College seat shortage after school leaving — pick feasible remedies Statement: Each year, thousands of eligible students fail to secure college admission in both urban and rural areas. Courses of Action: (I) Set up more colleges in both urban and rural areas. (II) Reduce the number of schools. (III) Offer more vocational courses in schools so students can take up vocations after school.

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Answer: Only I and III follow

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
When demand for college seats far exceeds supply, two rational levers exist: expand higher-education capacity and diversify post-school pathways so college is not the only route to employment.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • Eligible students are denied admission due to capacity constraints.
  • Course I: Build more colleges to increase seats.
  • Course II: Reduce schools, which would arbitrarily shrink the pipeline.
  • Course III: Strengthen vocational options to create employability after school.


Concept / Approach:

  • Supply-side expansion (I) directly addresses the seat gap.
  • Pathway diversification (III) eases pressure on college seats and improves outcomes.
  • Reducing schools (II) is regressive and unrelated to capacity mismatch at the tertiary level.


Step-by-Step Solution:

Accept I: More colleges = more seats.Reject II: Fewer schools harms access and equity.Accept III: Vocational courses provide alternatives and immediate employability.


Verification / Alternative check:

Countries facing similar pressure expand tertiary institutions and modernize school-to-work transitions via TVET programs—exactly I and III.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Only I misses the pathway fix; II and III accepts a harmful II; All follow endorses II erroneously.


Common Pitfalls:

Treating the problem as fixed demand rather than enabling parallel routes to careers.


Final Answer:

Only I and III follow

More Questions from Course of Action

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion