Should universities require students to learn many subjects?
Whether universities should require students to take courses of varied subjects or to specialize in one subject has long been a heated discussion. As a college student, I have strong reasons to advocate the first policy.
For one thing, this policy benefits students in finding a job. As for the fierce competition of job market, finding a job becomes a severe problem. A person equipped with a wide range of knowledge will have more opportunities than those who specialized in one field. A friend of mine majors in finance in the university, however, he finds interest in French and he chooses it as his second major. He will graduate this year, which poses a tremendous strike on his major due to the world-wide recession. However, he is lucky enough to get a position in a French company. It is his wide knowledge that helped him. Taking courses of more than one subject enables students to be well prepared for a broad spectrum of careers, which may be very helpful for a student to acquire a job.
What is more, courses of different subjects help each other. For a college student,a wide range of knowledge facilitates the study of each subjects because the knowledge of one subject often overlaps that of another subject . Sometimes, knowledge and skill learned from one course can serve as a useful tool for another subject. For example, English is a widely-accepted tool for the study of almost all the other subjects in non-English speaking countries. Meanwhile, English is a subject on its own.
Although someone may cast doubts on my statement, citing the reason that one can not deal with so many courses of several subjects at the same time. They argue that a student who has to learn too many courses can not learn each of them well enough. I do not agree with this point. The purpose of college education is not to make every student a specialist on one subject, in contrast, this experience builds a foundation for each student to be an expert in more than one fields.
In conclusion, as what I have discussed above, universities should be responsible to provide students with courses of a broad spectrum of subjects. Meanwhile, college students should take efforts to obtain as much knowledge as possible in varied subjects.
2nd line - I have strong reason to believe that the first policy has early precedent, by empowering students with a basic understanding and framework of diverse subject areas and interests, so they can harness those skills to puruse highly specialized research and related endeavors in the field of their choice.
3rd line - Scrap "for one thing", this is colloquial
point - You might want to provide a symposium for the things you will be talking about in the early going, rather than jumping headfirst into it. Maybe start out with a sentence here that hints at the parallel nature of the points you will be making. Something like, "having a grasp of a wide variety of subject areas is multipurpose; it facillitates further learning, especially in fields where, without requisite knowledge, one might be incapable, or not have a good enough understanding of interdisciplinary material mutual to their field. This might ultimately prevent them from understanding and/or appreciating the dynamic intricacies that are characteristic of their chosen field.
This is just the educational aspect. It may be a run on, but it has relevant point. Notice how it can branch out into so many different subplots.
You can talk about the work aspect now, and there's alot of material you can work with. You already addressed these things somewhat, just that you don't do it in a well coordinated manner.
There's a philosophical aspect.
What about the practical aspect.
How to change a tire (auto). Discipline your child (child psychology). How to handle food to prevent illness (epidemiology). How to make a graph in excel, (basic ITE). The list goes on and on, and I mentioned these things in specific because I learned most of what I know about them in a wide variety of classes.
There are so many angles you can take. You can prove your point simply by pointing out the omnipresence of it. The question is not asking you to acknowledge specialization as much as it is asking you to give good reasons why taking different subjects is beneficial.
Thank you very much! I really appreciate your kindness!
If you're problem is solved, then great. But you should post what the requirements of the essay is next time:)
Due to the fierce competition of the job market, finding a job becomes a severe problem.
What is more, courses of different subjects enhance each other.
I think you should include mention of the argument about whether education is supposed to be al about job placement, or if it should be about preserving culture and enhancing the mind. It is interesting that you argue that specialization decreases a person's job-readiness, because usually people argue that too much specialization, though it makes you good at your job, does not make you a well-rounded scholar like education is supposed to do.
It is good that you refute a counterargument, but the more appropriate counterargument to refute would be the argument that specialization is preferable due to the excellent skill that is developed through specialization -- the more likely counterargument. I think your strongest argument, and most unique, is that a diversity of subjects enhance one another, deepening perspective. That is good stuff!!
I understand now, Thank you@
Also, you could add that exposure to a wide variety of topics develops certain general learning skills that make it easier to adapt to whatever circumstances you encounter. Some who takes a degree specializing in engineering, for example, would find it very difficult to suddenly start studying history. Some one who takes a liberal arts degree with a side of science courses, on the other hand, can probably begin to pick up engineering if he really has to.
