University students always focus on one specialist subject, but some people think universities should encourage their students to study a range of subjects in addition to their own subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

At school, students learn a variety of subjects ranging from arts and music to literature and science. Some people insist that universities should follow the same pattern and teach a variety of students to all the students. I do not agree with this view because this method is not beneficial for the student or society. By the time students finish high school, they have acquired a decent understanding of a variety of subjects. For example, most of them can read and write two or three languages, do sums, identify the symptoms of common ailments and understand the basic concepts of physics, chemistry, and geography. This knowledge is adequate for most people to go about their day-to-day lives. And for those who want to build a career in a specific field, specialization is the key. For example, someone who wants to be a doctor does not benefit from learning calculus or trigonometry. Likewise, an architect does not have to understand thermodynamics or astrophysics. Rather what they need is in-depth knowledge in their field of interest. If universities teach all subjects to all students they will not manage to produce professionals with cutting-edge knowledge and expertise in specific fields. Obviously, this method of learning or teaching jeopardizes the job prospects of the students and the welfare of society. In every society, there is a need for specialists and the only way to produce specialists is to impart an education that focuses on specific subjects. To conclude, the argument that universities should teach a variety of subjects to all students does not hold water because it not only hurts the job prospects of the individual but also creates a dearth of specialists in the society.