Some say that secondary schools should spend less time on traditional subjects such as history and should spend more time on teaching communication skills and business courses. To what extent do you agree or disagree with it?

Students at the secondary level of school are taught subjects like history and are given more time to spend on these subjects rather than conversation skills and trade subjects. I disagree with the fact that such subjects should be given less importance to than of communication skill and field subjects, and a number of reasons surround my opinion. Students at the secondary level of study do not have the ability to judge what they want to become when they grow up, and thus it is important for them to build a foundation by studying traditional courses such as history. They should get to know the background and culture of the country from where they belong. It is important for the schools to hold them with knowledge and educate them with the background of the country and of the world at large, by teaching history. For example, historical achievements of stalwarts such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King can be known by studying the subject, people who paved our way for a better life. On the other hand, effective conversation and industry courses, although important, can be learned through real earth exposure in their professional lives. They may need classroom training to learn enterprise courses, but to gain field acumen and thrive in it, they need real earth exposure which cannot be achieved during secondary school. For example, someone can have inherent communication skills, and thus do not need to be taught. In my opinion, although effective communication and business courses are more relevant in today’s globe, subjects such as past should be given more importance as they will create the foundation of the students and thus should never be ignored.