Putting “choose” in quotation marks is the main part of the title and a hint to my subjective view on the issue to be discussed in this post.

Based on my own experience and on the experience of my friends and acquaintances I came to the conclusion that most Georgian youths do not autonomously choose to get higher education, rather their choice is made directly by their parents. This is the case when parents impose their will upon their children. This is a case of paternalism, which means imposing your own will upon another person for his/her own good. The paternalistic approach assumes that the imposer knows better.

In Georgia, such an approach could be justified given the average age of a youth entering higher education institutions, which should be around 17 years.  I think 17 is an age when a person is not sure about his/her priorities and needs in life. By Georgian law, at this age, a person is not even fully legally responsible. Therefore, the paternalistic approach from parents could be justified. However, the problem is that 17 is not a good age for choosing your path in life and parents should not decide for their children. Though they are morally and legally justified, their action is, I believe, wrong from a purely practical point of view.

The Georgian government has already pursued one good reform, which automatically deals with this problem to some extent – in 2007 the shift to 12-year general education from 11-year general education was completed. This has given Georgian youth one more year to mature and think about their priorities. But of course, this is not enough. I think another good policy to pursue would be to make military service mandatory straight after completing general secondary education. This way, the government would indirectly compel youth to shift their decision forward by at least two more years. Thus, it would become less likely that parental will is imposed upon their children once they are over 20. However, because military service is mandatory only for males in Georgia, this policy would not be applicable to female youths and thus, it would most likely cause inequality in education, social status, and income between sexes.

So, I am claiming that entering higher education institution at 17 is bad because it is frequently not the autonomous decision of an individual; however, I have not yet mentioned the real negative consequences which are associated with such behavior - to name just a few - low grades, absence of interest in studying, absence of corresponding talent, motivation, etc. Those consequences directly lower the quality of education and as a result good students also suffer from such negative externalities.