Generally it is believed that graduates should choose the field of study, they prefer, there are others thinking that students should learn science-related subjects which turns productive in their later life.
Both these views have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion the later view hold strong due to the impact they have on the society.
On one hand, it is beneficial for students to have the freedom to decide and choose the field of discipline as their career. The movement aids, to attain their goals easier due to the high passion and motivation they possess. As each student is unique in their intellectual abilities, some have higher potential for artistic skills, whereas other students will be talented enough in scientific disciplines. Research conducted at Ohio University has found that students will excel in the branches to which they are intrinsically motivated. To give an example, career growth is positively correlated with self-esteem.
Contrarily, it is popularly believed that youngsters should be advised and forced to learn scientific disciplines due to the changing global market. The trend helps to secure their lives financially, by focusing on the jobs that are in high demand globally. In the end, materialistic possession weighs more, and basic livelihood is a necessity in each man's life. An online research conducted by Job Search Engine has found that nearly 75% of the traditional jobs are dying each day and that in the future, jobs will be highly generated from technological space.
To conclude, even though both the views posit favourable and unfavourable outcomes, I believe students should be encouraged to acquire skills depending on their abilities and proficiency as society needs a generation that can rationally think and not mere robots. Furthermore, the world itself is rich in diversity and that promoting a solo field of education kills gifted talents.
Generally
it
is believed
that graduates should choose the field of study, they prefer, there are others thinking that
students
should learn science-related subjects which turns productive in their later life.
Both these views have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion the later view hold strong due to the impact they have on the society.
On one hand, it is beneficial for
students
to have the freedom to decide and choose the field of discipline as their career. The movement aids, to attain their goals easier due to the high passion and motivation they possess. As each
student
is unique in their intellectual abilities,
some
have higher potential for artistic
skills
, whereas other
students
will
be talented
enough
in scientific disciplines. Research conducted at Ohio University has found that
students
will excel in the branches to which they are
intrinsically
motivated. To give an example, career growth is
positively
correlated with self-esteem.
Contrarily
, it is
popularly
believed that youngsters should
be advised
and forced to learn scientific disciplines due to the changing global market. The trend
helps
to secure their
lives
financially
, by focusing on the
jobs
that are in high demand globally. In the
end
, materialistic possession weighs more, and basic livelihood is a necessity in each
man
's life. An online research conducted by
Job
Search Engine has found that
nearly
75% of the traditional
jobs
are dying each day and that in the future,
jobs
will be
highly
generated from technological space.
To conclude
,
even though
both the views posit
favourable
and
unfavourable
outcomes, I believe
students
should
be encouraged
to acquire
skills
depending on their abilities and proficiency as society needs a generation that can
rationally
think
and not mere robots.
Furthermore
, the world itself is rich in diversity and that promoting a solo field of education kills gifted talents.