Universities, supreme citadels for building an enlightened generation, play a pivotal role in shaping a country's destiny. Thus the curriculum they follow to teach pupils has a profound impact on its overall outcome. Though some scholars believe that teaching a wide range of subjects at tertiary level is far more beneficial than restraining the syllabus to a few particular subjects, I have reasons to disagree with this view.
First of all, universities cannot teach all the subjects to the disciples and the notion of teaching them a great number of subjects is impractical. For instance, an average university has more than 30 departments and they are meant to specialise students in a particular field, not make them the jack of all trades only to produce mediocre professionals. Many public universities are already struggling to finish the course in time and if more subjects are added, that would simply make the scenario worse.
Furthermore, a medical student, when forced to study history and poetry, would feel less connected to those subjects, ultimately ending with less specialised knowledge and skill. Similarly, a student from literature would find solving higher calculus a real challenge. The university already has its departments that pick students based on their merits and interests and the course offering should stick to that.
Finally, someone does not need to excel in all subjects to do better in his profession. If an engineering student is interested in studying history, he can always do so even the university curriculum does not include it. Many eminent scientists had little knowledge of other subjects and that did not deter them from changing the world forever and this can be a great example how specific subjects in tertiary level can be beneficial than the idea of adding a list of unrelated subjects.
To conclude, the areas of studies, especially in this modern era, are myriad and thus adding a spectrum of subjects in every major is not a practical idea.
Universities
, supreme citadels for building an enlightened generation, play a pivotal role in shaping a country's destiny.
Thus
the curriculum they follow to teach pupils has a profound impact on its
overall
outcome. Though
some
scholars believe that teaching a wide range of
subjects
at tertiary level is far more beneficial than restraining the syllabus to a few particular
subjects
, I have reasons to disagree with this view.
First of all
,
universities
cannot teach all the
subjects
to the disciples and the notion of teaching them a great number of
subjects
is impractical.
For instance
, an average
university
has more than 30
departments and
they
are meant
to
specialise
students
in a particular field, not
make
them the jack of all trades
only
to produce mediocre professionals.
Many
public
universities
are already struggling to finish the course in time and if more
subjects
are
added
, that would
simply
make
the scenario worse.
Furthermore
, a medical
student
, when forced to study history and poetry, would feel less connected to those
subjects
,
ultimately
ending with less
specialised
knowledge and
skill
.
Similarly
, a
student
from literature would find solving higher calculus a real challenge. The
university
already has its departments that pick
students
based on their merits and interests and the course offering should stick to that.
Finally
, someone does not need to excel in all
subjects
to do better in his profession. If an engineering
student
is interested
in studying history, he can always do
so
even the
university
curriculum does not include it.
Many
eminent scientists had
little
knowledge of other
subjects
and that did not deter them from changing the world forever and this can be a great example how specific
subjects
in tertiary level can be beneficial than the
idea
of adding a list of unrelated subjects.
To conclude
, the areas of studies,
especially
in this modern era, are myriad and
thus
adding a spectrum of
subjects
in every major is not a practical
idea
.