Friday, 22 August 2014
GRE issue task writing: A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.
First of all, it is recommended considering advantages and disadvantages of such an approach. The standardized approach can be honed on and after years of iterations such a national curriculum can be excellent and impeccable. On the other hand, each student is different and usually one size does not fit all. Having the same national curriculum for every student is like requiring the same school uniform size for every student. Children live in diverse environments and a student from a rural part of a country probably would be more directed towards different subjects than a student living in a big city. Hence, the program in schools should be adjusted to every student so that it could reveal a student's talents and assist him or her in pursuing a career in a specific field or niche.
Let me consider this problem from an economical point of view. The same national curriculum is a relatively keenly priced solution for the reason that we can summon the best teachers and specialists in a given country, then allot a time of few months for them to prepare initial version of such a curriculum and finally the program could be iteratively improved every year. This solution would be of interest for poor and developing countries that can not afford to spend massive amount of money on education. Conversely, a program that would be adjusted to every student would be very expensive and probably only affluent countries would be able to accept such a solution. In my humble opinion, it would be a great investment and without any doubts this approach would benefit not only students but the whole society as people would be educated in a better way and perhaps would be able to find their passions faster. At the same time, the latter solution requires a plethora of resources. Undoubtedly, some students would have to travel from their home town to other places in a country to match them with proper schools and teachers. It would be more cumbersome to compare students and schools. However, this additional struggle would pay off abundantly.
Personally, I find the national curriculum sufficiently good up to the point of 12 years old. Every person has to master basic skills such as writing and reading. After this period, I was able to find my niche and pick and choose books that were of value for me. It was a pity that my school did not provide individual path of teaching and sometimes I was forced to learn things that were of no value for me, instead of pursuing my passions. The first time when this limitations were really removed was the time when I left my high school and entered university that offered a flexible plan. I could have selected the subjects in which I was really interested. Nonetheless, it was a bit too late.
All in all, there are pros and cons for the same national curriculum for students before they enter college. Nevertheless, my final opinion is that it is much better approach to provide each student with tailor-made curriculum. This could help them find their real passions faster and hone on them. My personal experience, social issues and even economical benefits confirm this solution.
Other essays on this topic can be found here: http://greessayaday.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-nation-should-require-all-of-its.html