 18 would benefit from the provision of education on a full-time basis. I partially agree with this idea to the extent that it’s practical.

P1: The benefits of such a policy are clear. Firstly, if minors obtained full-time education, this would lower unemployment figures and decrease competition for jobs for the period when they are at school. Secondly, in addition to combating the unemployment rate, there would be fewer opportunities for the children to be involved in juvenile delinquency since they will be engaged in studying full-time. Thirdly, assuming the education content is structured in such a way, the students could be better prepared for their working life and future career. For instance, to have a high-flying career a doctor needs more than 7 years of studying, and having a full-time education would decrease the time spent on education later in their life.

P2: Accompanying these benefits there are some obvious issues to address in terms of practicality. Keeping students in full-time education until the age of 18 is likely to be expensive, which some developing countries might not be able to sustain. Moreover, continuing education past a certain age may not be relevant to the career prospects of some people. Take a sanitation worker, for example. In this case, only a minimal amount of education is required relative to a barrister or a plastic surgeon.

Conclusion: In conclusion, I agree that the provision of full-time schooling for minors is worthwhile wherever it is relevant to the needs of the students and is economically viable for the country in question.