It is - educating students at universities - one of the most significant concerns of the government as it intends to eradicate the level of illiteracy among its citizens. The question is whether the government should influence university students to study what will be valuable in terms of technological progress or students should study subjects which they prefer. In my opinion, both approaches have advantages and drawbacks; nonetheless, it would be more beneficial, if an educational department let students study subjects according to students' preference.
According to historical evidence, prioritizing a certain profession, in this case, science and technical specialties, can have an adverse effect on the economy of a country. The post-Soviet countries, for instance, had a tendency to influence students to study engineering, particularly the space, in order to compete with the West; however, after the breakdown of the USSR, the majority of member of countries shifted economy, which used to be communist, into the capitalism. As a result, most of the former countries was stagnated due to the fact that there was a shortage of students who had studied economics.
On the other hand, if a ministry of education decides not to put pressure on students when they choose subjects at universities, it might risk to reduce the number of students who study science and engineering since those subjects are considered to be relatively difficult. The government, therefore, may experience a stagnation in technical progress, which is as adverse as the experience, which the USSR experienced. Thus, ideally, it would be more beneficial, if an educational ministry has an indirect influence on students to correlate the ratio of students in each profession, for example.
In conclusion, it is vital to control educational sector of a country in order to decrease the number of illiterate individuals; nevertheless, that control should be thoroughly discussed in order not to face either economic or technical stagnation.
It is
-
educating
students
at universities
-
one of the most significant concerns of the
government
as it intends to eradicate the level of illiteracy among its citizens. The question is whether the
government
should influence university
students
to
study
what will be valuable in terms of technological progress or
students
should
study
subjects
which they prefer. In my opinion, both approaches have advantages and drawbacks; nonetheless, it would be more beneficial, if an educational department
let
students
study
subjects
according to
students&
#039; preference.
According to historical evidence, prioritizing a certain profession,
in this case
, science and technical specialties, can have an adverse effect on the economy of a
country
. The post-Soviet
countries
,
for instance
, had a tendency to influence
students
to
study
engineering,
particularly
the space, in order to compete with the West;
however
, after the breakdown of the USSR, the majority of member of
countries
shifted economy, which
used
to be communist, into the capitalism.
As a result
, most of the former
countries
was stagnated
due to the fact that there was a shortage of
students
who had studied economics.
On the other hand
, if a ministry of education decides not to put pressure on
students
when they choose
subjects
at universities, it might
risk
to
reduce
the number of
students
who
study
science and engineering since those
subjects
are considered
to be
relatively
difficult. The
government
,
therefore
, may experience a stagnation in technical progress, which is as adverse as the experience, which the USSR experienced.
Thus
,
ideally
, it would be more beneficial, if an educational ministry has an indirect influence on
students
to correlate the ratio of
students
in each profession,
for example
.
In conclusion
, it is vital to control educational sector of a
country
in order to decrease the number of illiterate individuals;
nevertheless
, that control should be
thoroughly
discussed in order not to face either economic or technical stagnation.