There is an ongoing debate about whether university students should have complete freedom in choosing their courses or if they should be limited to fields with clear future benefits, such as science and technology. I believe that focusing on practical subjects is more beneficial for both individuals and society. This essay will examine both perspectives before presenting my viewpoint.
Primarily, supporters of academic freedom argue that forcing students to study specific subjects can be counterproductive. They opine that not every student has an aptitude for science and technology, and compelling them to follow such paths could lead to dissatisfaction and underperformance. Furthermore, creative fields such as music, design, and philosophy contribute significantly to society. For example, the entertainment industry generates billions of dollars annually and employs millions worldwide. If universities only focused on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) subjects, essential aspects of human culture and expression would diminish.
However, prioritizing science and technology in higher education , leading to better career prospects. In today’s world, automation and artificial intelligence are rapidly replacing traditional jobs, making technical expertise more important than ever. To exemplify, countries that invest heavily in STEM education, such as South Korea, have seen remarkable advancements in innovation and economic stability. Additionally, many industries, including healthcare and environmental science, rely on technological progress to address global challenges such as climate change and pandemics.
To conclude, while freedom of choice in education nurtures creativity and diversity, in my opinion, prioritizing subjects with clear economic and technological benefits is more practical in today’s fast-paced world. Therefore, universities should encourage students to pursue STEM-related fields while still offering opportunities for those passionate about other disciplines.