Some people think that all university students should study whatever they like. Others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology.

Evidently, it is quite obvious that science and technological background students have given significant outcomes to society and also set good influence. But, others who don't prefer science and technology or any useful field of study, also help people around them in some or other way. I disagree forcing students on picking up their subjects. On one hand, students, those considering useful subjects for their further studies, becomes future proof as they have high probability of bagging jobs. Moreover, their contribution in the relevant field of study brings admiration and influence among the society. Such subjects, being deep, also brings curiosity amongst the students, thereby elevating their interests and quality of research. For example, a well known scientist like Marie Currie and her discovery in radioactivity helped the humanity in curing the dreadful disease like cancer up to some extent. On the other hand, capping them to choose from a set of subjects limits their exploration and talents. Although, some subjects seems less useful, they may have a tremendous effect in real life. Likewise, every subject brings an opportunity to understand the diverse nature of skills required to learn it. Limiting students on selection of their desired field of study lessens the intensity and willingness of their adoption. An example of this can be a famous cricketer being forced to learn archaeological studies will definitely be fruitless and waste of resources. In conclusion, although historic data does shows the wonders of scientific research, it cannot be made mandatory for every student to pick them up. As discussed, this will have terrific effect on the psychological well-being of the student.