Model Answer 1: [Disagreement]
Universities, supreme citadels for building an enlightened generation, play a pivotal role in shaping a country’s destiny. Thus the curriculum they follow to teach pupils has a profound impact on its overall outcome. Though some scholars believe that teaching a wide range of subjects at the tertiary level is far more beneficial than restraining the syllabus to a few particular subjects, I have reasons to disagree with this view.
First of all, universities cannot teach all the subjects to the disciples and the notion of teaching them a great number of subjects is impractical. For instance, an average university has more than 30 departments and they are meant to specialise students in a particular field, not make them the jack of all trades only to produce mediocre professionals. Many public universities are already struggling to finish the course in time and if more subjects are added, that would simply make the scenario worse.
Furthermore, a medical student, when forced to study history and poetry, would feel less connected to those subjects, ultimately ending with less specialised knowledge and skill. Similarly, a student from literature would find solving higher calculus a real challenge. The university already has its departments that pick students based on their merits and interests and the course offering should stick to that.
Finally, someone does not need to excel in all subjects to do better in his profession. If an engineering student is interested in studying history, he can always do so even the university curriculum does not include it. Many eminent scientists had little knowledge of other subjects and that did not deter them from changing the world forever and this can be a great example of how specific subjects at the tertiary level can be beneficial than the idea of adding a list of unrelated subjects.
To conclude, the areas of studies, especially in this modern era, are myriad and thus adding a spectrum of subjects in every major is not a practical idea. Sample Answer 2: [Disagreement]
It is often suggested that disciples of tertiary institutions should have a wide range of subjects in their curriculum rather than a few particular subjects. I, however, disagree with this viewpoint primarily for two major reasons.
First, universities aim to provide specialized knowledge to their pupils, not enhance their general knowledge. Students are offered admission to universities after they complete many years of academic studies on various subjects. They are in a tertiary institution primarily to gain specific knowledge related to their field of interest. Giving redundant pressure by imposing subjects unrelated to their field can become a hurdle in achieving the required goal sets in their life. For instance, there is little relationship between sociology and mathematics. Mathematics majors will get confused while learning various aspects of sociology and similarly, sociology students will be reluctant to solve complex mathematics.
In addition to this, many universities are already trying hard to maintain their recognized status and some are providing only specializations in few subjects. The addition of more subjects in each faculty will add unnecessary weight, and as a result, there will be discordant opinions and actions among them. For example, ‘Indian Institute of Technology Delhi’ is among the top universities in India and provides specialization in scientific research and technology. If they are forced to add Arts related subjects to their science majors, they will soon find themselves struggling for their excellence.
In conclusion, universities are meant for specialization and students should study subjects related to their major or which they feel interested in. The urge to adding a spectrum of irrelevant subjects will detriment the true purpose of university education.
[Written by – Sabrina Qamar]
Leave a Reply