Writing Feedback / The same curriculum for all students? disadvantages overweight advantages [2]

Issue Topic:
A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.".

__________

There's one claim that a nation should unify the curriculum for all students until they enter universities. However, same curriculum in all schools, from elementary institutions to high schools, in fact, is an irrational decision since it is an impairment and obstruction to education innovation, an opportunity deprivation of students and troubles to government.

Different institutions can contain diversified education direction, with the goal from average education to elite education, that all of them contribute to the further progress of academy and occupation. This is also an important result of education innovation that gave choices to students whose talent, maybe higher or lower than average young people, is not suitable for ordinary education. Imaging that if governors unified the curriculum, all educational institutions must follow all the courses in a same way, it would bring consequences that the some young people do not want to come across. Take occupation-oriented school as an example, such as STEM schools, in which most students aim at directly step into their job without consuming more budget, time and energy on next stage of education, so offering them ordinary courses set is no doubt contravene their original intention that focus on effective and specific learning. Thus, they cannot get the most needed technical abilities to meet their further career but to be the victims of this education policy that is only with prevailing curriculum. This scenario is not real for now, albeit, it would be the reality if forcefully intervene the natural development of education, which all of us do not mean to see.

Besides, curriculum unification would bring a series of troubles for governors. The most significant issue is to choose course in this curriculum, and be deeper, who can decide the principle to reserve or cancel a class, and whether this principle can satisfy the value of the whole public. For the question, the most possible answer is that government, the policy maker, possesses the right and then gathers a group of people to help them make this curriculum. It brings another complex and controversial argument, whose will the education should reflect. If government can compel all students study the same courses, does it implies that education should satisfy the tendency of current running party. From my aspect, most of us, the ordinary civilians, can not totally consent the value that aim of education serves for policy maker rather than free will of students and education institutions. Furthermore, four years or eight year later, will the policy be altered or continued? It is a common sense that growth of a generation of students takes more than a decade. Hence, reassurance of such a vital education policy can be last during an uninterrupted period of time is considerable factor to governors due to parties alternating is relatively more frequent in most democratic countries. Problems above are potential and critical challenges that would bother government as consequences of pushing policy of same curriculum to the nation.

To sum up, admittedly some benefits can be brought with the same curriculum, but the deeper and undesirable results would also come with this policy, and disadvantages overweight advantages, therefore it should be considered more discreetly before final decision is made.

___________________

I am not a native speaker, maybe there're a lot of mistakes in this essay. So any kind of comment will be appreciated.

Writing Feedback / GRE Issue：Education institution should dissuade students from pursuing area they ... [2]

TOPIC: Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

Please help me to amend the issue. Any comment will be appreciated.

There's a claim that suggest education institutions persuade students to chase their studies towards the direction which seems to be more possibility to success instead of those they unlikely to be outstanding. Personally, I quite doubt about this opinion. From this perspective, it seems that the only goal of education is to win a trophy, which actually is not. Granted, outcome-oriented thought is popular in free market economy, but it is not sensible enough to transmit this kind of value to education area.

To begin with, the destination of education should not be so utilitarian. I want to quote a concept that education is not about to pursuit applications currently can be used, but a process itself with motivation of curiosity and knowledge absorbing, which is come up with by Flexner, a significant educationist in 20th century, in one of his book, named American College. So compared with success, learning has far more important meanings which cause learners to dig out what their own interests are, and help them build a systematic capability to devote on what they prone. Especially, from perspective of an education institution, issue that how to guide students realize the connotation of study outweighs that to teach them to gain wealth and fame.

Besides the deviation of real aim of education, it would be snared in a dilemma to judge what kind of subjects or programs is to be success. Countless examples indicate that outgrowth of scientific research sometimes come from occasional serendipity, therefore to predict what would be success is not a pragmatic way more or less. For instance, during the laborious process that Maxwell search the relationship between electricity and magnetic field, he had no idea whether the research would success or not, and nobody else can infer the study would work. Opaquely, albeit, after he founded the Maxwell equations, thousands of applications of electromagnetism inevitably boomed up, such as radio and wireless communication devices. So one cannot easily distinguish which area is to be successful especially on emerging disciplines.

Moreover, if too much attention is converged on success by the lead of education institution, students may lose their own promotion and curiosity of study. It is observed that most fields of scientific research would confront works which are trivial and arduous. Thus, without one's voluntary motivation and strong inquisitiveness, it will be tough and insipid to deal with those trifles which dilettante are not willing to concentrate in. Admittedly the final laurel is most of us yearns for, but maintaining one's interest into a particular area should be treasured more since success is only one result but not the whole value of education. For example, in the 21st century, a group of people, especially computer engineers which are called geeks (often are sneered as focus too much attention on technology other than anything or anybody else), build the vigorous Bit World which public benefit from. Imagine that if those people chase commercial revenue at the moment but not curiosity to technology itself, their final achievement would be undermined.

So from several aspects, which include the essence of education, the elective understanding of success, and the significance of one's own curiosity of study, it is not rational enough for education institution to pilot their students to equate their learning to the measure of success. In spite that outcome with wealth and fame tantalize majority of us in a commercial world, I still insist education itself contains more than those attainments.