Post-metric education institutions in a part of the world focus on casual subjects, while in some countries the scope of secondary education is limited to enable the pupils think about their future career. However, both the approaches have their own benefits and drawbacks. I believe that the second approach is the best in the modern competitive world.
To begin with, one of the advantages of teaching all the subjects at secondary level, is the development of a vast knowledge base. For example, the students learn all the general subjects like mathematics, economics, history, English and geography. Therefore, after completing their post-matriculation, they can enhance their knowledge on any subject, and can pursue it as a basis for their future employment. However, such a system proves fruitless for those who want to get an instant employment after completing their studies.
In contrast, focussing on a particular or a few subjects at secondary level has its own benefits. Firstly, the students has to spare less time for the education, as the number of disciplines to study are lesser. As a result of this, they are left with more time to ponder about their career. Secondly, learning a few subjects makes pupils more specialised in those areas. This specialization prepares them to be facing a cutthroat competition of the present world. It has been proved in a research by “The Times” that the students, with a limited number of subjects at secondary level, are 72% more successful in getting jobs after completing their secondary education than those with many general subjects.
To conclude, while learning many common subjects at secondary level, is advantageous in gaining an overall knowledge, an approach of teaching, with a few specialised subjects, is more suitable in these days, by the way of making the students more specialised.
Post-metric
education
institutions in a part of the world focus on casual
subjects
, while in
some
countries the scope of
secondary
education
is limited
to enable the pupils
think
about their future career.
However
, both the approaches have their
own
benefits and drawbacks. I believe that the second approach is the best in the modern competitive world.
To
begin
with, one of the advantages of teaching all the
subjects
at
secondary
level
, is the development of a vast knowledge base.
For example
, the
students
learn all the general
subjects
like mathematics, economics, history, English and geography.
Therefore
, after completing their post-matriculation, they can enhance their knowledge on any
subject
, and can pursue it as a basis for their future employment.
However
, such a system proves fruitless for those who want to
get
an instant employment after completing their studies.
In contrast
, focussing on a particular or a few
subjects
at
secondary
level
has its
own
benefits.
Firstly
, the
students
has to
spare less time for the
education
, as the number of disciplines to study are lesser.
As a result
of this, they are
left
with more time to ponder about their career.
Secondly
, learning a few
subjects
makes
pupils more
specialised
in those areas. This specialization prepares them to be facing a cutthroat competition of the present world. It has
been proved
in
a research
by “The Times” that the
students
, with a limited number of
subjects
at
secondary
level
, are 72% more successful in getting jobs after completing their
secondary
education
than those with
many
general subjects.
To conclude
, while learning
many
common
subjects
at
secondary
level
, is advantageous in gaining an
overall
knowledge, an approach of teaching, with a few
specialised
subjects
, is more suitable in these days, by the way of making the
students
more
specialised
.