It is true that students in university are now placing much attention on the subjects related to their own future career. However, some critics argue that universities should resort to some measures to have their students study more diverse subjects. In my view, I accept that studying more subjects makes students become more mature to some extent, yet I believe that it is legitimate for them to merely focus on their major subjects.

On the one hand, learning/mastering more subjects bring people more knowledge and a well-rounded perspective of life. It is undeniable that many subjects in the tertiary curriculum are very important in practical terms. For example, History teaches young generations about how their ancestors fought against outside intruders and made sacrifices to protect their motherland and the sovereignty of their nations. Therefore, this subject fosters a sense of patriotism for the students. However, the intense syllabus of universities often makes students feel overwhelmed with a great amount of information to cram in.

On the other hand, in the digital era, people need to be skillful in the major they choose to pursue. It appears indisputable that studying many subjects would distract students from their specialty. Moreover, along with the information explosion, people can easily mitigate their lack of knowledge after graduating from universities. Information is now widely available on the Internet with high accuracy. Besides, encouraging students to focus on some subjects can effectively build up a strong workforce which has the ability to foster general prosperity of a nation.

In conclusion, although some people argue that students should study more subjects, I would side with those who believe it is indispensable for tertiary students to excel in one field of expertise.

Despite the fact that the matter of the curriculum of college does not grab a headline as frequently as other issues, it does not mean it is less vital. It is believed that college students should be trained by more multiple subjects rather than only by their specializations. While I accept that this may suit many people, I hold a strong belief that the educational institutions should concentrate instructing only their principal subjects for students.

We should admit delivering a wide range of subjects is beneficial in some aspects. First and foremost, by virtue of the awareness acquired from other specializations, students would gain more experience to deal with extensively complicated circumstances after leaving school. It can be seen clearly in the dental education that dental teaching programs instruct the prospective dentists to have an overall view at an interdisciplinary level because their real patients can have other several illnesses affecting negatively to their dentition. Another advantage to taking into account is that students are offered an opportunity to consider their majors again if they feel a great sense of interest in another field of study. Obviously, my classmate can be seen as a true instance when he made the decision to pursue the pharmacy pathway after he had found the pharmacology subject extremely attractive at the first year of dental school.

Having said that, however, I do believe that successful school-leavers are attributed to the teaching measure that focuses on their own subjects. The first reason is that the students who have a good grasp of the core of their major subjects would have an enormous range of possibilities to obtain more favorable employments than who are averagely good at multiple subjects. Apparently, the employers have a tendency to prefer the fresh applicants who possess excellent qualifications in only a certain field, not a variety of fields. Secondly, specialistsubject trained students have priorities to pursue postgraduate programs if they desire, compared to multi-subject ones/their multi-subject counterparts. It is evident that currently there is an increasing number of opportunities to study and research higher degree only valid for those who pose talent backgrounds in their specialized subject. In the light of these facts, I stay a notion that the teaching method of universities should side with specialization subject rather than a comprehensive range of subjects.

Nowadays, many universities require students to choose specialised subjects for their studies. Some people believe that this is a faulty approach. In their opinion, educational institutes should encourage students to study a variety of subjects. I agree with this view.

Universities should promote all subjects and explain how students can improve their career prospects by learning various subjects. Not all students are supposed to become doctors or engineers. The society needs people possessing various skills. There is yet another dimension to this. When several students learn a particular subject, the demand for that subject will eventually decrease. For example, if everyone opted for computer science, students completing that course will find it difficult to get jobs. In such a situation, the demand for other subjects will increase.

When students learn various subjects instead of focusing on one subject, they will be able to address the needs of the society. This, in turn, will help the growth of the economy.

On the other hand, if everyone studied the same subject, they all would find job in the same industry. Any global economic crisis in that sector will ruin their future and affect the growth of the nation. For example, in India most students prefer to study computer engineering. As a result, software engineers are a dime a dozen in the country. Many of them are struggling to find employment because the supply exceeds the demand. Worse still, a crisis in the IT industry affects all of them and the economy of the nation.

To conclude, the subjects that students learn should not only support their individual growth but also help the development of the nation. Therefore, universities should promote all subjects instead of a handful of prestigious subjects.

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 the 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 the society. In every society there is a need for specialists and the only way to produce specialists is to impart 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.