anuse25 /
Mar 9, 2026 #1
Some think that young people should be free to choose any career they like, while others say that they should think more realistically about their future. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Some contend that young individuals are free to select any career based on their preference, while others believe that they ought to consider their future using a realistic approach. I agree with the latter opinion.
On one hand, thinking realistically provides a better financial safety net. Young workers will become breadwinners of their families and care for their family members as they grow. It is better for them to pay off their debts like student loans at the early stage to save interest and maintain a good credit record. Once they choose a suitable career, it will take them years of skills and experience to ascend the corporate hierarchy. For example, there is a consistent demand for medical professionals. It would be unwise for graduates to abandon such opportunity and enter other fields with uncertain prospects.
On the other hand, a career chosen freely is often associated with career achievements. People think those individuals tend to perform better at work since they are filled with passion. It is likely that they practice the related techniques during their spare time as a hobby. As career occupies one-half of people's life, they should opt for something enjoyable. For instance, pop singers sang and followed their dreams to become what they are today. However, I believe this perspective is flawed. People's preference could change over time when they convert their hobbies into careers. They might not see the necessary attributes required to excel in an industry under constrains like time and limited resources that would make their job more challenging.
In summary, freely chosen careers can provide job achievement, while realistic thinking about future can bring about financial security. I side with the latter one.
Some contend that young individuals are free to select any career based on their preference, while others believe that they ought to consider their future using a realistic approach. I agree with the latter opinion.
On one hand, thinking realistically provides a better financial safety net. Young workers will become breadwinners of their families and care for their family members as they grow. It is better for them to pay off their debts like student loans at the early stage to save interest and maintain a good credit record. Once they choose a suitable career, it will take them years of skills and experience to ascend the corporate hierarchy. For example, there is a consistent demand for medical professionals. It would be unwise for graduates to abandon such opportunity and enter other fields with uncertain prospects.
On the other hand, a career chosen freely is often associated with career achievements. People think those individuals tend to perform better at work since they are filled with passion. It is likely that they practice the related techniques during their spare time as a hobby. As career occupies one-half of people's life, they should opt for something enjoyable. For instance, pop singers sang and followed their dreams to become what they are today. However, I believe this perspective is flawed. People's preference could change over time when they convert their hobbies into careers. They might not see the necessary attributes required to excel in an industry under constrains like time and limited resources that would make their job more challenging.
In summary, freely chosen careers can provide job achievement, while realistic thinking about future can bring about financial security. I side with the latter one.
