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.
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.