More and more qualified people are moving from poor to rich countries to fill vacancies in specialist areas like engineering, computing and medicine. Some people believe that by encouraging the movement of such people rich countries are stealing form poor countries. Others feel that this is only part of the natural movement of workforce around the world. Discuss both ideas and give your opinion.

 These days, the so-called ‘brain drain’ from poor to rich countries has sparked much debate. Some people argue urging experts to go from underprivileged areas to developed ones is not fair, while many others consider this phenomenon totally common.

Defenders of this movement around the world claim it is not a new phenomenon. Migrant workers have always been attracted by the wider choice of employment and greater opportunity in mega cities both in their own countries and abroad. Recently, as the technological age has advanced and as richer countries find themselves with not enough workers to feed their development, they have had to turn to other parts of the world to find the necessary manpower. Many richer European countries, for instance are now trying to attract skilled IT specialists from my home country Iran by offering much higher salaries than they could imagine earning at home. An illustration of this is my brother whose dreams may not have come true had it not been for his having been employed in MIT Research Center. With the globalization of the world economy, many people feel that the process cannot be stopped.

Critics, I myself included, are of the opinion that measures should be taken to address the problem, by compensating poor countries financially for the loss of investment in the people they have trained, like doctors and nurses. Admittedly, this may be cumbersome to administer, but an attempt could be made to get it off the ground. Another step, which in part has already begun to happen, is to use the forces of globalization itself. Western countries could encourage people to stay in their own countries by direct investment in projects like computer factories or by sending patients abroad for treatment, as is already happening.

Overall, I am convinced it is obviously difficult to restrict the movement of people around the world and there is little likelihood to be able to stop it; thus, attempts should be made to redress the imbalance.

Analysis

A. Task response:

1. This essay has covered all parts of the given topic most probably because the candidate has spent enough time on comprehending the topic before he/she started to write.

2. The candidate has stated his own opinion definitely regarding the topic.

3. The central paragraphs of the essay have been supported with a range of techniques like examples

4. This candidate has applied 300 words, which has far exceeded the mentioned standard

B. Coherence & cohesion:

1. The candidate has managed to express his/her position clearly and successfully because of applying correct & appropriate linkers such as but, admittedly, …

2. This piece of writing is both coherent & cohesive.

C. Grammar:

1. This candidate has used a wide range of structures including passive voice, adjective clauses, …; more importantly, they are correct which mean the candidate has shown an excellent command of English structures by making mistakes in neither basic ones nor advanced ones .

2. The candidate has paid special attention to punctuation.

D. Vocabulary:

1. This candidate has used a wide range of appropriate & different words whose collocations are correct, for instance spark, underprivileged, phenomenon, redress, cumbersome, …

۲٫ There is no sign of repetitive words or contractions in the essay; also, spelling and capitalization have been taken care of flawlessly.

Examiner’s final comment:

Totally, this essay seems good enough to be worthy of IELTS Band 8 because of the above-mentioned plus points.