Some people claim the best way to reduce the poverty in developing countries is to provide at least 6 years free education. Do you disagree or agree?

In this day and age, there is a school of thought that whether students should be offered a 6-year free of tuition especially in several developing countries to improve the poverty status of their own nation or not. In this essay, personally, I am not in favor with the given solution due to a number of reasons in the following paragraphs. To begin with, from the perspective of national budget, this action may bring more disadvantages for the governments, due to the fact that there soon will be lack of oppotunity cost of spending elsewhere such as economy and medical system. For example, from a research of scientists, just few coutries can aid a free studying program for their citizens, and all of them are wealthy ones. Moreover, the second reason is that learners are likely to be unemployed after graduating because of numerous graduates at the same time. To illustrate, a great workforce in academic fields may led to fewer ones in labor occupations. Besides, the human resources for academic jobs will seem to be overload in the future. Taking Japanese as an example, thanks to the free tuition, most students have chances to reach the aim, being a doctor or a teacher, whereas this country ought to import a significant number of labor workers every single year. Taking everything into consideration, although it is undoubtedly that the more the authorities aid for education system, the more chances students have to access their well-paid career path. However, I believe that just a certain group of individuals should receive this action like poverty ones.