Jan 16, 2005

Schools should teach children the academic subjects which will be beneficial and helpful in their future career, so other subjects like music and sports are not important. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion?

 

Globalization, with its accompanying political, economic and cultural implications, is having a significant impact on workforce and educational requirements. To remain competitive in the global economy, it is argued that schools should only offer academic courses to students and exclude courses that are deemed non-academic. This argument, however, doesn’t sound that reasonable.

 

The aim of academic education is to build a capacity to attain and apply a foundation of knowledge and skills, so that graduates can be well placed to evolve successfully throughout their lifespan, both in their professional and private lives. Therefore academic subjects will continue to play a central role in school education. Indeed, courses like mathematics, physics and chemistry will always remain the cornerstone of school curriculum. It is said that, a strong academic core can facilitate our social development and guarantee our future economic success.

 

On the other hand, subjects labeled as non-academic have their own intrinsic value in both schools and society in general. If subjects such as music, art and physical education were pruned by schools, our society would face a gradual stagnation of talented musicians, actors and athletes. Setting those elites aside, countless students have honed their skills during non-academic studies and subsequently become mentally and physically mature adults able and ready to take a purposeful and fulfilling role in society.

 

Finally, all varieties of subjects, including both those regarded as academic and others deemed non-academic, have a rightful place in the halls of schools. In the face of changing workforce and educational requirements, the versatile selection of subjects offered at school reflects the diversity of our society itself.